T. his allegation of the Lord Brookes and Daniel Rogers that Mr T. did not dreame We say that it is possible two more may dreame as well as Mr. T. we say two more for to his c. And others else-where we can distinctly answere nothing where nothing is alleadged But for the two particularly named giving their bookes all due respect Robert Lord Brookes of Episcopacy Sect. 2. chap. 7 p. 96. of 2. edit 1. The bare recitall of the Lord Brookes words are a full answer which are these I will not I cannot take on me to defend That men usually call Anabaptisme Yet I conceive that Sect is Twofold Some of them hold Free-will Community of all things deny Magistracy and refuse to Baptize their Children These truly are such Hereticks or Atheists that I question whether any Divine should honour them so much as to dispute with them much rather sure should Alexanders sword determine here as of olde at the Gordian knot where it acquired this Motto Qâ—ae soivere non possum dissecabo What I cannot unty I will cut asunder There is another fort of them who only deny Baptisme to their Children till they come to yeeres of discretion and then they baptize them but in other things they agree with the Church of England Truly These men are much to be pitied And I could heartily wish That before they be stigmatiz'd with that opprobrious brand of Schismatick the Truth might be cleered to them For I conceive to those that hold we may goe no farther than Scripture for Doctrine or Discipline it may be very easie to erre in this Point now in hand since the Scripture seemes not to have cleerly determined This particular The Anaglogy which Baptisme now hath with Circumcision in the old Law is a fine Rhetoricall Argument to illustrate a Point well proved before but I somewhat doubt whether it be proofe enough for that which some would prove by it since beside the vast difference in the Ordinances the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a positive Law so expresse that it leaves no place for scruple but it is farre otherwise in Baptisme Where all the designation of Persons fit to be partakers for ought I know is only Such as beleeve For this is the qualification that with exactest search I find the Scripture requires in persons to be baptized And This it seemes to require in All such persons Now how Infants can be properly said to beleeve I am not yet fully resolved Yet many things prevaile very much with me in this point First For ought I could ever learne It was the constant custome of the purest and most Primitive Church to baptize Infants of beleeving Parents For I could never find the beginning and first Rise of this practise Whereas it is very easie to tracke Heresies to their first Rising up and setting foot in the Church Againe I find all Churches even the most strict have generally beene of this judgement and practise yea though there have beene in all ages some that much affected novelty and had parts enough to discusse and cleere what they thought good to preach yet was this scarce ever questioned by men of Note till within these Last Ages And sure the constant judgement of the Churches of Christ is much to be honoured and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture Nor can I well cleere that of Saint Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 Else were your Children Vncleane but now are they Holy I know some interpret it thus If it be unlawfull for a beleever to live in wedlock with one that beleeveth not Then have many of you lived a long time in unlawfull marriage and so your very Children must be Illegitimate and These also must be cast off as Base borne But it is not so for Your Children are Holy that is Legitimate I confesse This seemes a very faire Interpretation yet I much question Whether This be all the Apostle meanes by that phrase Holy especially when I reflect on the preceding words The Vnbeleever is Sanctified by the beleever Nor yet can I beleeve any Inherent Holinesse is here meant but rather That Relative Church-Holinesse which makes a man capable of admission to Holy Ordinances and so to Baptisme Thus farre the Lord Brookes where he is against Master Tombes touching the meaning of 1 Cor. 7.14 And touching Infant Baptisme But the question is whether Master Tombes be not more then a Catapaedobaptist namely an Anabaptist for Rebaptizing who so readeth the last page of his exercitation will not thinke that I meerely dreame For there he saith Nor is the assuming of Baptisme in ripe yeeres by those who were washed in Infancy a renoucing of Baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance concâ—it 2. For Master Rogers not daring to play the Astrologer to tell what influence Episcopall wandring Starrs might have upon his Booke Printed in the yeere 1635. having beene once Printed afore but esteeming the man I dare set downe his words also as a full answer to Master Tombes his words are these The fourth and chiefe person yea equall object of Baptisme is the party baptized The fourth person the infant For not onely the Church may and doth baptize her Infants but also adultos grown ones also if any such being bred Pagans and brought within the pale of the Church shall testifie their competent understanding of the new covenant and professe their desire to be sealed with Baptisme for the strengthning of their soule in the faith thereof professe it I say not basely and slightly but with earnestnesse and entirenesse cutting off their haire and nailes and abhorring their Paganisme But the truth is the exercise of the Churches baptisme is upon infants Here the Anabaptists rise up A short touch of the baptism of infants pleading the corruption of such baptisme and urging the first baptisme of catechized ones and confessors of sinne and cravers of the seale upon the worke of the Ministry foregoing in knowledge and faith which can be incident only to adulti or grown ones They alledge that we seale to a blank to no covenant and therefore it 's a nullity Sundry learned men have undertaken to stop their schismatical mouths and to answer their peevish Arguments my scope tends another way in this Treatise so farre as my digression may be veniall I say this for the settling of such as are not wilfull that I take the baptisme of Infants to be one of the most reverend generall and uncontrouled traditions which the Church hath and which I would no lesse doubt of than the Creede to be Apostolicall And although I confesse my selfe yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it yet Reasons for it First Sithence Circumcision was applyed to the infant the eighth day in the Old Tâ—stament Secondly there is no word in the New Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it nor speciall reason why we should bereave her of it Thirdly sundry Scriptures
ratified their Covenant made in Baptisme and so were confirmed in their Church estate by imposition of hands which imposition of hands is therefore reckoned one of the six principles of the foundation of Christian faith Heb. 6.2 For it could not be a principle of faith it must be therefore a principle of the foundation of Church-estate and Order So Mr Cotton with much more before recited Chap. 7. Now let the world judge whether these mens readings and reasons or Mr Tombes his strained glosses give us rightlyer the meaning of Heb. 6.2 To Mr T. his second Answ We reply first That the learned men afore quoted gave us the sum of Antiquity * Tertul de Baptismo Dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem c. Cyprian Ep. 3. 70. Nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in ecclesia baptizantur per praepositos ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manus impositionem spiritum sanctum consequantur August Tract 6. in Joan. Epist Nuac quidem um loqui linguis quibus imponuntur manus post baptisnum tamenrevera accipere spiritum sanctum latenter alque invisibiliter infundi charitatem That there was an imposition of hands upon beleevers children to confirm that Baptisme they had received being Infants upon the confession of faith when grown up and to testifie the Churches receiving them now unto full membership and compleat fruition of all Church priviledges as to partake of the Lords Supper c. And that this the Text here calls The Doctrine of imposition of hands whereas the recitall of the Articles of faith by those that were past Infancy being children of Heathens fitting them for Baptism is by the Apostle precisely and distinctly from the other called The Doctrine of Baptismes And is not this a proof sufficient that the common and ordinary imposition of hands was used after the Baptisme of Infants onely 2. If Mr T. could prove out of Antiquity for this Text of Heb. 6.2 hath it not for him that a ceremony of imposing hands upon the riper aged children of unbeleeving parents when the said children made confession of their faith for Baptisine crept into the Church this doth not overthrow other Antiquity much lesse the Text of Scripture That the Doctrine of imposition of hands that is that imposing of hands belonged to beleevers children after they had been baptized But thirdly to answer Mr Tombes his Quotation of Tertullian about this De coronâ Militis c. 3. By the leave of Mr Tombes that doth if not scorn so score with the nail in his examen those Antiquities of the Fathers we usually alleadge we must tell the world first what a peece and place of Tertullian Mr T. hath here alleadged viz. such a one as wherein Tertullian disputes for receiving unwritten Traditions Quaeramus an traditio non scripta debeat recipi c. saith he Let us enquire Whether unwritten tradition be not to be received We shall deny it to be received if it were not prejudged or fore determined by the examples of other observations which without the instrument of any Scripture or Writing by the title of tradition onely we from thence defend under the patronage of custome Moreover to begin with Baptisme when we are about to enter into the water even there but also too a little afore in the Church under the hand of a Bishop or Prelate we bear witnesse or make serious protestation that we renounce the Devill Pomp and his Angels After this we are plunged or drencht or dipt three times answering something more then the Lord hath determined in the Gospell Then being * Suscepti which alludes to God-fathers Office Jun. Note on the place undertaken for we take a tast of the compound of milke and honey And from that day we abstain from washing in the common laver or place of washing for a whole weeke Thus far Mr Tombes his place of Tertullian Now let the Reader weigh all the circumstances of the place and judge whether Turtullian here alludes to any Scripture Authority or to any approved Antiquity 2. Such a place of Tertullian that doth not prove the thing Mr Tombes intends For he well knows that sub manu is a phrase that hath so many sences as it is no wayes certain that here sub manu under the hand signifies imposition of hands Haply it may rather signifie the Ministers lifting up of his hand in prayer As Pacianus hath it we obtain saith he in prayer pardon and the holy Spirit in Baptisme by the mouth and hand of the Antistes Touching Mr T. his quotation of Chamier Pans Cathol tom 4. l. 4. c. 11. Sect. 14. We give the world this account that we have run over and that twice that 14th Section with as many more following to the end of the Chapter as make up that 14th to be 59. And we finde but foure Quotations touching imposition of hands All which serve little to Mr T. his purpose The first is in Sect. 23. quoted out of Areopag and is this After questioning and profession he puts his hand upon his head and commands him being consigned to be enrolled or numbred among the Priests after other ceremonies puts him into a certain garment and annoints him with oyl were this suppositions Areopagite * Mitto Arcopagiram Hier. Eccles Clementem Rom. Constitut Apostol Nee libri isti corum sunt quibus tribuuntur vulgo Jo. Voss Thes Theol. Hist See also Perkins prepar to dem of the problem an author of credit and free from the ceremonious fooleries here mentioned yet the Baptisme here mentìoned is of one of ripe years at which time unbeleevers children had the first seal to whom this imposition of hands was applyed rather to make him a Priest as we conceive by the words then to accompany Baptisme The second is of the same hogge-sty Leo the first and rather against Mr Tombes If any saith he shall be baptized by an Heretick he is not to iterate that Sacrament but onely that to be conferred which was wanting that by Episcopall imposition of hands he may obtain the vertue of the holy Ghost Here imposition of hands follows baptisme at distance which is for us The third is out of Cyprian viz. It were to small purpose to impose hands on Hereticks to receive the holy Spirit unlesse they receive the Churches Baptisme Here imposition of hands presupposeth precedent Baptisme though in men of ripe years The fourth is out of a false-named * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a forged Eusebius as Chamier calls him in his first Decretall Know yee that those that have been baptized in the faith of the sacred Trinity we receive or undertake for by imposition of hands If this fellow be of any credit he is for us not against us Thus few doth Chamier quote touching imposition of hands because his design was chiefly to pursue the dispute of the other part of confirmation as he calls it
T. well knows subordinate things are not contrary Christ regenerates therefore doth he not do it by his Ordinances Word Baptisme c We have heard afore that though Christ be the Author of our salvation yet it is said we are born again by water and the Spirit And that for the conjunction of the signe and thing signified the thing signified is called by the name of the signe We adde Ephes 5.26.1 Pet. 1.23 where it is said that we are sanctified by the washing of water by the Word And we are born again by the Word of God and yet we know Christ by his Spirit is the Author of these 3 Others of the approved Ancients as Commentators on Irenaeus call baptisme by the name of regeneration Nazianzen cals Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laver of regeneration or of the new-birth Nazianz. Orat. 402. in Sanct. Bapt. Augustine saith As by the first man men are born in sin and death so by Christ renascuntur they are born again in or into righteousnesse and eternall life in or through baptisme Aug. lib. de Bapt. hab Cons Ambrose saith God the omnipotent Father who hath regenerated thee of water and the holy Spirit Ambros de Sacram. Hieronimus The bloody bodies of Infants are washed as soon as they are born so the spirituall generation stands in need of the saving laver Hieron lib. 4. Ezek. ca. 16. More might be alledged but these enough to clear the businesse in hand that Irenaeus meant by being born-again or regenerated Baptisme But Mr. T. objects Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 4. p. 7. that Irenaeus saith Christ was fifty yeers old aâ— he had received it from those that conversed with John the Apostle and thereby Mr. Tombes would blemish Irenaeus his testimonie We answer Animad First men have their mistakes else they were not men but as Angels Secondly Mr. T. referred us to far worse Authors full of superstitions in Scham before And his Ludovicus Vives and his Walafridus we and Vossius too have noted before for their grosse expressions and mistakes Thirdly which is mainly to the point Irenaeus saith Infants may be born again that is baptized as from himself though he reports the whole age of Christ from others who if they wrote his age by ciphers in after-times fifty might easily be mistaken for thirty The third and last Author we will urge from this first age TERTVLLIAN or first hundred yeers or century next following the Apostles time is Tertullian Whom Helvicus puts in the latter end of the age afore said namely in the yeer after Christ 195. which was as about the 95 yeer after the death of John the Evangelist But the same Helvicus saith this of him put in that yeer out of Eusebius and Hieron That he put forth his book of Praescriptions and that he was the third Latin Writer And Bucholcerus mentions him as famous about the yeer after Christ 208 that is 108. after St. John that is but about thirteen yeers after the time set down by Helvicus For he saith that about that time Hieron in Catalogo Cyprian as Hieron testifies did ascribe so much to Tertullians writings that when he called for one of his Authors or Writers he would say Da Magistrum that is Give me my Master when he meant Tertullian Therefore he wrote divers yeers afore The words of Tertullian to the point in hand of Infant-Baptisme Lib. de Anim. cap. 39. 40. are these Hinc enim Apâ—st c. that is For hence also the Apostle affirmeth that of either sex sanctified are procreated those that are holy as by the prerogative of SEED so by the discipline or rule of institution But they were born unclean as if by this neverthelesse he would have it understood that the children of beleevers are designatos the designed ones of holinesse and thereby also of salvation that these pledges of hope might patronage those marriages which he had judged to be kept undissolved Otherwise he had minded the Lords determination Vnlesse one be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdome of God that is He shall not be holy So every soul is counted to be in Adam till he be recounted to be in Christ and so long to be impure till he be recounted Thus Tertullian Whence note first by the way how the opinion of Antiquity touching that place 1 Cor. 7.14 is contrary to Mr. Tombes his opinion Secondly directly to the point in hand of the Baptisme of the children of beleevers he holds forth these Notions First the birthright of beleevers Infants the parents and children being both under that promise I am the God of thee and thy seed They are saith Tertullian by the Sanctification of one of the Parents procreated holy partly by the praerogative of the SEED I am the God of thee beleeving Abraham and of thy seed Gen. 17.7 partly by the discipline of Institution THEREFORE thou shalt keep my Covenant to give the first seal to every male of thy seed Gen. 17.9 Or Act. 2. The promise is to you and you being called to your children also So that Tertullian meanes that the children of beleevers are reputatively and federally holy Which is the more plain by that which follows of counted in Adam and recounted in Christ Secondly The capacity of children of grace and Salvation and consequently of the seal for the deeds and their seals follow the right of the inheritance so all along the Scripture as we have shewed in part I say Tertullian shews childrens capacity of grace 1. In mentioning their being holy For it s in vain to talke of accounting holy if none may be holy yea therefore God will have beleevers children indefinitly accounted holy because he hath made some holy in their childhood Isaac Iacob Samuel Iohn Baptist those Mar. 10. c. 2. In mentioning that place Iohn 3.5 in relation to children Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit c. From all which we may perceive that Tertullian grounds Infant-Baptisme upon Scripture not upon unwritten Tradition Nor is it my opinion onely that this place of Tertullian is for Infant-baptisme but of learned Vossius too whom Mr. T. so oft quotes with respect For Vossius by this place proves that it was the mind of Tertullian in that noted place of Chap. 18. H. D. Mr T. in his 10th Argument of his book De Baptismo That Infants should be Baptized which some alleadge against Infant-baptism but is indeed for it Tertullians words are these Itaeque pro cujusque personae c. Therefore according to every persons condition disposition and age the delay of baptisme is more profitable but especially concerning little children For what necessity is there * Those words between Junius saith may be left out Mr T. in his 10th Argument leaves them out But in the best Editions of Tertullian they are in Vossius takes them in
Iewish passeover 1 Cor. 5. and of the Iewish Manna and water out of the rock 1 Cor. 10.1 c is therefore all Baptism and is therefore the Lords Supper deservedly doubtfull whether they may be used Yea why doth Mr T. without any limitation call circumcision Iewish as if it had been meerly so when the Apostle calls it Rom. 4.11 The signes and seal of the righteousnesse of faith Note It had been too much for Mr T. to have called it meer Old Testament or ceremonious circumcision seeing it is the first seal of the covenant with Abraham which was Gospell being the main hinge upon which the New Testament moves in the main point of salvation by faith in Christ Act. 2. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. where the Apostles in sending us to Christ by faith urges Gods Covenant with Abraham Circumcision therefore annexed to the covenant must be in diverse respects of the same nature as under the notion of the first seal in regard of the spirituall signification inward sanctification and too in respect of application to teach that still the first Seal as now baptism is to be applyed as to the beleeving parents so to their Infant seed unlesse Mr T. could have all this while shewd us an exception And what if according to Mr T. his third particular of Not universall practise Moses neglected the circumcision of his child at the due time and circumcision was not exercised upon the Jews born in the wildernesse for 40 years and many parts of worship could not be used in the times of the Churches persecution but Churches and their worship were hid in corners as Revel 12. And we have not records to tell us what they did for many hundred of yeeres but intimations how they were abridged of their liberties Now doth this make any of these things doubtfull See Vossius Thes Theolet Histor De Paedobapt And our quotation after Ambros following No more doth the want of universall practise detract from the authority of administring baptism to beleevers Infants especially seeing the Pelagian faction and other Heresies before that so ancient and so over spreading the Christian world being also opposite to the baptism of Infants might be a great cause that it was not universally practized And it is no handsome Argument in the mouth of an Anabaptist to urge the Non-universall practise of Infant Baptism when many of their fellows have been the cause of it Nor is it enough to wave that we have said to these two particulars viz. the second and third by telling us there was an institution of Circumcision in scripture an institution of Baptisme of men and of the Lords Supper in the Scripture for so we have proved there is of Infant Baptisme and we may as well assert this in this our Answer as for the Anabaptists to begge the Question in the objection as if Infant-baptisme were not instituted in Scripture For the fourth particular with its great caetera namely That together with the baptisme of Infants some errour and many humane traditions have gone along in the company as giving Infants the Lords Supper c. It needs no long nor carefull answer For first we know that all the Ordinances of Christ have been for many hundreds of years for the generall daubed with many traditions and darkned with many errours by the Papists doctrines mixt with Legends Note Baptisme be-spitled greased with oyl brined with salt the wine of the Lords Supper mixt with water c. yet this doth not infer that therefore the Ordinances themselves are doubtfull 2. That though you Mr T. Vltrò nos provocasti have voluntarily provoked us here to rip up all the abhominable opinions and dangerous errours and practises that have in all ages accompanied the opinion of Anabaptisme and antipaedobaptisme out of Mr Bullinger Sleidens Commentaries in his 5. and 10. book Lambertus Hortensius of the Anabaptiss of the Low Countries Iohn Gastius of the Anabaptists of Zuitzerland Melancthon Ch. de Nielles Pontanus Osiander c. * All which will more then furnish the Reader with a full answer to the 2 part of Mr T. his EXAMEN the title or sum whereof is set down by Mr T. That Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth which Authors aforesaid have too many sad instances of both we forbear to name them as having no delight in Catalogues of sins Yet if we should do so you would not take that for a proof of the doubtfulnesse of Anabaptisme or Antipaedobaptisme you would say we did rather endeavour to disgrace it then to confute it as it is your complaint against Mr M. in your first Section of the second part of your EXAMEN why then do you here labour to dazle the eyes of men against the Lawfulnesse of baptizing beleevers children with an aspersion that some odde opinions and traditions have attended it 2. To Mr T. his minor we answer according to the particulars he recites But in some ages saith he after the first from the Apostles the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme was in use first as a tradition not written But why doth Mr T. we wonder speak of some ages after the first 100 years from the Apostles For unlesse he could proove Infant-baptisme to be an unwritten tradition in the first age next after the Apostles all is to no purpose If it were not an unwritten tradition in that age it is not an unwritten one though all the ages following to the worlds end say so and swear it Nor do the words was in use help him For if it be not proved it was an unwritten tradition in the first age after the Apostles though it was not then in use this is nothing to make it then an unwritten tradition Now to the first particular wherein Mr T. saith Infant-Baptism was in use as an unwritten tradition in some ages after the first from the Apostles witnesse Origen First we will bring our proofes of antiquity to the contrary and then secondly answer to Mr T. his quotation of Origen 1 For proof out of Antiquity that Infant-Baptisme was not in use after the first age from the Apostles upon meer unwritten tradition we will take our Authours according to order of time 1 ORIGEN ORIGEN Flourished about the very beginning of the second Century or age after the first from the Apostles times For he was borne * So Butholcer out of Hieron in the first Age or 100 years after that of the Apostles about the yeare of Christ 186. And he being the Disciple of Clement in the 18 year of his age and about the year after Christ 204. opens his schoole ** Helvic ou◠of Euseb Therefore he could not be ignorant of the customes of the Apostles about Infant-Baptisme c. First his words in his fifth booke upon the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans are The Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give Baptisme also to
Infants For they to whom the secrets of divine mysteries were committed did know that there was in all the very filth of sinne which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit c. In which words we have no mention of an unwritten Tradition But of a tradition from the Apostles that is the Doctrine of the Apostles in the Scriptures Tradition being taken in the Scriptures and Fathers not * So our orthodox schools distinguish passively for an unwritten doctrine of tradition but actively for the act of tradition or delivering the holy Scriptures from hand to hand in succession of ages to our fathers and so down to us in these instances 2 Thess 2.15 Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS which wee have been taught whether by word or our Epistle So in Epiphanius * Contra Haeres l. 3. T. 2. Contra Haerâ—s â—0 cumpendiarver doct But saith he other mysteries as concerning the laver of baptisme and internall mysteries are so performed as the TRADITION of the Gospel and the Acts hath them So Augustin as we shall see after in the Quotations of him And that Origen takes Tradition in this sence appeares by the ground he layes upon the Scriptures which tell us a sinner must be born again of water and the holy spirit That sinne is taken away by the blood and spirit of Christ and that this is sealed to us by Baptisme in respect whereof we are said to be baptized into Christ Rom. 6. Now that cannot be called an unwritten tradition that hath footing upon the Scripture as baptisme hath and baptisme of beleevers infants as wee have proved and are still upon the proofe 2 ORIGENS words on Levit. Hom. 8. are speaking of the spirituall uncleannesse of man by sinne It may be asked what cause is there of giving Baptisme also to little children according to the observation of the Church seeing if there were nothing in little children the which remission did concern and indulgence of pardon did belong unto the grace of Baptisme would seem superfluous Here againe Origen layes the ground worke of the washing by Baptisme upon the spirituall pollution of children held forth to us in the Scriptures Thus Origen 3 ORIGENS words in his 14. Hom. on Luke are Little children were baptized into remission of sinnes Of what sinnes Or when did they sin Or how can any Consideration of the Laver of washing be in little children but as we said a little afore no man is pure from uncleannesse though he lives but one day on earth And because by the Sacrament of Baptisme the filth of birth is put away therefore little children are baptized All this he speaks of Baptisme as putting it in the room of Mosaicall purifications And first saith for spirituall cleansing Parvuli baptizabantur that is Little children WERE baptized as relating to the practise of the Churches in former ages And then secondly saith in the present tense Baptizantur parvuli that is little children ARE baptized as noting the continuance of that practise and that upon Scripture grounds viz. for remission and sanctification from sinne Sacramentally and Instrumentally instead of Ceremoniall washings and purifications which had their Gospel meaning as the Apostle expounds in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Thus Origen But Mr T. hath some objections against Origen in his EXAMEN of Mr M. Sermon which we must answer to keep things clear as we go Animadvers upon Mr T. his EXAMEN §. 7. so much as concernes the Common cause Object Perkins and Vsher EXAMEN saith Mr T put Origen in the year 230. Wee answer indeed Origen then abouts succeeded at Alexandria his Master Clem. Animadver Alexandrinus in the Chair of catechising and composed his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Bucholc But for his birth and first opening his schoole we set the reckoning right according to divers learned Chronologers and Ecclesiasticall Writers to which we now adde the words of Bucholcerus in Anno 186. About this year saith he was born Origen the Ecclesiasticall Writer at Alexandria which depends on the year after Christ 203. in which Hieronymus writeth Origen was about 17 years old Object The Works of Origen EXAMEN saith Mr T. as of old were counted full of errours and dangerous to be read so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens what not For the Originall being lost we have onely the Latin Translation which being performed in many of his Works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romans by Ruffinus it appears by his own confession that he added many things of his owne in so much that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith That a man cannot be certain whether he read Ruffinus or Origen And Perkins puts among Origens counterfeit works his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus 1 As we confesse there are some Errours in Origen and in whom not so there are many learned Animadver pious and most spirituall things precious Gospel truthes such as I have admired when I read them considering those darke times in so much as many now called Preachers of the Gospel may go to Origen if they have but the spirit of discerning to learn to be Gospel-preachers 2 If Mr T. makes these exceptions against Origen why I say why doth Mr T. urge Origen for himselfe in his fifth Argument in his Exercitation as we heard afore Truly a man can hardly with patience enough look upon Mr T. his dealing in this When wee urge three places out of Origen which you had before quoted and translated and formerly urged by Mr M. for the ancient practise of the Church in baptizing Infants then M. T. bespatters Origen as you heare and Origen is not Origen with him But if Mr T. urge but one only place of Origen to blast Infant-baptisme with the scar of tradition and to contradict all approved Antiquity afore then Origen must be received Or else to what purpose did M. T. alleadge him urging no other by which to pretend Infant-baptism to be a tradition 3 Mr T. hath nothing to say against Origen on Luke and therefore he intimates an acknowledgement of one place urged by us from Origen to stand good 4 Wee gave you all the places out of Origen as translated into Latin by Hieronimus as the best Editions promise us 5 Perkins his noting Origens Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as not faithfully translated by Ruffinus doth not conclude it to be a counterfeit worke 6. If Ruffinus did say he added many things of his owne in the translation of Origen on the Romans and Leviticus for there is nothing said of Luke sure he would not confesse he had destroyed the sence of Origen or made him speake that he never meant This were to suppose Ruffinus would disgrace himselfe under his owne hand But Mr T.
premisses who before expresly named baptisme and ioyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together Consecration or sanctification Thus Greg. Naz. on whose words learned Vossius speaks my sence Non igitur c. Therefore saith Vossius Nazianzen doth not deny the baptisme of little children whom if there be any danger of death he commands also to be baptized but onely judgeth that otherwise it may not unprofitably be deferred to the third or fourth yeer Which is onely one Doctors opinion and not the common judgement of the ancient Church Thus Vossius Take we in also the Note of Vincent Lirinens cap. 39. Quicquid unus vel alter Patrum quamâ—is ille sanctus c. that is Whatsoever one or other of the Fathers albeit he be holy and learned c. shall think besides or contrary to all the rest let that go among his own proper hidden and private opiniol's or conceits as different and severed from the Authoritie of that common judgement c. And lastly give us leave to adde our observation 1 That according to the designe in hand Nazianzen holds the baptisme of little children that have not yet the use of reason not as an unwritten tradition but according to his judgement as well as others rightly grounded on the Scriptures in the institution and administration of circumcision and that of the sprinkling of the Paschal blood on the doore-posts Exod. 12. Had baptisme of Infants been held in his time onely as a Tradition he had not argued it from Scripture 2 That for deferring of baptisme of some till three yeers old or lesse as he saith what did this conduce more to that which some of the Anabaptists require at Baptisme as manifestations of true grace then to baptize them at eight or ten dayes old upon Gods Covenant with the believing parent Here to clear things as we go we must answer some objections made against what we alledge out of Nazianzen First Mr. D. in his Antichrist unmasked Objections of H. D. against Nazianzen cleared 1. Obj. Nazianzen saith he restrains baptisme of Infants to danger but there is no danger if they be not baptized Ergo Nazianzens mind is not that Infants should be baptized Answ This Argument playes with an equivocation of the word danger H. D. means there is no spirituall danger if an Infant dies before it be baptized But Nazianzen means danger of bodily death and therefore gives it as a precept or command that in case there be danger that the Infant may dye before it be sealed with baptisme let it be baptized according to the figure thereof circumcision c. See before Obj. 2. Nazianzen saith H. D. was not baptized till he was 30. yeers old as it is said In his life Answ If that in Nazianzens life say this truly yet this might be by reason of the persecutions of those times or indisposition of his parents or other pressing necessities and therefore doth infer no more then that circumcision ought not after the Israelites came into Canaan to be administred till men were fourty yeers old because so long it was deferred in the wildernesse Christ himself was not baptized till thirty yeers old yet the Anabaptists will not make a rule of this that onely those of just that age must be baptized Sure enough if Nazianzen his baptisme was deferred past childhood it was not intended by him for a regulating example but oft in that Oration fore-quoted in severall places exhorts to hasten Baptisme * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Hast an Infant lest improbity snatch away the opportunity let him be sanctified from his infancie meaning baptisme having spoken in the very next preceding words against delay of bapâ—isme Naz. Orat. â—0 p. 648. See also p. 646 Think all time to be certain determined for baptisme and not to defer it after the example of Christ not baptized till thirtie yeers old * Ibid. p. 658. Edit Paris Graec. Lat. And you heard in the place quoted that he mentions deferring in any case but till 3 or 4 yeers old or lesse sometimes which is all one in effect with baptizing beleevers Infants at three moneths or three weeks unlesse the mathematicall consideration of words spoken without knowledge as Persius his Parrat spake Greek * One of the Anabaptists in a book called The character of the Beast saith If one confesse his sins though there be no signe of grace he ought to be baptized prevails with some Secondly Mr. Tombes objects in his EXAMEN against Nazianzen EXAMEN Sect. 6. 1. He objects with an interrogation but doth Greg. Nazianzen saith Mr. T. seem onely to restrain it to the case of necessitie The words saith he are plain that Nazianzen gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might not misse of the common grace But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gives his opinion of others that they should stay longer that they might be instructed and so their minds and bodies might be sanctified Thus Mr. T. Animadvers We answer First if Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why Infants should be baptized in case they are not likely to live to be of riper yeers it is so much the better for us Secondly he doth give another reason beside that of partaking of common grace namely 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is better they should be sanctified without a feeling of it then to depart without the seal So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancie as well as at riper yeers 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A reason also of this to us is circumsion that was wont to be done on the eight day c. Thirdly we answer that all three Reasons stand in force as well for all believers Infants God putting them under the promise Gen. 17. as for those Infants that are in danger of death Fourthly that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine Reasons to him evincing for the baptisme of Infants not in danger of death but for the delaying of others not in danger of death he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give my opinion He cals it his opinion And what is it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such children should stay till three or foure yeers old more or lesse And what is to be expected from children of that age more then from Infants towards baptisme For Nazianzen himself confesseth that though they may then hear and answer some spirituall things yet they understand imperfectly But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing None Doth he give any Reason Even in effect the same as for baptizing of Infants in danger of death to wit that they may be sanctified in mind and body Secondly EXAMEN Sect. 6. Mr. T. objects upon our alledging Nazianzen against all the Greek Fathers in effect that we have alledged and the custome of the Greek Churches touching Infant-baptisme first thus It is wonder to me saith Mr.
of God for he excepts none nor Infant nor c. * So Basil long afore Ann. 372. In his exhortat to Baptisme To Ambrose Mr. T. answers nothing in his EXAMEN but onely takes notice that Mr. M. quoted him But makes no exception against him All these Ancients that we have translated were before the rise of Pelagianisme a Pelagius was about An. 104 Helvic or 413. El. Reusner whose abettors were for the generall great sticklers against the baptisme of Infants And before them the Arrians opposed the same b Arius was about the yeer 315. Helvic or 319 El Reusner Bucholc Of these see somewhat before in our Animadversions on Mr. T. his 2 Argument in his 15. Sect. Next let us touch those Ancients who after the rise of Anabaptisticall-Pelagianisme or Peleganian-Anabaptisme wrote for Infant-baptisme none of them urging it as onely the custome of the Churches others of them arguing it from the Scriptures and therefore took it not up as an unwritten tradition Chrysostome who flourished about the yeer after Christ CHRYSOSTOME 382. as Helvicus reckons was Bishop of Constantinople about 389. as El. Reusner computes upon those words 1 Tim. 3. Not a Novice that is a new tender plant saith the Apostle means not one so in regard of age for many such of the Gentiles or Nations came to the Church and were baptized There are other passages in Chrysostome but I promised but to touch these last Authors Hierom who flourished about the yeer after Christ HIERONIMVS 384. so Helvicus about the yeer 392. wrote his Catalogue of famous writers so Bucholcerus saith thus of Infant-baptisme in his Epistle to Lata The good or evil of a childe is much to be imputed to the parents meaning education unlesse saith he thou thinkest that the children of Christians in case they have not received baptisme are onely guilty of that sin and that the sin is not to be layed upon them that would not give it them especially at that time when they that were to receive it were not able to oppose As on the other side the salvation of Infants is the gain of the parents or ancestors So likewise Hierom in his third book of Dialogues against the Pelagians Thus. CRITO Tell me I pray thee and so deliver me from all questioning why Infants may be baptized ATTIC That their sins may be done away in baptisme CRITO What sin have they committed Is any man loosed that is not first bound ATTIC Doest ask me The Evangelicall Trumpet c. shall answer thee Rom. 5. Death reigned from Adam to Moses even upon them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression c. He that is a little one is loosed in baptisme from the bond of sin of the parent c. And lest thou shouldest think that I mean this in an hereticall sence the blessed Martyr Cyprian in his Epistle he wrote to Bishop Fidus concerning baptizing Infants minds us of these things And there Hierom transcribes a great part of that Epistle of which you heard afore And then addes Eloquent Augustine saith Hierom wrote long since to Marcellinus c. two books of baptizing Infants against your that is the Pelagian heresie by which you will assert that * NOTE how the Pelagians opposed Infant-Baptisme Infants are baptized not into remission of sins but into the kingdom of God according to that Joh. 3.5 Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit be cannot enter into the Kingdom of God He wrote also the third to the same Marcellinus against those who say as you Pelagians do that it is possible for a man to be void of sin without the grace of God He wrote also a fourth to Hilarius against thy doctrine Pelagius Also he is said to have written other books in speciall to thee by name which are not come to our hands c. I will onely say this that I may end my speech That either thou Pelagius must make a new form that after ye have baptized them into the Name of Father Son and holy Ghost ye baptize them into the kingdom of God or if you have one and the same baptisme in little ones and men then Infants must be baptized into remission of sins c. Thus Hierom. To all this of Hierom in this last quotation Mr. T. answers in his EXAMEN that the same answer will serve as to Augustine Well therefore let us come to Augustine Augustine flourished about 391 after Christ AVGVST Helvic and hath abundance concerning Infant-baptisme in his 28. Epistle in his book of originall sin Chap. 40. In his second book of Marriage and Concupiscence Chap. 20. In his third book of sin merit and remission Chap. 7 8 9. In his second book against Jul. ca. 3. In his fourth book of Baptisme against the Donatists Chap. 24 * So hath THEODORET epit divin dogmat ca. de Baptismo He flourished about the yeer 422. And so GENNADIVS de Ecclesiast dogmat c. 31. He flourish about the yeer 458. In his fourth book against the two Epistles of Pelag. Chap. 8. It were a tedious businesse to translate all these places for me that intended more brevitie having too much other businesse and too little time for this work and for many Readers which delight no more in reading these then I in quoting of them but that Mr. T. leads me to them therefore and because I shall translate somewhat of Augustine by and by I will onely note particularly of Augustine these two things First that Augustine in that place of his 7 8 9. Chapters of his third book of sin merit and remission quotes almost all Cyprians Epistle to Fidus. Secondly that Augustine doth not build his judgement onely upon Cyprian because in his fourth book of baptisme against the Donatists he proves Infant-baptisme by many Arguments from the Scriptures Now all these especially the last we onely touch that we may not toyl our selves and the Reader There are of the Anabaptists that can tell whether those Authors be not for us or no. We shall onely adde some observations upon them and so passe on 1. That these five last Authors Chrysost Hierom August Theod. Genn wrote for Infant-baptisme after the rise of Pelagianisme * See also Voss Thes Theol. hist Though some of the men were afore it yet those things afore quoted were written after it 2. That they wrote those things at least 300 yeers afore Mr. T. his Walafridus was a Writer to tell us that tale against Infant-baptisme of which you heard afore we gave our Answer to it 3. That these did argue out of Scripture and no otherwise determine the question that Infants ought to be baptized then as the pious learned Ancients had held in former ages long before * See before in the notes in the margin on Cyprinan Augustine shall here for brevities sake speak for them all who being one
most ordinances as to Preaching Praying Sacraments Fasting Thanksgivings yet we leaving the error doubt not of the Institutions and Administrations of those ordinances according thereunto 5. Mr T. thinks that Adult-baptisme might be severed from to use his own words * Exercitat §. 17. p. 29. l. 13. The pernicious errors and madd furies of FORMER Anabaptists Therefore might infant baptisme be severed from some errors that have accompanied it 6. If the errors accompanying Infant-baptisme have made it doubtfull to Mr T. So have the pernicious errors and madd furies of the Anabaptists in former ages which Mr T. hath confest made their baptisme doubtfull to us Mr T. adds in his 17. Exercitat §. 17. Sect of his Exercitation towards the close of his 5. argument That of old 1. Other inventions of men under the name of Apostolicall Tradition Caused or attended Infant-Baptisme rather then any solid argument froÌ„ Scripture 2. A wrong likeing of Judaisme Caused or attended Infant-Baptisme rather then any solid argument froÌ„ Scripture 3. The using of it as a main Argument against the Pelagian Heresie Caused or attended Infant-Baptisme rather then any solid argument froÌ„ Scripture 4. The meer authority of the Councills under Cyprian the Councill of Milevis Augustine and Jerome Caused or attended Infant-Baptisme rather then any solid argument froÌ„ Scripture To the 1. We shall answer in Mr T. his next Argument in number the 6. which is touching humane inventions 2. We have answered already indiscussing of the aforesayd antiquities 3. We say now that we have produced sufficient proof afore out of approved antiquity that the Tenet and practise of Infant baptisme was common in the Churches since the Apostles times hundreds of years before Pelagianisme was known in the world See before all our 13. Chap. and Chap. 14. from the beginning thereof to the end of the quotation of Ambrose p. 148. 4. We have answered afore chap. 14. Lastly Mr T. addes these words as the close of his fifth Argument and Section of his Exercit. Exercita◠§. 17. So in this last age saith he some moderne men seeme to imbrace this tenet of Infant baptisme out of horror of minde least they should goe headlong into the PERNICIOVS ERRORS of former Anabaptists and their MADD FVRIES or 2 least they should seem to desert the leading men of the Reformed Churches or 3 move troubles in the Churches rather then from perspicuous foundation in the Scriptures Which they will think that I have not said as one that dreames who shall reade what Robert Lord Brooke hath in the end of his Treatise concerning Episcopacie Daniel Rogers in his treatise of Baptisme and others else-where We answer to the 1 particular thus That the modern men cannot be justly abhorred Animadver for their horror of mind least they should by any Tenet fall headlong into pernicious errors and madd furies And if Mr T. doth but approve his owne seventh Argument for a right rule viz. That which hath occasioned many errors that is deservedly doubtfull whether it be right c. then it will follow uncontradicted by Mr T. That as he doubts of Infant Baptisme because of errors that have followed it so we doubt of adult baptisme according to the Tenet and Practise of the Anabaptists because of the pernicious errors and madd furies that have followed it * We shall give instances anon in the due place in answer to Mr. T. his 6 7.8.9 Argument in our 13. chap. To the second particular we answer thus That it is not so convenient suddenly to desert the leading men of reformation then in their debates before they have declared themselves and we meane while not ingaged necessarily to practise against our consciences and in such points as will no wayes stand in the line of any concord so much as negatively The Church way or Independency as they nick name it differs from the intended Presbytery as we guesse â—nâ—ainly in point of Appeale especially in the manner of it which may breed no distraction in case particular Churches walke so wisely as not to neede appeales as some discreet parishes did in the worset times of Episcopall Courts Rests in a song whereby to sing onely when the concords will beare it and rest where not till they Symphonise againe doe not marre but grace the harmonie But whether Anabaptisme or Catapaedobaptisme denying Baptisme to believers infants wherein the great part of a sad distracted kingdome is interested will for the present so well fagge I leave to Mr T. to make out which if he can it shall not be a sorrow to me We are unwilling indeed to admit those beleivers to the Communion of the Lords Supper that will not some how intimate to us that they yeelde to a relation of Pastor and Flocke betweene them and that Minister of whom they require that Ordinance and to walke with us submissively to all the Ordinances of Christ till God provide better for them that we may know how they live as well as when they receive and be willing also to receive Christian admonition where they live amisse But for baptizing of beleivers Infants severall Churches of us doe hold that we may Baptize them though neither of those Parents be of our particular Churches Baptisme as we Conceive being but an admission into the universall visible Church As those Baptized Matthew the 3. The Centurion Act. 10. The Goaler Act. 16 were Baptized neither in a particular Christian Church nor into such a particular Church To the third particular we answer That it cannot but be a considerable thing to godly and wise men how they move troubles in the Church And therefore in capiâ—ulating as I may say with point of Argument for reformation they thinke it not seasonable to indeavoure for the inward Hold till they can take the out-workes Reformation from Adams fall to the highest pitch in the old Testament came on by degrees so from Iohn Baptists time to the ende of the Apostles in the New Testament And so in every Kingdome since from the first sitting downe of Religion there to its grouth or from the Lapse thereof to its Restitution We cannot come to the ende but by meanes And it cannot but be dangerous in an unwildy Kingdome to jumpe from the lesser to the greatest things of that we count Reformation at one leape For my part I should desire rather to suspend mine owne interest then to be a coâ—djutor to further a generall dangerous distraction For that clause that infant-baptisme hath been held rather upon the said three particulars then upon any Perspicuous ground of Scripture we anser we have held it upon sufficient grounds of Scripture if our Animadversions may be counted worthy to be one witnesse But if Mr T. meane by Perspicuous any thing more then sufficient we answer we conceive we have as Perspicuous Scriptures for Infant-baptisme as Mr T. hath for The Lords day and for womens partaking of the Lords Supper To Master
afford some friendly proofes by consequence of iâ— Fourthly the holinesse of the child externall and visible is from their parents who are or ought to be catechized conâ—â—â—tors pâ—nitenâ— and Protestants in trueth which priviledge only open revolt disables them from therefore I say The seed being holy and belonging to the Covenant the Lord graciously admits them also to the seal of it in baptisme Howbeit here a further quaerie arises And because the Sacrament of Baptisme is here handled by us Question How it is capable 1 Pet. 3.21 not a halfe a Sacrament onely including a washing of the flesh but an entire Sacrament holding out and giving an invisible grace by out-ward meanes By what authority shall wee say an Infant may be presented to that whereof it is not capable To that I answer Answer First it 's not meete that Baptisme being the Sacrament of new birth which can be but once should destroy her owne Analogy by frequent administering therefore if but once the most comprehensive way is to do it in the Infancy when the outward admission of a member is allowed to it Secondly although the child be not capable of the grace of the Sacrament by that way whereby the growne are by hearing conceiving and beleeving yet this followes not that Infants are not capable of Sacramentall grace in and by another way Pittifull are the shifts of them that have no other way to stoppe an Anabaptists mouth save by an errour that an Infant may have faith It 's easie to distinguish between the gift conveyed and the manner of conveying it For if the former be the latter in such case will prove needlesse But if the infant be truly susceptive of the substance of Christ none can deny it the Sacrament Now to understand this marke that Infants borne of beleeving parents are of the number of those that shall be saved though dying in their Infancy none of our reformed Churches will deny It is enough therefore that such before death doe partake the benefit of Election in Christ together with the benefits of Christ in regeneration adoption redemption and glory Now that the Spirit can apply these unto such Infants is not doubted of Though the manner thereof to us be as a hidden and mysticall thing yet so it is the Spirit of Christ can as really unite the soul of an Infant to God imprint upon it the true title of a sonne and daughter by adoption and the image of God by sanctification without faith as with it Now if the grace it selfe of Bapâ—â—sme be thus given it why not Baptisme Nay I add further I see no cause to deny that even in and at and by the act of Baptisme as the necessity of the weake infant may admit the Spirit may imprint these upon the soule of the Infant Thus Master Rogers Where by his quotation of Scriptures and discussâ— of arguments you may see what he meant by Apostâ—licall tradition CHAP. XV. Exercitat Argu. 6. §. 19. The argument against Infant-baptisme from humane inventions occasioned by it confirmed THe sixth Argument followes That which hath occasioned many humane inventions partly by which Infant-baptisme it selfe may be under-propped partly the defect in the policy of the Church which in very deed is to be supplied by the lawfull use of Baptisme Of that it is deservedly doubtfull whether it be not in it selfe weake and insufficient for its proper work But the matter is so in the businesse of Infant-baptisme Ergo. The Minor is proved by instances they are 1. The use of suerties in Baptisme which is an humane invention for a shadowy supplement and I had almost said sporting of that profâ—ssion of faith which at first was made by the baptized in his owne person 2. Episcopall confirmation in which the Bishop layes hands or anoints the Catechized that Baptisme or the Baptized may be confirmed and they made capable of the Lords Supper 3. The reformed union by exâ—mination confession subscriptition of the received doctrine in the Church before the communion of the Eucharist of which Parker of Eccles policie l. 3. c. 16. 4. The Church-covenant as they call it afore the admission of members into Church-fellowship of which the New-England Elders in the little booke in English called Church-Covenant which in very deede are devised to supply the place of Baptisme for by Baptisme according to Christs institution a person is exhibited a member of Christ and the Church 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27 Ephes 4.5 THe seventh Argument Arg. 7 § 20. The argument against Infant-baptisme from the Errors occasioned by it confirmed That which hath occasioned many errors that is deservedly doubtfull whether it be right But the practise of Infant-baptisme hath occasioned either the birth or fostering of many errors Ergo. It is proved by instances 1. That Baptisme conferres grace by the worke done 2. That Baptisme is Regeneration 3. That Infants dying are saved by the faith of their Parents faith of Sureties of the Church receiving into her lap which is to be ascribed alone to the grace of God by Christ 4. That some regenerate persons may utterly fall from grace THe eight Argument That which hath caused many abuses and faults in Discipline Arg. 8 §. 22. The argument against Infant-baptisme from many abuses caused by it confirmed and Divine worship and Conversation of men that is deservedly doubtfull But Infant-Baptisme is such Ergo. It is proved by enumeration 1. Private baptisme 2. Baptisme by women 3. Baptisme of Infants not yet brought into light 4. Baptisme of Infants of uncertaine progeny whom we call children of the earth and world 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord who know not the Lord nor have ever consented or perhaps will consent to the confession of the name of our Lord. 6. It hath brought in the admission of ignorance and profane men into the communion of the Church and to the Lords Supper for who can deny rightly the right of the Church to the baptized 7 It perverts the order of discipline that first a man be baptized and after among the catechized 8 The Sacrament of baptisme is turned into a meer Ceremony yea into a profane meeting to feast together 9 Men forget Baptisme as if they were never baptized so that it hath the force of a carnall rite not of a spirituall Institution 10 It takes away or at least diminisheth zeale and industry in knowing the Gospel THe ninth Argument That is deservedly doubtfull Argum 9 § 22. The argument from unnecessary disputes caused by it against Infant-baptisme confirmed that yeeldeth occasion to many unnecessary disputes fostering only contention and which cannot be determined by any certain rule But the tenet or rite of Infant-baptisme is such Ergo. It is proved by instances 1 Of baptizing the Infants of Excommunicated persons 2 Of baptizing the Infants of Apostates 3 Of baptizing the Infants of such Parents as are not members in a gathered Church 4 Of