enter into covenant with him And it appeares so 1. In that it agreeth in the essentialls with circumcision as an initiatory seale Col. 2. 11 12. whence baptized Gentiles are said to be of the circumcision Phil. 3. and Jewes said to bee baptized 1 Cor. 12. hence first instituted for a seale to the circumcised Jewes to shew it was in the essentialls of sealing Abrahams covenant to them but the same with circumcision in a manner onely as that sealed it to them visibly in Christ as to come this did it in like sort in reference to Christ as come that was the seale of the righteousnesse of Abrahams faith or that whereon his faith acted to righteousnes of justification Rom. 4. 11. even the promise of grace in Christ Rom. 10. 6 7. with Deut. 30. 14. hence when Christ is called the Minister of circumcicision it is thus explained by the end of the signe administred scil to confirme the promises made unto the fathers Rom. 15. 8. Acts 7. 8. Gen. 17. 11. hence the promise premised and then baptisme annexed as the seale Acts 2. 38. hence that washing annexed to the word Ephes 5. 25 26. 2. It 's a Baptizing in the name or covenant fellowship of God the Father Sonne and Spirit hee having exalted his word above all his name Psal 138. 2. 3. It 's a seale of remission of sinnes and therefore of the promise tendering the same hence joyned Acts 2. 38 39. Acts 22. 4. The nature of it sheweth the same it being a Gospell Sacrament and that is a visible seale and the seale is to the covenant hence called by the name Acts 7. 8. 1 Cor. 11. 25. Secondly it is an initiatory seale as first annexed to the Gospell dispensed with reference to covenant fellowship with God in Trinitie not first Disciple them and then let them come to my Table but baptizing them scil so soone as ever brought into covenant and Church estate and seale them up thereby unto covenant fellowship with the Father Sonne and Spirit Hence repent and bee baptized for the promise is to you not repent and come to the Lords Table for the promise is to you Hence that order observed of communion in breaking of bread after they were baptized vers 41 42 43 44. there John began in any sealing way Matth. 3. Marke 1. As of old circumcision long before the Passeover hence called the washing of regeneration metonymically attributing the thing sealed to the visible seale Tit. 3. 5. the new birth is the first fruits of the spirit of promise nor is this ascribed to the other Sacrament as that which is its proper Sacramentall worke initiatorily to seale albeit after it bee thus initiatorily sealed by baptisme the other doth also virtually confirme it Thirdly this being once administred needs never bee renewed as if two initiations or beginnings or regenerations or first enterances into covenant or first ingraffings into Christ c. as there was not Iterations of circumcision It were but to take the name of God in vaine and a wilworship indeed if ever before dispensed in the truth of the essentialls of the ordinance and it were unsafe to say wee may renew that one baptisme as wee may renue that one faith of ours unlesse as many times in a day and as in variety of occurrents changes services sufferings temptations ordinances businesses c. wee are to renue our faith so wee should renue our baptisme nor will the 19. of the Acts beare out any such practise Luke mentions Pauls discourse touching the manner of Johns baptisme scil to hold forth the duty which God required in reference to the Lord Jesus and accordingly they were by John baptized into the name of Jesus whom John held forth as vers 4 5. compared shewes and as the annexing of Pauls name 1. to this declaration vers 4 5. and then 2. to his act which hee then did vers 6. â—…inceth It 's not said then Paul baptized them but then Paul laid his hands upon them It 's said of the other seale As oft as yee doe this 1 Cor. 11. But not a whisper that way touching being oft baptized The Apostle in mentioning of one spirit body hope of our calling metonymically put for the thing hoped for even glory which is but one essentially as one faith which I suppose is taken as oft in Scripture for the doctrine of faith which is but one Gal. 1. 6. 7 8. Jude 3. and so one Lord and one God hee mentions one baptisme and why doth hee not as well say one Lords Supper too which albeit oft renewed to the same persons yet it 's but one institution and the same ordinance still if no further matter bee in that onenesse of baptisme but to signifie that it 's one and the same baptisme indeed but yet so as that it hinders not but it may often bee renued upon one and the same person warrantably though it were before orderly administred to him Fourthly that baptisme is the onely initiatory seale I never heard this yet so much as questioned by any which deny it not to bee a seale therefore I need not speake any further in confirmation thereof SECT VI. 5. THat the Application of such an initiatory seale of the covenant of grace made in reference to an ordinary politicall visible Church which God shall appoint and whereof the severall parties in that covenant are capable this is an externall condition of that covenant and to bee so farre forth kept by all that are externally interested in the same and that for that very reason and ground because they are in such sort interested in that covenant Ere wee confirme this let us premise that that covenant Gen. 17. was a covenant of grace and it was made with reference to an ordinary politicall visible Church as we have before shewed And albeit that Church quà such a politicall Church nationall c. differ from congregationall Churches yet quâ visibilâ—… ecclesia politica ordinaria so it was essentially the same with ours hence then needs no scrupling or startling As for their externall interest also in the covenant of saving grace it hath been likewise cleared that also need not breed contention upon the point of disparity This being premised the proposition may more easily proceed Gen. 17. 7. God propoundeth his gratious covenant vers 9. hee informeth of one externall condition to bee observed by persons taken into that gratious covenant and inferreth the condition upon the premised covenant thou Abraham and thy seed after thee and when Isaac with whom this covenant is established vers 19. as in whose race the Church and Church seed is to bee continued hath seed then it is thou and thy seed and when Jacob hath his seed it is still the same thou and thy seed in such covenant language what hee speaketh to one father hee speaketh to others all are but Abraham and his seed still yea and as then the same to Abrahams
mischiefe of restrayning baptisme to certaine times of the yeare in cold countries and sundry other sad consequencies of such a course might bee propounded but thus much for the Major The Minor of Mr. Bs. Syllogisme is weake also since some which hold paedobaptisme yet baptize by dipping therefore wee shall thus retort Mr. Bs. Syllogisme Baptisme by dipping is the baptisme of Christ but with sundry Ministers baptisme of Infants is baptisme by dipping therefore with them at least baptisme of Infants is the baptisme of Christ so contradictory are Mr. Bs. reasonings to his own principles And thus much bee spoken from the solid grounds of Scripture to that part of the controverted case touching Infants Baptismall Right PART III. CHAP. I. Sect. I. Generall consideration of the eight Propositions HAving seene before what defensive and offensive weapons the Armory of the Scripture affords us for the just vindication of the controverted Title of the little ones of inchurched visible beleevers unto the Covenant and Baptisme the initiatory seale thereof the globe of contention is againe cast by sundry and a challenge is made that laying by a little those spirituall weapons of our warfare which indeed are mighty through God to cast downe all the specious Logismes reasonings of the sonnes of men against Christ in the doctrine of his free grace and Covenant and initiatory seale thereof wee should try it out at other weapons even humane testimonies and authorities And besides other darings of us this way the Author or Authors of that Pamphlet entitled The plaine and well grounded treatise concerning Baptisme give out great words this way and even conclude the victory before the fight For my owne part I must confesse my selfe a very puny and too too unskilfull at such weapons yet I shall God willing adventure to accept the challenge and make a little tryall of their skill not doubting but when an essay shall bee made albeit by a learner there will bee some able seconds to take up the cause when I have laid it downe But to leave Prefacing and fall to worke The substance of the booke is laid downe in these eight Propositions 1 That Christ commanded his Apostles and servants of the holy Ghost first of all to preach the Gospel and make Disciples and afterwards to baptize those that were instructed in the faith in calling upon and confessing the name of God His proofs out of Scripture are Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. Luke 24. 45. John 4. 1 2. Acts 22. 16. This proposition might passe for the most part as current allowing a latitude in the word Disciples and understanding it of such as were baptized meerely in their owne right and taking that phrase calling upon the name of God as not alwayes the present act of the persons baptized at the instant of their baptisme but rather of the Minister baptizing nor doth the instance of Paul Act. 22. 16. prove this latter It being absurd even in adult persons to suppose it thus in that example of the Samaritan woman that they should in the open face of the Congregation when they were baptized make their personall and particular prayers Acts 8. 12. or that every one of those 3000. baptized that day Acts 2. 41. made their severall prayers for if it werâ— essentiall to the Ordinance to make such personall prayers since there is no stint how long or how much they should utter in calling upon Gods name the Apostles had need to have spoken severally to them that you must not bee long the time is short and if they had taken that paines yet many dayes would have beene needfull to such a worke It was not possible to bee dispatched that very day As for the other Scriptures they have been else-where considered The second Proposition that the Apostles and servants of the Holy Ghost have according to the Commandement of the Lord Jesus Christ first of all taught and then afterwards those that were instructed in the mysteries of the Kingdome of God were baptized upon the confession of their faith Proofes out of Scripture 1 Cor. 1. 17. How this is a Proof I see not for if hee alwayes preached before hee baptized it might easily have been replyed Yes Paul if God sent you to baptize any he sent you also to preach for you are to preach alwayes to all persons that you baptize before you doe baptize them why therefore doe you say you were not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel since with the one you do the other The other proofs 1 Cor. 3. 6. and 4. 15. are somewhat farre fetched and strained but I will not stick there Heb. 6. 1 2. is as well applyed by Authors Calvin Beza c. as grounds of Paedobaptisme those being the heads of Catechising containing the summe of Christian Doctrin scil profession of faith and repentance of the articles of which Doctrine an account was demanded of adult Pagans and Jewes at the time of their baptisme and therefore called the Doctrine of Baptismes alluding in the plurall word to the many typicall washings in use of old among the Hebrewes or Jewes but from baptized Infants the same was called for when they were solemnely admitted to full Church Communion and declared so to bee by the Elders commending them therein to God by prayer And hence the same Doctrine is called also by the name of the Doctrine of Imposition of hands Amongst which articles of that Doctrin two are singled out as containing the rest scil the resurrection of the flesh and eternall judgement See Calvin and Beza in Locum His next proofe Heb. 10. 22. I let passe In the next proofe Acts 2. 36 38. 41. I observe how craftily the 39th Vers is left out unmentioned wherein the strength of argument on our part doth consist Acts 8. 36 37 38. and 10. 47 48. and 16. 31. to 34. But why is that example of Lydia here left out and her houshold but that it speakes too broadly that albeit the Apostles sometimes required confession of some persons which they baptized yet not alwayes of all sorts of persons as that one example witnesseth His other Scripture is that Acts 18. 8. but of all these consideration is elsewhere had This Proposition with the limitations formerly mentioned may passe supposing it not understood exclusively that such as they baptized were such therefore they baptized none other but such which is a non sequitur 3 Proposition That after the Apostles time by the ancient fathers in the primitive Church who observed and followed the Ordinance of Christ and the example of the Apostle the people were commonly first instructed in the mysteries of faith and after that they were taught they were baptized upon confession of the same This Proposition sano sensu might passe also understanding that that was the Ordinance of Christ and practise of the Apostles so farre as concernes growne persons baptisme but yet that was not all intended in the one nor practised by the
are to be chidden and withstood It 's not the first time that Satan can prevail even with Peter to give dangerous counsell He can now stirre up in farre better men an Amalekite-like spirit to hinder the weakest and so the younglings of Israels camp at their first entrance unto the Mount of God where he appointed to be more solemnly worshipped Ever since that word of old Gen â— I will put enmity betwixt thee and the Woman and betwixt thy seed and her seed Satan hath had a speciall spight at the seed of the Church 1 Ioh 3 witnesse that act of Kain who was therein of that evill one in killing his brother Abel whence also that project of Satan all the wayes that may be to lay foundations of corrupting and in time ruinating the seed of the Church by unequall marriages c. Gen. 6. 1 2. Nehem. 13. 23 24. Whence also that act of his in stirring up his Instruments to deride little Isaak Whence also that Satanicall practise of seeking to cut them off by Pharaoh Exod. 1. by Edomites Psalm 137. by Babylonians Jer. 9. Syrians Dan. 8. Herod Mat. 2. c. Or if they be not cut off in such sort yet to stirr up persons under pretence of Religion to devote them unto the very Devill Jer. 7. 31. c. Ezek. 16. 20 21 22. 23 c. Or if they live yet to perswade to their detainment under an Aegyptian estate and exclusion from any Church care or priviledge Exod. 10. 10 11. And even now adayes how busie is he to perswade that they are to be excluded the covert of the promise and from Church care as such yea that they are not to be taught whilst little the use of Scripture passages or to pray c. least so they come to prophane the name of God c. who seeth not how Satan doth seek by such suggestions to undermine the succession of the true Religion and of true visible Churches which have used to be continued in and by the Church seed and what is Satans fetch to bring this about but the old trick to create as I may say scruples in the hearts of Gods people knowing well that it is a taking wyle first to bemiste through such legerdemain the eyes of the minde and then to spoil them of truth It took with our Grandmother Eve and was the inlet of all error and evill Gen. 3. Hath God said it was the old Serpentine insinuation to blinde and buzzle and so corrupt first the judgment in point of warrant of this or that practise He spake not at first conclusively God hath not said it there is no Word of God for it but after he had so moved the question that it bred some waverings then he chargeth home and directly contradicteth the minde of God Gen. 3. How many precious Professors to outward view at least did at first entertain some scruples about the external interest of Church-members children in the Covenant and initiatory seale of it which now peremptorily censure the same as Antichristian and humane inventions Let my advise be gratefull to thee thus farre Christian Reader to take heed of unnecessary Discourses and Disputes with Satanicall suggestions under what promising and plausible pretences soever they come 2 Tims 2. 16 17. the Word of error is very apt to infect and then to spread there is a kind of juggling in Error Eph. 4. 14. seducing persons can play underboard Rev. 21. there is spirituall sorcery with such and so closely carryed as it is hard to be espyed Gal. 3. Who hath bewitched you was the Apostles quaerie yea persons unapt at any thing else raw in main principles of Grace are instruments sit enough for such a purpose any body almost any woman will serve Satans turn well enough to lay such leaven Mat. 16 12. Thou maist hear Scriptures pretended Christian Reader 1 Thess 5. but try all things and hold fast that which is good It 's not the first age or time that in Satanicall suggestions Thus it 's written and Thus saith the Lord hath been propounded Christ himself met with such dealing Mat. 4. Thus saith the Lord and He saith it to prefixe his name unto their lyes what more usuall in false Prophets mouths of old Jer. 28. 2. 1 King 22. 11. Jer. 23. 31. 29. 9 16. compared Yea sometimes men of better hopes have been hereinto blame 1 King 13. 17 18 24 25 26. Yea who more confident therein as if all were in an error but themselves It is revealed to them and which way went the spirit from them to others 1 King 21. 24. and what warrant have you for the contrary The old way of the most notorious hereticks Eutichians Nestorians Novatians Arians Pelagians c. all abusively urge Scriptures for what they hold and call for Scriptures to the contrary Aug. l. contr Maxim as Maximus the Arianâ—… pleaded Produce Scripture if you can for that And where read you in Scripture That the Spirit was adored is another plea c. much like to that plea of our Opposites in this Controversie As if Scripture consequence and scope were not as well Scripture as expresse words are so But I hope such promises as Esay 25. 6 7 8. 35. 8. 30. 21. and such like shall now be verâ—fied to such as through weakness of light and strength of temptation have been misled Phil 3 15. If any thing which I have herein endeavoured may be so farre blessed by the God of Truth as to establish thee if yet kept of God close to his Truth herein or if beginning to stumble it may help to make thy way plainer or if newly fallen if God shall vouchsafe occasionally by any thing I have said to lend thee his hand and raise thee up he will have his glory thereof as it 's most meet he should thou wilt have the peace of it and I have then reward enough Be not offended at the length of the Treatise being occasioned from variety of oppositions from divers which I was unwilling to passe over in silence Thou maist curteous Reader meet with the same thing oft inculcated but impute it unto renewed occasions of like Objections from divers persons which yet in substance were but what others said to like purpose albeit not in the same expressions or not so fully sharpened against our principles I have often made use of the word Inchurched more briefly to expresse what in other words might have been set down intending therein a person or persons in visible Church-estate In this also I crave thy favourable acceptance what I have quoted in the last Part out of humane Authors it was as thereto challenged by others and not as if the Cause needed more then Scripture strength to clear and confirm it Now unto the Father of lights I leave thee to discover the full of his mind of Grace to thee Resting Thine in Him to serve thee
nothing is pure to them but their consciences are defiled in the use thereof Tit. 1. 15. Prov. 24. 4. whether the promise give right to such and such blessings or no or whether ever the blessing of the blessings bee pleaded for in prayer or no men may have a lawfull use of their meate and sleep c but such have the holy use or every thing is sanctified to such by the word and prayer which improve the same for that end 1 Tim. 4. 5. for so hee giveth meate to them which feare him as mindfull of his covenant Psal 111. 5. and so hee giveth his beloved sleepe Psal 127. 2. The eighth and last thing premised is that the Apostle in the Argument which hee useth here to confirme that of such yokefellowes being thus sanctified to or by the beleeving parties hee changeth the person from the third to the second as concerning and nearely touching the body of the Church collectively especially such as were parents and had children The case might originally respect some few yea but hee argueth about it not thus Else their children were uncleane c. but else your children were uncleane but now are they holy as extending it to all the children of the Church and to the children of the members of it whether the parents were both fathers and mothers of the Church as it was the case of many or whether the fathers or mothers onely were in the Church which was the case of some SECT III. ANd now to ascend the Watch-Tower Albeit Gigantine Casuists have done worthily yet let a dwarfe on their shoulders mention what roaving fancies he discovers to misse and what explication hee observeth to hold a right and streight course and to weather and directly to fall in with and come up to the point of divine truth circumscribed in the clause mentioned Else your children were uncleane but now they are holy And here but barely to name explications of the words uncleane and holy to which our opposites stick not As when holy is used as opposed to corporally uncleane by actuall lusts as 1 Sam. 21. 5. 1 Thess 4. 4. or holy as actually holy for office Numb 16. 7. or holy for a person borne without sinne and so not inherently uncleane So onely the Child Jesus was not uncleane but holy Act. 3. Prov. 20. Job 23. Albeit grosser Anabaptists some of them have not doubted to affirme this of other children also or holy for one personally holy or truely gratious and godly wee contend not to determine of all beleevers children that they are thus Albeit wee are charitable in our thoughts and hopes this way of this or that particular child or holy for persons elected or saved we doe not positively affirme this neither of all them considered together Albeit we hope the best of the particular children presented to us and yet we judge that a most unsound and uncharitable speech of I. S. in his booke against Infants-Baptisme p. 3. That Infants in respect of their nonage are neither subjects of election nor subjects capable of glory * Me thinks these words do savour much of the Popish Arminian Tenet of foreseen faith Contrary to that Rom. 9. 10 11 12. Esay 65. 20. some beleevers Infants die Infants will any say they are all damned God forbid Yea but if supposed to bee saved then to bee glorified unlesse some Limbus Infantum be imagined which is neither the place of glory nor of damnation And if supposed to come to glory they are capable subjects of it unlesse God order any to glory whom he fitteth not for it If supposed to be sayed then also elected and so subjects of election or persons in whom election is partly subjected unlesse it be supposed either that some reprobates or persons not elected nor capable of being elected are saved or that there is some middle state betwixt Iacob have I loved before he had done good Esau have I hated or rejected before hee had done actually evill Contrary to Rom. 9. And supposing that such Infants dying Infants are elected and glorified it must be concluded that as Infants they were subjects of election and are capable of glory unlesse any will fondly imagine that God in choosing them eyed them as other persons then ever they lived to become or glorified other persons then ever they were in glorifying of them for dying Infants they never came to be other then Infants Nor by holy is meant ceremonially holy of which holinesse the Apostle speaketh as is evident by the mention of the instrumentall meanes of sprinkling of bulls and goats blood Heb. 9. 13. which Mr. B. would seeme to draw as if intended of outward holinesse now visible to the Church when it 's evidently spoken of that branch of Jewish ceremoniall holinesse now abrogated Nor by holy is meant here persons which possibly may be converted but this is but a may bee in respect of all such children whereas the Apostle saith peremptorily they are not they may bee holy Nor by holy is meant persons that may be religiously educated as I doe not remember such use of the word holy in Scripture however it is not here the thing intended for the Apostle positively saith they are not they may be holy whereas many beleevers babes never live to be holy by holy education Others expound it thus in reference to that inhibited separation verse 12 13. that if you stay together the children will bee counted legitimate but if you part they will be accounted bastards This is far-fetcht nor de jure in cases of lawfull divorce for adultery ought the children begot of the divorced Wife in lawfull wedlock before her adulterous pranks and divorce for it bee counted bastards SECT IV. BUt there are three other Expositions of this clause which are more usually urged and pleaded by opposites to Infants federall holinesse First some make this clause Else your children c. to be a reason inforcing that inhibition verse 12 13. and not of the sanctifying of the infidell spouse in the other Thus if you divorce your yoke-fellows you must put away your children also as they did Ezra 10. 44. And Hen. Denne maketh the meaning of your children are holy to be the same with the unbeleeving husband or wife is sanctified scil They are not to be put away Whereas the immediate connection of this clause to that passage vers 14. in way of arguing and not to vers 12 13. sheweth it to be a reason of the former not of the other in vers 12 13. The case of putting away came in question but as a supposed remedy of pollution of conscience by conjugall communion the unlawfulnesse of which remedy being so expresly mentioned vers 12. 13. and confirmed by foure reasons vers 14 15 16 17. there needed no more weight put there But since the feare of pollution of conscience did occasion that case vers 12 13. and that feare is so fully taken off in the first
upon calling and so to their children upon calling and no otherwise of which hee gave a reason before that by the promise to the children was not meant the seed after the flesh the Copie of beleevers being not larger then that of Abraham was in respect of the eternall Covenant which belonged not to his seed after the flesh but after the spirit which hee expounds to bee such as Mark 3. 32. and Mark 16. 16. scil that obey the words of Christ that beleeve and are baptized To like purpose A. R. in his second part hath the same scil that the promise is equally made to them and to their children and to them that are afarre off But those that are afarre off are not in the Covenant by the promise untill they beleeve therefore neither those children which hee further confirmeth that if then they were in Covenant thou had they been also of the Church of the Gospel But that they were not of For it 's said afterwards vers 41. that they were added to the Church as many as beleeved and therefore were not of it before C. B. hath divers sences of it Expounding children to bee men by Mark. 10. 44. John 8. 39. Gal. 4. 19. But the meaning hee makes to be no other promise then of remission of sinnes as the onely salve of guiltie consciences hee maketh it not as others to bee the promise of the Messiah nor as A. R c. in his booke expoundeth the promise it selfe to be meant of that promise cited by Peter as then fulfilled which is mentioned Joel 2. scil of the gifts of the holy Ghost But C. B. maketh it not a promise but a proffer of a promise to persons not actually converted vers 37 38 39 40. And if there were any promise yet being of remission of sinnes it was not to their children since many godly persons children prove wicked and so God must either fall from his promise or they from Grace And that this promise was no more to them that were pricked in their hearts then to those afarre off whether from them as Gentiles or from the promise as unregenerate persons even as many as the Lord our God shall call And in this particular Mr. B. jumpeth with some others mentioned as hee did in that that this was spoken to comfort guiltie consciences cast down Matth. 27. 25. as well in regard of that bloody wish against their children as in respect of other bloody acts against Christ In these different apprehensions it 's hard to reconcile persons either to others of their judgement or else to themselves SECT III. COme wee then to the first opinion touching the words First the promise is to you that is it is fulfilled to you accordingly as made to Abraham for sending of Christ c. here wants Scripture proofe to make this sense of the promise is to you i. e. is fulfilled to you nor yet doth that in Act. 3. 25 26. yee are the children of the promise c. prove this sense Secondly it is sending of Christ or of Christ sent But let it bee considered 1. That the Apostle doth not say the pâ—omise was to you as in reference to the time of making it to the fathers with respect unto them or in reference to Christ who was not now to come but already come as the Apostle proveth from ver 3. to 37. nor is it the use of the Scripture when mentioning promises as fulfilled to expresse it thus in the present tense the promise is to you or to such and such but rather to annex some expression that way which evinceth the same for which let Rom. 15. 8. 1 Joh. 2. 25. Eph. 3. 6. Nehe. 9. 8. 23. 2 Chron. 6. 15. 1 King 8. 56. Act. 2. 16 17. 33. and 13. 32 33. Josh 21. 45. and 23. 14. Matth. 1. 22 23. and 21. 4. Luk. 1. 54 55. 68 69. and Psal 111. 9. Rom. 11. 26 27. be considered 2. They knew already to their cost that Christ indeed was sent amongst them and to bee that Jesus or Saviour of his people from their sinnes Act. 22. 36 37. compared with Matth. 1. 21. And this was cold comfort to them to tell them of that which wounded them unlesse there bee withall some promise annexed and supposed in his being come The promise meerely of Christs comming could not comfort them unlesse also in and by Christ come in the flesh there bee some promise made to them touching the removall of those burdens of guilt which lay upon them 3. The blessing principally propounded to them for their reviving healing succour and support it was not Christs sending nor his being sent but remission of sinnes vers 38. wherefore unlesse the Apostle argue impertinently this may not be excluded but must bee one principall thing intended 4. It is that promise to which Baptisme the seale is annexed now the seale is ever to the Covenant which is not barely to Christs being sent in the flesh but to the benefits contained in promises by his comming The third thing they say it is to those of the dispersion those of the ten Tribes as others have expressed it and why not also of the Gentiles as well since spoken indefinitely of all that were afarre of which the Scripture expresly applyeth to the Gentiles Ephes 2. 11 12. Suppose those other Jewes were as the Gentiles not a people actually in Covenant with God so much as externally as being long divorced from God and his Covenant and Church-liberties yet the Gentiles in the maine of their outlawry condition were as one with them Yea but the conversion of the Gentiles was not yet revealed till Act. 10. in that vision What had not Christ before this Sermon of Peters declared his mind to all his Apostles touching the discipling and In-churching of the Gentiles onely they knew not whether it might be by joyning them first by way of addition as proselytes to the Jewes rather then by gathering them into other distinct Churches 4. It 's affirmed that this promised sending of Christ was to them their children and those afarre off as many as our God should call that they may bee turned from their iniquitie and bee baptized for remission of sinnes and yet also that the promise what ever it bee supposed to bee was to them all with that limitation that they repent or that they be called What is it to as many as the Lord shall call or convert or cause to repent and yet is it that they may bee turned from their iniquitie is it to persons called and yet also to uncalled persons is it to them that they may bee called yet the persons to whom the promise is are as many as are supposed to bee called how can these two bee right yea it 's said it is to them all upon condition that they be called and yet also that it is to them that they may be called Why if it be to them that by Christ they may
Apostles urged repentance yet the seale is propounded as to the promise Peter said Bee baptized for the promise is to you and this was no meere morall motive but a Scripturall groundworke inforcing it as it was a Scripture groundwork virtually injoyning and requiring them to repent for the promise is to you so Act. 10. Peter saith there is no let to their baptisme and thereof he maketh the visibilitie of that covenant grace although common to reprobates also in those first times his groundworke gathering thereby that they were not now as formerly prophane uncleane and outlaries from the covenant as Ephes 2. 11 12. but cleane and nigh as they themselves were Washing of regeneration is not grounded on any thing in us or without us so much as on Gods grace and so covenant favour Tit. 3. 5. Hence also by Baptisme persons are not sealed into any thing in them so much as into the name of the Father Sonne and Spirit even into the covenant name of grace whereby he is knowne and into covenant fellowship with the blessed Trinitie to which every baptized person prove hee elect or reprobate yet is thus externally sealed That fellowship with Christ as head of the visible Church by the Spirit in the judgement of veritie or charitie such it is all but covenant grace and blessing Of old the consequent cause of the seale was grace in them and theirs but the antecedent cause was Gods covenant grace to them and on them Gen. 17. 7 8 9. and Deut. 30. 6. and so now that part of Abrahams covenant was not then appliable to Infants scil Walke before mee c. but yet that was then appliable I will bee their God I will circumcise their hearts and that sufficed them as Deut. 30. the Analogy holds now in a word the seale is a seale not of nor to the commandement but covenant this therefore is the maine and principall in the application of it It is the covenant which hath the maine instrumentall force in the fruit of the initiatory seale and the application of it Ephes 5. 25 26. and why shall not the externall interest in the covenant have chiefe influence into the externall interest as well of the application of the initiatory seale by externall interest in the covenant persons so interested come to have externall interest at least to the finall causes of Baptisme as covenant mercy and blessing the Spirit Christs resurrection c. Tit. 3. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. 1 Pet. 3. 21. and therefore as well so farre inrighted in the initiatory seale of it whether they are adult or Infants CHAP. VIII 7. THat the covenant priviledges of grace are even to bee expounded in the favour of the principall or lesse principall counter-parties unlesse any exception bee made of persons or priviledges by him which was the covenant maker It 's so in all other royall patents and grants of princely grace and bounty and so here in this which is of that nature unlesse any will say it was no priviledge of divine grace to have so peculiar and distinguishing covenant to bee made with first reference unto that people of Abraham Isaac and Jacobs race that it was no priviledge to have the same visibly confirmed upon them and theirs after them the contrary whereof hath beene granted by some which oppose us and hath been before cleared What though they many of them made no good use thereof yet the priviledge was peculiar and precious Hence Exod. 19. 16. Deut. 7. 6 7 8. Amos 3. 2. hence such peculiar judgements brought on them and theirs for grosse contempts and rejectings thereof Dan. 9. 12 13. Rom. 11. 20. Matth. 21. 43 44. and 23. 37 38 39. Acts 13. 40 41 42. 45 46 47. 1 Thes 2. 15 16. fulfilling that prophesie Zach. 11. from 6. verse to the end Hence that of such peculiar use fruit and efficacy in many others of them Rom. 3. 1 2 3 4. and 2. 25. and 9 4 5 6. Royall grants patents crownes immunities and heritages may bee basely used and forfeited and lost yet are they peculiar priviledges so here but of this before As touching exceptions wee see if God will except Ishmael and his race for being such a Church seed as with whom the covenant priviledge shall abide hee is so excepted and it was accounted a sore punishment to him and his as if the contrary were a choyse priviledge Gen. 21. 9 10 11 12 13. with Gal. 4. 22 23 24 c. by allusion before that hee was ecclesiastically discovered the covenant is sealed upon him personally but before ever hee have children hee is discovenanted and dischurched for his wickednesse by Gods hand c. Gen. 21. 9 10 11 12 13 c. and that was his punishment that hee is a discovenanted and externally dischurched and open excommunicate person when hee came to have children and so they have no benefit Caines externall discovenanting and dischurching in a parentall as well as personall way was his sore punishment Gen. 4. 12 13 14. with 6. 1 2. his posteritie have the common name of children of men and not as those of Seth children of God such exceptions did God use some way or other to expresse where hee intended not this covenant priviledge Verily so long as Gods gracious covenant made with Church reference to inchurched confederate parents and their generations to Abraham and his spirituall seed in their generations for an everlasting covenant his mind of grace touching an externall initiatory sealing establishing and ratifying the same to them abideth nor may any change or repeale the same or infringe or curtaile the latitude of it unlesse himselfe doe it as it is in all other royall grants and lawes standing in force untill repealed by them by whom granted and made hence that signe is called by the name of the covenant as virtually in it and annexed ordinarily to it extraordinary times as those before infringe not the ordinary course as before shewed hence even that sealing said to be for an everlasting covenant partly in that it was a seale of that covenant so induring and partly because presidentially and in the genericall nature of it to abide the Church and covenant people of God combined being never after to want an externall initiatory seale of the covenant Hence also among other causes God instituteth baptisme first for the Jewish Church and so continued the use of it to and amongst Gentile Churches there was no interstitium nor was it ever accounted a branch of the exhibition of New testament grace and a priviledge of covenant inchurched parents to have their children want and bee deprived of any externall covenant and Church interest but rather that initiatory sealing of inchurched parents little ones have ever been accounted by all true visible Churches to bee an externall way of exhibition of the grace of God and Christ Surely there being so many passages mentioned formerly touching this part of Gods minde of grace once if
persons albeit not all of every kind are included else I cannot see how any Infants can bee saved unlesse either some are saved which are not blessed in Christ or if blessed in Christ yet such as God never promised should bee blessed in Christ and if so they have a mediator of Christ to them but such an one as is not in respect to them a mediator of the new covenant yea and so have Christ a Savour to them to whom hee is not a covenant as Esay phraseth it Chap. 42. and 49. so every man for every sort of men Heb. 2. 9. and all men for all sorts of men Rom. 5. 18. which are not simply all but many rather vers 16. compared so the world for all sorts of persons in it 1 John 2. 2. how usuall an acceptation and why should it here in matters of lesse moment be scrupled Secondly taken from the nature of the commission scil a charge of Church dispensation of the Gospel or dispensing of it with Church reference Marke 16. 15. it is Gospel they are to preach and this being Gospel that children of inchurched covenant parents were to bee with them also taken into the fellowship of the covenant and people of God externally interested in it as was proved before and the initiatory scale being a branch of the Gospel as well as the promise as baptisme is reckoned Luke 3. 34. 5 6. compared with Marke 1. 1 2 3 4. such Infants federall interest in the Church and initiatory Church seale must needs bee included Thirdly from the latitude of the Church reference to which this commission relateth albeit with some different respects had to those times and ages following according as then the Ministers were extraordinary and Apostolicall and those succeeding were to bee ordinary Pastours Teachers and withall with various respects had to the first foundation members strictly considered as such and others now that latitude it appeares was such as tooke in all the visible Churches throughout the world unto the worlds end From which if such Infants bee excluded an actuall and priviledged interest they are excluded as was proved in ordinary course from salvation there being ordinarily none saved but such as are in the visible Church or some visible Churches in the world And if not excluded an actuall interest in some visible Church or other in the earth why are they excluded baptisme which is here given to distinguish the inchurched parts of the world from all other as well as to ratifie and seale up the covenant to them there is no time set now to limit them to such a day as of old to the eighth that that should suspend their jus ad rem which they had as Abrahams seed so soone as borne from being elicited till the injoyned day Fourthly from that latitude of the nation disciple which taketh in such Infants as well as others and consequently they are reached in the commission of being baptized For Disciples are to be baptized as our opposites confesse For proofe of their discipleship I argue thus All those to whom the thing signified by a disciple as explained in any place of Scripture is appliable they are Scipture Disciples but the former is true of such Infants ergo the latter The Major is evident in that in reason significant names cannot bee denied to persons to whom the thing signified is granted And the spirit of wisedome would not in any place expound the name by the thing if that thing it selfe did not give ground worke to bee so named If any reply that it sufficeth not to have the thing signified by the name in one place unlesse withall the pâ—…ty bee qualified with the signified thing in another as for inâ—…ce in many Scriptures it signifieth a beleever c. this must bee 〈◊〉 in too to this I answer â—…irst I speake of significations of the name as explained by the 〈◊〉 Ghost himselfe and if any will refuse that they presume to 〈…〉 holy Ghost to expound his owne words â—…ly if wee may not rest in one or other such a place but 〈…〉 another way why not another to that and so anoâ—… 〈◊〉 â—…arroweth yet more the signification then that did yea why 〈◊〉 â—…ke in all such places where in any sense it is mentioned where 〈◊〉 wee stop and so that exposition of a disciple Luke 14. 26. must bee taken in as requisite to according as Hen. Den. urgeth it aâ—d thâ—n Judas and Demas and divers others which forsooke Christ never hating their owne lives for his sake could not bee his disciples yet they were so and so doth the holy Ghost call Judas and many others John 6. yea many that never beleeved in Christ himselfe but did after a sort approve his doctrine and followed him albeit for base ends c. yet these were disciples and baptized as such John 4. 12. It 's spoken of disciples of Christ in the Pharisees sense scil persons addicted to his doctrine c. as Disciples of John of Moses c. signifie and not of persons beleeving in him or them John 9. When they asked so oft touching Christ as if they pretended to desire to learne of him c. saith the blind man to those Pharisees Will yee also bee his Disciples or Schollers c. vers 27 28. Bee thou his disciple say they c. not meaning that either should beleeve in him those many Disciples never beleeved that heavenly doctrine of his John 6. yet called Disciples vers 66. Yea if the latitude of the signification of a Scripture disciple must all meet in one to make a compleat definition then Disciples must bee Apostles because some were so called which were such The names of the 12. Disciples Matthew 10. 1. and the names of the 12. Apostles vers 2. are one see more Matth. 28. 16. The eleven Disciples i. e. Apostles It is then enough to attribute that name Disciple to any to whom the reason and explication of that name any where in Scripture mentioned is by the Spirit of God applyed wee neede not feare to follow such a leader and speake after him the minor then is to bee proved that such a signified thing by that name Disciple is appliable to such little ones mentioned For proofe hereof I must take up that wherein I perceive I am prevented by others yet shall not desist to speake the same thing in substance with them one to whom drinke or water is given in Matth. 10. 42. in the name of a Disciple is expounded by the Spirit Matth. 9. 41. to be one to whom it is given in the name of one belonging to Christ Whence I argue All such as belong to Christ externally they are externally his Disciples such Infants mentioned belong to Christ externally therefore they are externally Christs Disciples And the same description of a Disciple which shall bee saved holds thus such as savingly belong to Christ are Disciples which shall bee saved but it 's not needfull to
of his Law it is all applyed to all indefinitely yet sense and reason tells us that sundry of the children were neither capable then of such observing of all Gods words no nor so much as hearing the words read at that time in such sort as thereby at present to bee stirred up to feare or obey the Lord but some things onely are appliable to the whole assembly wholly other things now mentioned to the whole at present onely in respect of the growne part and to the others no other thâ—n as involved in any such acts of their parents at most so Joel â— 14. â— solemne assembly of all the inhabitants of the land is to 〈◊〉 convented for fasting so chap. 2. 1. againe repeated and ver 15 16 17. instance is given in the sucklings as to bee a part of that assembly for that end and the maine dutie vers 13 14 is laid forth as required of them all which are called to this solemne fast scil not meerely to abstaine from food or to expresse sorrow by rending their garments but to rend their hearts by godly compunction and sorrow c. all will yeeld that such things are not properly applyable to sucklings but to some of the assembly nor yet will any in reason exclude Infants from being of that Church assembly for such Church use according as they were capable of any thing mentioned albeit not capable of all mentioned Jer. 43. 4. 6 7 disobedience to Gods voyce is applied to all the people yet not properly verified in all the children which were of that people and company Deut. 29. 1. All Israel is said to have seene those wonders in Egypt and yet many of them that were then growne it being 40. yeares after their comming out thence vers 5. never saw the same much lesse did the little ones which were a part of that assembly vers 14. yet who will conclude because little ones were not Israel seeing theâ—e wonders that therefore they were not Israel entring into Covenant vers 11 12. and marke the phrase applied to the little ones that they also entred into covenant with God ibid. as well as God is said to make his covenant with them vers 14 15. this was a covenant of grace as hath been proved so that Hen. Dens notion holds not concerning God being in a sense in covenant with Infants but they may not bee said to enter into covenant with him that by the way To returne to that in hand nations baptized Matth. 28. are to bee taught to observe Christs commandements but non sequitur that Infants are no part of the Churches in the nation to bee baptized so here Infants beleeve not actually c. non sequitur ergo not to bee added to the Church in a solemne way of initiation to Church estate inchoatively by externall baptisme Both may stand together and have their truth of the whole in some things wholly wherein they are capable as of Church estate and baptisme in others true of the whole in respect of some part thereof as actuall beleeving To like purpose C. B. argueth weakely in his sixth argument that the whole citie was baptized men and women mentioned not their children too as if therefore excluded I may as well argue from Gen. 14. 11 12. That those Kings tooke all the goods of Sodome and Lot ergo they tooke no people besides contrary to vers 16. or if they did take people and women yet not children too And if Lot were first taken and then redeemed by Abraham with others yet not ergo his children or daughters or if then under the notion of women yet not a word of children wherefore either they were left behind in the Citie without their Parents when they were taken or if taken with the Cities and persons yet not brought backe againe which would bee absurd to affirme Secondly suppose the beleeving Jewes children were not just at that time baptized when their Parents were thus solemnly admitted to that Church of Christians yet non sequitur that they were not baptized afterwards When members are solemnly admitted to compleat and fixed membership in our Churches wee baptize not oft times their little ones the first day of that their admittance yet doe it afterwards as occasion is offered and their desire thereof signified SECT VIII YEa but neither then nor in any other Text in the Acts is it ever mentioned that any children of any beleeving Jewes were baptized A. Non sequitur that therefore they were never baptized Many things of great weight were done by Christ and so by his Apostles which were not recorded yet not therefore never acted by them John 20. 30 31. of which see more before touching consequences of Scripture But doe our opposites indeed conclude that none of the beleeving Jewes children were ever baptized by Apostolicall approbation Is it imaginable that among so many thousand beleeving Jewes at least ecclesiastically such which are so moved and touched in the case of their childrens being not circumcised and sealed that way to the covenant that it would not much more startle them to suppose such a tenet or practise as to deny them to bee sealed any way by initiatory sealing at all as neither by circumcision so not by baptisme Are they so ready to move contentions in that point Acts 22. 21. and upon but a supposed deniall of it and are they no way moved so much as to put the case state the question to be satisfied from the old Testament for no other Scripture was then extant why their Infants which were ever used to bee reckoned in Abrahams covenants so sealed thereto by the seale then only in use but now they are either wholly excluded any Church interest and any covenant interest actually or if owned yet as such yet why denied of that which is now the initiatory seale of such interest in the covenant Yea doth Peter expresly mind them of the interest of their children as well as themselves in the promise wishing them therefore to be baptized and this occasioned no stirring of questions and cases why on the same ground their children must not be also baptized other contentions about other things are mentioned and other differences in points controvertible in those times as Acts 11. 2 3. and 15. 1. 2. c. and 21. 11. and 6. 1 2. and 15. 38 39. and Gal. 2. 11. Surely then either the beleeving Jewes which when worse men had that priviledge of their childrens covenant and Church estate and right to the initiatory seale the case is so soone altered with them that they thinke it no matter of scruple to call the deniall and omission of it into question or to assay to desire satisfaction in it for matter of judgement and practise in the case or if starting it why is not so great a controversie mentioned as started by some at least that could not so wholly forget their childrens good when solicitous about their owne and when so
other And the Proposition it selfe implyeth as much saying commonly it was so the people being not as now many are in a manner wholly professing Christ but rather wholly Pagan and Prophane and Idolatrous but alwayes it was not so even then for their little ones which were not brought to the faith were also baptized 4 Proposition That by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church the children both of the faithfull and others were commonly first instituted in the faith and afterwards upon acknowledging and confessing of the same they were baptized This Proposition is full of equivocall termes it may not therefore passe without some Animadversions for it may so be interpreted as to stand with truth yet so also as to bee utterly false Primitive Church may bee understood of the Church in the same immediatly following the Apostles time or as in some of his Authors for the Church that succeeded more then an 100. yeares yea possibly 200. or 300. afterwards Rupertus Tiuliensis saith it was the custome of the Church of old that they administred the Sacrament of regeneration onely at Easter and Pentecost c. which if it begun in Victors time to whom that restraint of the time of baptisme unlesse in case of necessitie is attributed as the Author of it about the yeere 290. Albeit Rivet in his first Book Critici Sacri cap. 8. citeth the Magdeburge historians centur 1. cap. 8. as proving the Decretalls ascribed to Victor to be spurious or if not then but some time in the third Centurie yet it sufficeth to shew in what Latitude of time Rupertus his expressions runne when hee speaketh of what was the use in the Church of old And in the primitive Church in this Latitude it 's probable there might bee sundry which upon corrupt grounds might deferre both their own and their childrens baptisme too as appeares by the Orations of Gregory Nazianzen stirring up as to come more speedily themselves to bee baptized so to offer their little ones at the most if no danger bee towards in which case hee adviseth the same sooner when three yeeres old if so long deferred yet then to offer them to baptisme which was before they could bee able to make such an acknowledgement of the faith or confession of their sinnes But more of him afterwards Children of the faithfull if hee intend such children as were knowing and able to understand truth taught them so as to bee apprehensive of their sinnes c. It 's true they used when any were received into Church fellowship which had such adult children at that time those to instruct in that way before those children were baptized But if understood of little ones not capable of such an issue and effect of such instruction those they used also then to baptize before such instructions And for this let the Authors owne testimonies which hee quoteth Proposition 7. of Origen Austin and Gregory the fourth witnesse For wee now speake not to that whether it were onely a Church custome and tradition c. wee shall speake to that afterwards But suppose it were onely a Church custome and tradition yet its proofe sufficient that it was so anciently in use as there is mentioned that even children were baptized before they were thus instructed as the cited places declare of which more hereafter 5 Proposition That according to the institution of the Lord Christ and the Apostles and ancient Fathers right use the Teachers required faith with Baptisme and that hee that was baptized must himselfe acknowledge and confesse the same and call upon the name of the Lord for which Matth. 28. Marke 16. Acts 8. are againe urged of which before so Acts 19. 2 3 4 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. not now to speake how pertinently this last place especially is brought or not The proposition if understood as adaequately expressing all that Christ ordained or the Apostles practised and the Fathers after them which baptized regularly as if none else were baptized but such as came in such a way is denied as false 6 Proposition That Christ neither gave commandement for baptizing of children nor instituted the same and that the Apostles never baptized any Infants this Proposition in the termes of it is false as before hath appeared when wee proved that a consequentiall command of Scripture is Christs command and that such a command there is for the baptisme of children The other part also that the Apostles never baptized any Infants is as rash and false 7 Proposition is of the same stamp scil that the baptisme of Infants and sucklings is a ceremony and Ordinance of man brought into the Church by Teachers since the Apostles time and instituted and commanded by Councells Popes and Emperours 8 Proposition labours of the same Frenzie sc that young children or Infants ought not to bee baptized and that none ought to bee brought or driven or compelled thereunto Proved by Scripture Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. These three Propositions might have been all put into one but that the Author or Authors would speake many things so might the other five Propositions have been reduced to fewer heads The unsoundnesse of these Proprositions in the Authors sense I hope hath been cleared to humble and pliable minds in the former discourse CHAP. II. SECT I. WEe shall now trace these Authors in their quoted Authorities Proposi 1. Hierom upon Matth. 28. 19. is quoted Proposition 1. and 8. The Lord saith he commanded his Apostles that they should first instruct and teach all nations and afterward should baptize those that were instructed in the mysteries of faith for it cannot bee that the body should receive the Sacrament of baptisme unlesse the soule have received before the true faith This whole testimony is intended by the Author of growne ones in what way adult Pagans are to bee baptized and of their receiving of baptisme so as to have the saving benefit of it But to make it his mind to intend exclusion of Babes is to make him worke and practise things against the light of his owne judgement and conscience The Author confessing in the eight proposition that his proofes are out of ancicient later teachers who have and do maintaine the use of baptizing children and Hierom is one hee quoteth As for Hieroms judgement this way see his first Tome his 7th Epistle scil ad Laetam where having said before that the good and evill of little children is ascribed to the parents hee addeth nisi forte existimes Christianorum filios c. unlesse thou thinke that if the children of Christians receive not baptisme the children onely are guilty of the sinne and that the wickednesse is not also imputed to those that would not give the same to them especially at that time when the children which were to receive baptisme could not contradict the same as on the other hand the salvation of the Infants is the Ancestors gaine Hee reckons that there is wickednesse in it carelesly to neglect
baptisme was ordained by the Apostles and thinke that the same is to be received as the placita Scholasticorum Theologorum which cannot bee proved by Scripture Here the Authors use their old art of substraction and addition His words are thus It is probable that to baptize Infants was instituted by the Apostles and yet they are not to bee condemned which doubt thereof With the same moderation many tenents of Schoole Divines are to bee received which cannot evidently be proved from the Scriptures The first speech of Erasmus is wholly left out which is crosse both to that peremptory if not impudent conclusion expressed in the 6th Proposition and this set downe in the 7th if even Erasmus his judgement bee adhered to for if it bee probable that Paedobaptisme was of Apostolicall institution then it is not so peremptorily and with such plerophory to bee asserted that it was never ordained of Christ or practised by the Apostles but is an ordinance of man And whereas it is rendred and think that the same is to bee received inter placita Scholasticorum c. there is no such connexion or expression But it is a distinct sentence With the same moderation c. many Schoole tenents are to be received c. scil they are also not to bee condemned which doubt of some Schoole tenents which are not so expresse and cleare from Scripture Hee doth not say that Baptisme of of Infants is to bee thought placitum Scholasticorum but speakes of other instances of things probable Nor doth hee speake of bare Schoole Notions which have no bottome at all in Scripture and which cannot at all bee proved from the Scripture as the Treatise saith which cannot bee proved but which cannot evidenter probari per Scripturas True it is Henry Denne hee saith that Bellarmine taxeth Erasmus with that opinion of denying childrens Baptisme but in Erasmus his preface to his Paraphrase on Matthew hee rather condemneth the carelesnesse of Priests in so much that many Christians are in respect of knowledge rather as Pagans and at best are rather in titles customes and ceremonies Christians then indeed And adviseth that children after they have been baptized and come to riper yeeres that they bee well instructed in what their sureties have promised for them and called to account how they profit thereby and whether they doe avouch and owne the promise made by their sureties and if so then at some time or other that they in the open Congregation expressing it bee then with some solemnitie approved And if they reject this motion then to be debarred the Eucharist untill they change their mind So that hee seemeth not to disallow Paedobaptisme but carelesnesse afterwards This I speake that none may bee rendred worse then they are bee they Papists or others Albeit I would not much weigh the expressions of Papists this way to whom bare Church traditions are equivalent to Scripture commands expresse or virtuall SECT IIII. THe next Author is Bullinger in his Decads expounding Matth. â—… 28. Docete omnes Gentes c. make Disciples of all Nations c. What then doth Bullinger intend baptizing Infants as not here enjoyned Nay in the place quoted in his Decades of Sermons Tom. 5. Decad. 5. Serm. 8. hee brings this as an Argument for Paedobaptisme God hath commanded to baptize all Nations and therefore Infants for these are comprehended in the words all Nations Bullinger is againe cited as a Testimony for the proofe of the second Proposition in the same place speaking upon the words of Paul 1 Cor. 1. God hath not sent mee to baptize but to preach the Gospel Hee is quoted to say This must not so slightly be understood as if hee were sent not to baptize at all but that teaching should goe before baptisme For the Lord commanded his Apostles both to preach and to administer the Sacraments Bullingers words are Non quod negaret absolutè which our present translators render this must not so sleightly bee understood Negaret is in their English not to bee understood and absolutè is in their English slightly If they had translated it simply it would have hit it but I thinke sleightly fits them indifferent well se ad baptizandum non esse missum sed quod doctrinam praeferret utrumque enim c. That clause is expounded but that teaching should goe before baptisme c. Here I want my construing booke but I will follow my translators sed quod but that doctrina teaching praeferret should go before Risum teneatis amici But if the translators had learned common rules and read the place they would have clearely discerned Bullingers meaning to bee farre wide from their purpose scil To prove rather the prioritie of the Gospel to baptisme in dignitie and excellency then in order of dispensation For besides that the common Grammer construction of that passage sed quod doctrinam praeferret will beare no sense so well as that mentioned See Bullingers Commentary on 1 Cor. 17. his words immediatly preceding also cleare the same Evangelium majus est baptismo the Gospel is more excellent then Baptisme or greater then Baptisme For Paul said the Lord sent mee not to baptize but to preach the Gospel not that hee denied it absolutely c. Sed quod doctrinam praeferret And it is yet more strange that this which Bullinger brings as his third Argument to prove Paedobaptisme to bee of God the Authors of this Pamphlet bring as a testimony to their purpose against Baptisme for Bullinger subjoynes to the words before That children are received in the Gospel doctrin they are not refused of God who therefore unlesse he were besides himselfe would exclude them from the lesse In Sacraments are considered the thing signified and the signe the former is the more excellent Infants are not excluded from that scil the Gospel the promise who will deny then the signe for truely the Sacraments of God are rather to bee esteemed by the word scil the promise then by the signe As for Bullingers expressions out of Austin contra IulianuÌ„ quoted in the 7th Proposition they prove that the Carthaginian councell did indeed ratifie Baptisme but not that it came in first by that councell Nay the testimony cited of Austin against the Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23 24. useth that as an argument that it was of Divine authoritie because not instituted by any councells And Origens testimony there cited Proposi 7. proveth it to be in his time which was 200. yeeres before that Carthage councell in the time of Innocent the first Yea Origen proveth it to bee at least a Church custome long before from the time of the Apostles Bullingers testimony in his Decads as proving the 7th Proposition scil that Paedobaptisme is an humane ordinance when in that very Sermon of his there quoted in this Treatise hee by many arguments from Scripture proveth it to be of divine authority is also abused and shamefully misconstrued and perverted
that it came to bee used by the Fathers that lived 300. yeers after the Apostles as much saith A. R. in his Childish baptisme But say Cassander spoke as Proposition 4. hee is said to doe yet that proveth not that children of the faithfull were commonly first instructed ere baptized because some beleevers deferred baptisme or Tertullian and Gregory counselled it much lesse that this was well done according to Christs mind for wee have seene upon what unsound principles they did it and as for the Councell of Tertullian and Gregory it hath been before weighed of what force herein As for the other speech of Cassander that Pedobaptisme came in use by the Fathers 300. yeeres after the Apostles time it maketh mee stand and wonder at the impudent forehead of errour and yet I might wonder the lesse since it 's but just with God that they which hold lies should also tell lies I read Cassander with as much heed as I could to finde out whether there might bee any colour of ground of such a speech of him but could not finde out any like it unlesse that which hee saith bee this way wrested scil that the Apostles in the beginning by the command and charge of the Lord set up their worke and did every where constitute Churches gathered of the Gentiles to the Communion of the Gospel growne ones which consented to the Apostles doctrine after confession of the faith were without any distinction of times or places knit unto the Church of Christ by the Sacrament of Baptisme administred by the Disciples of the Apostles But saith also in the next words although even at that time it is to be beleeved that Infants also and especially sickly ones were offered to bee consecrated by the baptisme of Christ but clearely to evince the falsehood of that speech before cited to confirme Proposition 7. the very title of this booke contradicteth the same George Cassander of Infants baptisme The testimonies of the Ancient Ecclesiasticall writers which flourished within the 300. yeeres from the times of the Apostles that is from the departure of John the Apostles being more then the hundreth yeere from the birth of Christ And according to this his worke that hee propoundeth hee bringeth in very notable testimonies of the antients both Latine and Greeke that lived in that space for the proofe of Paedobaptisme that any that had not sâ—ene authorities before might have been thence well furnished for this purpose and after the testimonies produced Cassander closeth thus These are the testimonies of ancient Fathers which wee suppose are sufficient for the deciding of this controversie of childrens baptisme which hath been raised up by certaine wretched persons for in as much as all these whose testimonies wee have produced in a continued series from the Apostles were Orthodox teachers and guiders of Churches of Christ at severall times and places there is no question but that this Tenent being held forth by them all severally as with one mouth it was the very doctrine of the whole Church which the Church had received from the Apostles and transmitted the same to those in after times and upon the speech of Austin l. 4. contra Donat. c. 13 14. addeth To this Apostolicall doctrine of baptisme of Infants all the Apostolique Churches planted by the Apostles throughout the whole world they doe give testimony c. Who seeth not now the grosnesse of this falshood in fathering that upon Cassander the very contrary whereunto is his businesse there to evince SECT V. Zwinglius THe next testimony is of as grand an adversarie to Anabaptisme as any and that is Zuinglius who is quoted to confirme the 4th and 6th Proposition hee is said to affirme that there is no plaine word in Scripture whereby childrens baptisme is commanded his meaning is no more then thus that it is not in so many words said you shall baptize children as neither the first day of the weeke shall bee to you the Lords day or Christian Sabbath c. but the principall place and for the other two quotations they are to no purpose is that mentioned in his booke of Articles Act. 18. whose words because the treatise is so often tripping wee shall set downe verbatim who there speaking of Confirmation saith although I am not ignorant as it may bee gathered out of the Ancients that of old time Infants were baptized this is rendred otherwise in the Treatise and yet not so common as now it is but the children were alwayes instructed openly and when their faith had made impression upon their hearts and they confessed with their mouthes then they were admitted to baptisme this custome of teaching I wish were used and recalled now namely that baptisme being given to Infants they may bee afterwards taught when they come to age as they are capable of instruction from the Word of God this the Treatise leaveth out Zwinglius his judgment was that the maine in the childs right to baptisme was the Parents Covenant estate whence the child being federally holy which else had been uncleane had its maine title to baptisme so that in case both parents were visibly Pagans or Idolatrous c. they were not to bee baptized when yet in his time many such were baptized And thus I take it is that which hee intendeth that since in Ancient times albeit sometimes every little children of Infidels as may appeare were baptized yet not so commonly as now such like children are baptized promiscuously hand over head for which some as it appeares by Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. have pleaded albeit hee counts it their errour ibid. and since in those times Catechising as it appeareth of children was too little in use Zwinglius maketh that use of the Catechising of children of old both of persons joyned to the Church which were capable of instruction when first their parents joyned in Church estate before their baptisme which was one sort of children so catechised and of the exposititious children of Pagans also those children of their Pagan captive or slaves which were another sort of children catechized before baptisme Zwinglius wisheth that albeit it were not in his time used as neither before baptisme to such like children so neither after the baptisme neither of such children nor of others of visible beleevers which ought in Infancy to bee baptized yet now catechizing of children might bee in more use Assuredly Zwinglius was strong for this that baptisme of Infants was no practise taken up after the Apostles but by the Apostles no bare old custome taken upon humane grounds but his judgement was directly crosse to the Proposition hee is brought as a witnesse to that Christ did not institute Infants baptisme c. witnesse his many arguments from Scripture for it and his judicious answers to the evasions of the adversaries to that truth And as much may bee said of Oecolampadius his companion who is cited to confirme the 6th Proposition whereas in the first
and second booke of the Epistles of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius they give grounds from Scripture to the contrary See l. 1. Epist Zwingl ad dilectos fratres I will now tell you from what grounds of Scripture I judge Infants to bee baptized c. and l. 2. in his Epist Bercktold and Francis Preachers at Berne hee saith peremptorily contra Scripturas ergo fecissent Apostoli si Infantibus negavissent baptismum the Apostles therefore had done contrary to Scriptures if they had denied baptisme to Infants See more of Oecolampadius his mind too herein in his Epist to Zwinglius and in that to the Preachers at Berne here therefore are two more witnesses abused in this Treatise CHAP. VI. HEre the Authors forget and mistake their owne witnesses names they are in such a hurry they bring in proofes that the Teachers according to the ancient Fathers right did so and so making the Fathers and those Teachers distinct as persons of whom the testimony is brought and as witnesses by whom and yet in the proofes the ancient Fathers themselves are the witnesses of what was done by those Teachers after them as Hilary Tertullian Arnobius Ambrose c. these might say what was in their time but cannot say what Teachers after them will doe or practise unlesse the Authors can by a spell play the Witch of Endors trick to fetch up old Samuel in his likenesse to speake after he was dead SECT I. BUt let us heare what any of them say if wee have not heard it before Hilary As for Hilaries testimony of his owne baptisme it 's not materiall wee mentioned him among the Authors instances of Adult persons baptized Proposition 3. as for his interpretation of baptizing in or upon the name that is upon confession of the beginners it 's as easily rejected as urged unlesse his grounds were shewed or were Scripture proofe SECT II. Ambrose THe next witnesse is Ambrose de spiritu Sancto l. 2. in our Sacrament there are three questions propounded and three confessions made without which three questions no man can bee washed if Mr. B's answer bee good to that part of Tertullian in the beginning of his booke de baptismo mentioning that a man without cost or pompe is let down into the water Observe saith Mr. B. that hee speakes of a man not of an Infant so I might as well say here hee speakes of a mans baptisme not of an Infants which then also was in use but that I feare some body would sit upon my skirts presently and aske mee whether an Infant be not sub genere isto subalterno hominis whether an Infant bee not homo and I ever thought before Mr. B. helped me with that distinction that when the Scripture saith it 's appointed to all men once to die c. Heb. 9. that Infants also were there counted men to die as well as others not to mention other places of Scripture or authors for the use of the word that way and I wonder Mr. B. when hee supposeth Rom. 5. 18. makes for his fancy of generall redemption of children whether of Pagans or Christians then Infants are men on whom the free gift commeth and yet here homo demissus in aquam in Tertullian must bee onely a growne man not Infants as if Infants now were not homo but this answer must bee better grounded or else I shall keepe my opinion that as an Infant is homo so Tertullians testimony there speaking indefinitely of any baptized person man or woman Infants youths or riper persons c. hee doth beare implicite testimony in that very place to Paedobaptisme as in his time But to returne to Ambrose I say that in Ambrose his time such confessions and questions were and Infants were baptized too that corruption being then in use of adding to Infants baptisme interrogations to them that brought them to baptisme which answered in their names and made confession in their stead For others were baptized in Ambrose his time and before then such as could personally answer or make confession yea and that it was Ambrose his judgement that it was the mind of God that others should bee baptized then could make such confessions witnesse that among other places of Ambrose which hee hath in his 5th Tom. in his Homilies upon Luke Jordan was turned back signifying the future mysteries of salvation in baptisme by which little ones in their Infancy are cleansed from the wickednesse of their natures namely in a Sacramentall way SECT III. BUt it will bee here objected that that custome of susceptors in Infants baptisme and the interrogations and questions that were put to them or others in their stead doth shew that of old none but growne persons were baptized upon confession of faith for that when Infants are baptized they must also make confession by others I answer if the very use of susceptors in baptisme were an argument of force against Infants baptisme of old it might as well bee of force against the baptisme of adult persons too upon the same ground as then in use since they also had of old their susceptors when Pagans desired to be baptized they had those which instructed them before hand and when they were baptized they presented them to baptisme and undertooke for them also Stories are plentifull in instances that after that corrupt custome of susceptors in baptisme came up adult persons had susceptors as well as Infants Epidophorus at Carthage of the Church of Fausty had the Deacon of the Church to bee his susceptor Magdeb. hist cent 5. c. 6. Justinian the Emperour was surety for Gethes King of the Herulians when baptized and divers others the Centurists mention as do other Historian nor doth it follow because such confessions and answers were made by such as brought Infants to bee baptized that therefore it argues onely adults used to bee of old baptized rather it argues that of old it was the doctrine of the Church that Infants were baptized principally in others right which offered them to baptisme namely their godly parents or such as tooke them as their owne adopted children to bring them up in Gods feare Hence even after the corrupt and abusive practise of susceptors came up Stories are not wanting to tell us of Christian parents which were susceptors to their owne children witnesse the Story mentioned by Fabian in his 5th book c. 114. Andovera wife to Chilpericus having a little daughter born in her husbands absence did by the perswasions of the Bishop Fredegrand become witnesse to it her self at its baptisme The Centurists mention the same Story out of Ganguinus Hence also Austin in his 14th Sermon upon the words of the Apostle speaking of Infants Baptisme saith if baptisme profit the baptized I demand whom it benefiteth the beleeving or the unbeleeving but God forbid I should say that Infants are not beleeving I have but now disputed it before Hee beleeveth in another which sinneth in another scil in the parents which
alone convey sinne to the Infant It beleeveth then and it's baptisme is valid and it 's joyned to the faithfull formerly baptized This the authoritie of the Church our mother holdeth This doth the sure Canon or rule of truth obtaine Thus far forth then it was looked at as a doctrine not onely which the Church had in it but which the Scripture the rule of truth contained in it that in the businesse of Baptisme at least the faith of such as conveyed sinne to the child even of the parents was in stead of its owne personall faith so farre as to make its baptisme valid and beneficiall to it SECT IIII. Arnobius THe next witnesse is Arnobius upon the Psalmes which Perkins putteth at the yeere 290. but because Perkins in Praepar ad Demon. Probl. and Rivet in his Crit. sac makes it a spacious booke as mentioning on Psal 119. the Pelagian heresie which came up above sixscore yeeres after Arnobius his time I shall not attempt to fight against a shadow Albeit the place being of the way of Adults Baptisme concludeth nothing against what wee maintaine Lâ—do Vives Ludovicus Vives is the next who in his notes upon Austin de Civitate Dei l. 1. cap. 26. saith the Treatise but it 's rather cap. 27 as Hen. Den. more truely quoteth it affirmeth that in times past no man was brought to bee baptized but those that were come to their full growth who having learned what it concerned desired the same But whether hee that lived but in Henry the eighths dayes or Austin whom hee expounds which lived above twelve hundred yeares agoe had better reason to know what was done of old let any sober minde judge Strabo To the same purpose Walefrid Strabo who lived about the yeare 800. seemeth to speake but Origen who was in the yeare 201. according to Osiander or 230. according to Perkins and Vsher hee mentions Paedobaptisme as from the Apostles as well as Austin doth Melivitan And so doth the Milevitan councell in the yeare 402. according to Wolfius say as much that the Catholique Church hath alwayes understood Infants to bee defiled with Adams sinne and according to the rule of faith to bee on that ground namely amongst others for it 's knowne sundry other gounds were of old urged for Paedobaptisme as that Matth. 19. 13 14 15. Suffer c. For of such c. urged in Tertullians time 200. yeares before as appeares by his assaying to take off that ground in his booke De Baptismo before mentioned baptized See the 1. Tome of Councells SECT V. Bucer THe next witnesse is Bucer in his Annotat. upon the 4th of John set out Anno 28. So much as in the Apostolicall writings are written of baptisme is apparent that baptisme was administred to none by the Apostles but to those of whom concerning their regeneration they made no doubt c. I have looked that very booke and a booke distinct from his greater booke on the Evangelists and there is no such words It 's a meere forgery Bucer is againe cited Proposion 6th saying that Christ hath no where plainly commanded that children should bee baptized If the speech had been just thus yet it 's evident his Intent was not that children ought not to bee baptized by vertue of Gods command which is the direct conclusion subscribed to in the explication of it at Wittenberg by him and others as before but that the command was not in so many words expressed but by necessary consequence to bee concluded His booke intituled The groundworke and cause I have not though like testimonies have been answered before SECT VI. Ruffinus THe next is Ruffinus in his exposition upon the Symbol that those at Rome and Aquila that were to bee baptized must first acknowledge and confesse the 12. Articles of the Creed Here Ruffinus is as one against Paedobaptisme By others when Origens authoritie is urged upon Rom. 5. for Paedobaptisme then it is spurious and the words of Ruffinus Now how should one behave himselfe amidst this contradiction of the antipartie Well wee shall ward off both Blowes as they come God willing As for this testimony as much is in the Treatise and the same place brought out of Austin in his 8th Booke of Confessions that albeit the Authors conceale the name of the place where Victorinus was to have made confession of the faith as the custome was namely at Rome Yea but how then saith Austin lib. 4 cont Donat. cap. 13. 14. that it was ever the use of the Churches and that delivered from the Apostles to baptize Infants Verily both are subordinates and not contraries According to the subjects mentioned if speaking of Adults then the former is true if of Infants then the latter is as true Albeit it 's as true after the custome then in use in Ruffinus his time that Infants did make confession by their sureties as according to God they did and doe now confesse their faith so farre as concerneth their baptisme in their parents even as every man Deut. 16. 17. giving as hee was able their males which personally there appeared came not before the Lord empty not any of them but gave scil in their parents offering for them CHAP. VII SECT I. HIs proofes out of Popish writers as Eckius mentioned in proofe of that and of the 7th Proposition Rossensis Cocletus Ennusius and Staphylus to which some adde Bellarmine I doe not much regard because they can play Legerdemaine fast and loose with a trick that they have If they dispute against Calvinists about the sufficiency of Scripture or validitie of humane traditions then Paedobaptisme is a tradition of the Church If against Anabaptists then Eckius in his Enchiridion here cited hath his foure Scripture arguments to prove it to bee of Scripturall authoritie and foundation For Bellarmine hee hath in his book of Baptisme cap. 8. 3 arguments from Scripture for it And although saith hee wee doe not find it commanded expresly that wee should baptize Infants Tamen id colligitur satis aperte ex scripturis ut supra ostendimus Yet it is to bee gathered plainly enough from Scriptures saith Bellarmine as wee have before shewed Wherefore of such if I may say as hee bluntly once spake to his companion If they can with the same breath blow hot and cold let them even eate porridge with the devill if they will I like not their falshood SECT II. OF Lutherans Pomeranus is quoted whose booke of children unborne I cannot meet with and so cannot trace my Authors here And in such a case as they say Travailers and Souldiers may lie by authoritie when none can contradict them But yet what sayes Dr. Pomeranus that for the space of 1200. yeares men erred concerning children the which wee cannot yet willingly would baptize what his intent is by these words of his cannot well bee gathered If hee intend it of all sorts of children that it is an errour to baptize
all without regard to their parents Church or covenant estate yet was it an old errour albeit not so old so farre as I can finde But if it should bee taken in reference to children visibly in the covenant I wonder if hee should speake any such thing in that sense having so solemnely subscribed to the contrary in that famous meeting at Wittenberg formerly mentioned SECT III. CAlvin that grand opposer and stigmatizer of Anabaptists is quoted to confirme Proposition 6. and 8th lib. 4. Instit cap. 16. Hee confesseth that it is no where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists that any ones child was by the Apostles hands baptized Now Calvin having said Sect. 8. that there is none which seeth not that Paedobaptisme is not of humane devising which is established by such Scripture approbation brings it in by way of objection that it will bee said it 's no where expresly mentioned where the Apostles baptized children which giving albeit not granting hee saith Bee it so c. yet because neither were they excluded as oft as mention is made of baptized families who unlesse hee bee mad will thence reason that they were not baptized they may as well reason on that ground that women were forbid to receive the Supper when notwithstanding in the Apostles time they were thereunto admitted Yet our Authors are so madde to bring this very place to prove their 6th Proposit that the Apostles never baptized any Infants And upon Matthew Calvin is said to say Christ hath no where commanded to baptize Infants But on what place in Matthew Calvin saith so is not said but this I can say that in the most likely places where that Argument of baptisme is handled Calvin no where speaketh in these words here expressed as farre as I can finde Dathenus in his Colloquie is the next witnesse confessing It 's no where plainely in such words written that Christian children shall in the New Testament bee baptized and yet wee have no expresse commandement of it scil as before in so many words You shall baptize children and that there is no evident or expresse example scil in so many words recorded that the Apostles baptized such or such children and what then therefore Christ never instituted the Apostles never practised Paedobaptism according to the 6th Proposition Non sequitur Here then are three more witnesses abused CHAP. VIII SECT I. ORigen calleth childrens baptisme a ceremony and tradition of the Church Hom. 8. in Levit. and in Rom. 6. lib. 5. What doth Origen say so in both places that is false In the former hee saith baptisme is given to Infants according to the first observation of the Church But if any boggle at that in the other place quoted hee telleth you the groundworke of that observation of the Church For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give baptisme even to Infants If it were an Apostolicall tradition then not a bare Church tradition if the Church received it from the Apostles then was not the Church the Author of it but the Apostles rather Yea but others perceiving the force of the Testimony of so early an author in the matter of the practise of Paedobaptisme casheere it as a spurious testimony of some other rather then of Origen Some stumble at the word Tradition when yet it 's no other then what Basil speaking as before quoted of the forme of Baptisme calleth it a tradition and in his 73. Epistle speaking of the Spirit the comforter as placed in equality with the Father and Sonne to bee a thing which they had received as delivered to them So Justin Martyr another author formerly cited maketh the forme of that manner of worship mentioned in his second Apology to bee that which they had received from the Apostles So Gregory Nazianzen another quoted Author here in his first oration against Julian the Apostate hee inveigheth against that abusive imitation of the Church traditions the manner of administration of the ordinances for Pagan uses Clemens Alexandrinus a speciall Author quoted by Mr. B. yet hee counteth it a metamorphosing of a Christian to kick against the tradition of the Church and warpe to opinions of humane heresies lib. 7. Stromaton Hee meanes not bare Popish superstitious Church customes but such as are opposite to meere humane conceits and devices yet calleth them Church traditions Yea but those corrupt exploded Canons are yet called the Apostles Canons They are so by Papists not so by Protestants Such all those orthodox Divines may explode them yet maintaine this as an Apostolicall tradition which is genuine and divine Yea but it may bee said that Erasmus noteth in his Praecognita unto the Booke of Leviticus that hee which readeth this worke scil the Homilies upon Levit. and the Enarration upon the Epistle to the Romans hee is uncertaine whether hee reade Origen or Ruffinus And the peroration of the Translator annexed to the commentary of the Romans saith that hee added something defective whereof yet hee had the fundamentalls from the Author and abbreviated other things too largely expressed in the Commentaries upon the Romans Leviticus Genesis Exodus Joshua and Judges Suppose these additions of things defective by Ruffinus yet hee saith hee had the foundations of what hee added from Origen So that Origen gave such foundations of Paedobaptisme if Ruffinus added that as gave occasion to it but why is not this particular mentioned as Origens rather then Ruffinus his notion Because Origen was somewhat Pelagianisticall and this place touching baptizing Infants in respect of originall sinne was too crosse to Pelagianisme This is new to mee that Origen held that errour albeit hee were not free of others but I have read more said of Ruffinus that way scil that hee was the forerunner of Pelagius If on that ground it was not Origens much lesse was it Ruffinus his owne dictate And Erasmus denieth not but all there mentioned must bee fathered upon either Origen or Ruffinus But to put an end to this dispute the Homilies on Luke are not questioned to bee Origens neither doth Erasmus nor the Translator in the peroration mentioned acknowledge either additions or detractions in setting forth of those Homilies on Luke Yet there Origen affirmeth to the substantiallâ— mentioned in that place of the Romans for in his 2. Tom. Hom. lib. 14. on Luke hee saith parvuli baptizantur c. and little children are baptized unto remission of sins of what sins or when did they sinne or how can there bee any occasion of washing in little children unlesse in that sense of which wee spake a little before None is cleane from blemish no though but a day old in the earth and because the defilement of our Nativitie is put away by baptisme therefore even little children are baptized Nor doe I finde in our Criticks or the Authors quoted by them that these Homilies of Origens on the Romans are doubted of to bee genuine Albeit both Perkins and Rivet doe