testifies was made in the house Luke puts it after the parable of the Publican and the Pharisce but he is wont to relate things out of their right place But what the holy Spirit doth intimate by noting the time precisely I guesse not unlesse perhaps he would have it noted that an occasion was opportunely ministred of amplifying the argument concerning making a mans self an Eunuch for the Kingdome of heaven though this reason doth not very much like me As for the sixth the place is intimated Mat. 19.1 Mar. 10.1 in the coasts of Iudea beyond Iordan in Mat. By the farther side of Iordan in Mark about which it availeth not to our present purpose to inquire As for the seventh the reason of repelling is not known but by conjecture it is probable this bringing of little children was troublesome to them either because it did interrupt Christs Speech about marriage and fitnesse to the Kingdome of heaven or because they sought rest in the house or because they did think this bringing would be in vain As for the eighth Christ without doubt was angry with the Disciples because they hindred the occasion of doing good to men whereas Christ went about doing good Act. 10.38 And in this businesse the faith of the bringers was to be cherished and the power of blessing in Christ was to be manifested and the excellent doctrine to be delivered concerning little childrens being capable of the Kingdome of heaven of the quality of them who receive the Kingdome of heaven but whether Christ would that this fact should remain as a perpetuall rule for baptizing the Infants of believers is yet a question It seemes scarce probable it should be so 1 Because Baptisme of Infants being meerly positive so obscure and doubtfull an institution is without example and reason 2 Because we find no practise or hint in Scripture which may expound this fact to this sense 3 Because if he had given a command to the Apostles of baptizing Infants he had rather said bring the little children to me then suffer them to be brought to me 4 He had declared whose Infants he would have baptized and not have spoken so indefinitely it is certain before the command Mat. 28.19 20. There is no precept extant concerning baptizing Gentiles much less concerning baptizing the Infants of the Gentils 5 The words suffer forbid not and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these little children as Beza reads shew that Christs words are ment only of those childreÌ„ 6 If this fact pertain to Baptism theÌ„ we must say that Christ baptized the contrary whereof is said Ioh. 4.2 As for that whicâ— is objected that 3 Evangelists rehearse this fact that thence a perpetuall rule may be drawn of bringing Infants to Christ by an outward Ordinance which is not done but by Baptisme it is weak For 1. Three Euangelists rehearse the bringing of the palsie man to Christ the accesse of the leprous person to Christ and many other things from which yet no perpetuall rule is formed 2. If any rule be hence to be formed that is to be perpetually observed this relation will serve more fitly to establish Episcopall confirmation by laying on hands and praying then Presbyteriall baptisme Secondly we must distinguish concerning bringing to Christ there is a bringing to Christ by locall ad motion there is another bringing to Christ by spirituall instruction this bringing to Christ is the cause of Baptisme not the other for many were brought by the command of Christ to Christ as the blind son of Timaeus and others of whose baptisme or conversion we read not for not all that were corporally healed by Christ were also spiritually healed as we are to say of the nine Lepers Malchus and others 3 The Argument supposeth they may be baptized whom Christ commands to be brought but neither is this true of spiritual bringing for not those whom he commands to be brought spiritually are to be baptized but those whom he hath brought As for that which is said that they are repelled from Christ that are repelled from baptisme It is a light thing for baptisme doth not bring men to Christ unlesse the persons be first in Christ Neither is therefore any man repelled from Christ because he is not baptized but when he is kept back being sit for baptisme The Argument therefore is answered by denying the major universally taken Mr. T. here reports divers forms of Arguments out of these places of Scripture quoted by him Animadvers and some of them he represents to us very lamely formed and therefore the easilier put off by him but among all not one so formed as was wont among us where I have been I will urge therefore one form which perhaps will break the edge of most that Mr. T. hath answered here and then I will consider what more is considerable in his answers to the forms he hath set down Our Argument is this To whom indefinitely as such heaven and the blessing of and for heaven belongs to them as such the seal of conveighance or confirmation of heaven and that blessing belongs For if the land be mine the deeds and seals of conveighance are mine But heaven and the blessing of and for heaven belongs indefinitely to such little children more whiles little children so the texts here expresly To them belong or which is all one of such is the kingdom of heaven and he took them in his arms and blessed them Therefore to little children indefinitely belongs the seal of conveighance or confirmation of heaven and the blessing of heaven which in the New Testament according to the time Christ spake is Baptisme Obj. Say the Anabaptists S.D. though it be thus said of these little children yet not of all Answ Therefore we said to little children indefinitely and so to be applyed to all such as these are as it is said in these texts of such is the kingdom of heaven c. even as election and the promises of the Gospel were indefinitely so and so propounded in the Primitive times but to those then yet by the same reason as propounded to them just so to be applyed to us Now doubtlesse THE or THAT same seed of Abraham to wit Christ means such little children as agreed with the tenor of the Covenant to his father Abraham namely little children whose parents were reputed beleevers And therefore these things spoken by our Saviour belong indefinitely to the like little children As Mr. T. confesseth after that Mr. Beza renders it of these and the like infants Obj. But S.D. say the Anabaptists here is no mention of Baptisme Answ But our argument infers Baptisme 2 Here is mention of and doing of an after-higher thing then baptisme namely confirmation of them by prayer and imposition of hands * This Mr. T. confesseth in expresse words after in his answer to the 2 form of argument from these texts p. 19. of his Exâ—rcit Now if Christ speaks of and doth
Churches it is Endoctrinez teach ye Of the High Dutch Lebret teach ye of the Low-Dutch Leert teach And likewise in Hutter his N. Testament set forth in 12. Languages in so many of them as I can guesse at it is rendred onely teach ye His Syr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach ye Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach ye Lat. Deâ—â—te teach ye Ital. Insegnate teach ye Of German Dutch French we heard afore Mark the Euangelist also renders it Mark 16.15 onely by preach Secondly it is evident the word in the Greek is taken divers wayes and here is no note of circumstance in Matth. 28.19 to prove that it must signifie to make-disciples Thirdly the command is for the Apostle to preach to all Nations though they should not disciple or discipulate all If it s objected that if the word in Matth. 28.19 according to Mar. 16.15 signifies but to teach or preach yet mention of baptizing immediately follows teaching or preaching We answer So is baptizing expressed to follow believing saying He that beleeveth and is haptized shall be saved But in converting the Proposition that is in turning it negatively it is not said He that is not baptized shall be damned because Infants as Mr. T. confessed afore though of a day old unbaptized may have the sanctifying Spirit Therefore may be baptized Act. 10.47 Our Answer then is that Teaching and baptizing doth not run evenly together Secondly we now observe that the Lord having said go preach to all Nations he addes baptizing them indefinitely not expressing all or some for them doth not in the Greek agree Grammatically with Nations and so must needs leave us to compare this Text with other Texts afore-written As with Gen. 17. where though Noah 1 Pet. 3.19.2.2 Pet. 2.5 and Enoch Jude v. 14. had preached to all the old world yet so contrary to teaching were they that but eight persons were left alive by the Flood and of these that remained alive even to or quite to the time of Abraham but few were taught-men as Noah that dyed the yeer before Abrahams birth Shem alias Melchisedech and Abrahams father Terah and Lot few more about this time Job was long after about Moses his time were taught persons Now among the these taught men God would to Abraham communicate the first signe or seal and he being signed he should signe his children also Or with John Baptists practise who as it is said expresly baptized the parents confessing their sins but doth not exclude by any expression their children So then we must needs conclude that here is no determinating word in Matth. 28.19 to exclude believers Infants And that this Text doth but give in the two main parts of the Apostles commission but not expresly all the parts as the Administration of the Communion nor all the main circumstances of those two as touching childrens baptisme Secondly we answer to the comparison of that place of 1 Cor. 11.28 with Matt. 28.19 Let a man examine himself that the 1 Cor. 11.28 relates as the Apostle there expresseth v. 23. I have received of the Lord that which I delivered I say relates to an expresse institution wherein Christ gave the communion to his Disciples that were of ripe yeers and not to children But that place of Matth. 28.19 relates to no such expresse institution of the first seal excluding Infants but rather refers to such places as do include them as we shewed afore Secondly to that collation or parallel comparing Matth. 26.26 27. with Matth. 28.19 first we reply that 1 Cor. 11.28 declares that Matth. 26.26 27. is intended for an exclusion of unbelievers from the Communion but there is no place to declare to us that the meaning of Matth. 28.19 is to exclude believers children from the first seal Baptisme Obj. But Mr. T. saith he will make it appear in the next Argument that there are places to declare that Matth. 28.19 did intend the exclusion of believers Infants from Baptisme Ans We shall by Gods leave shew that there are none to make any such declaration when by and by we come to answer that Argument Mean while we say secondly that there is no other place to shew that apparent unbeleevers whiles such were admitted to the 2. Sacrament and therefore that institution Matt. 26.26 27. is sufficient to exclude from the Lords Supper But we have largely shewed that there are no places of Scripture to exclude Infants of believers from the first seal but many for including them as belonging to it and therefore we cannot take that generall expression go teach and baptize Matth. 28.19 to intend to exclude them from Baptisme CHAP. I. MR. Tombes his third Argument against Infant-Baptisme Exercit. Argum. 3. Sect. 16. From John Baptist and the Apostles practise is from the Apostles and John Baptist which saith he is the best interpreter of our Lords institution from whence this Argument is formed That tenet and practise which being put Baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles did administer it agrees not with the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles But the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme being put baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred it Ergo. 1. We answer Animadvers This Argument doth not in terms conclude the thing in question For make the supposition that John Baptist and the Apostles the best interpreters of our Lords institution had never any opportunitie or occasion offered to baptize any believers Infants would it therefore follow that the institution did not allow it when it doth not forbid it but leaves it to be referred to the institution of the first seal in the old Testament Moses the best interpreter of the Ceremoniall Law and so of the institution of Circumcision given by God had not any occasion that we read of to our remembrance of circumcising any Jews of ripe yeers would it follow therefore that he might not have done it according to the institution 2. We answer That when Mr. T. is to answer our Argument that the Apostles baptizing whole families likely baptized some Infants he makes it doubtfull whether they baptized any Infants and now Mr. T. puts it out of doubt that they baptized none Or else he would prove one doubt by another But let us come particularly to the Argument The minor namely the tenet and practise of Infant-baptisme being put Baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred is denyed For it doth not appear that they baptized no children But Mr. T. will prove the minor thus Before the baptisme of John even the Jews did confesse their sins the Apostles afore baptisme did require shews of faith and repentance Matth. 3.6 Luk. 3.10 Act. 2.38 Act. 8.12 13 37. Act. 9.18 Act. 20.47 Act. 11. 17 18. Act. 16.15.31 32 33. Act. 18.8 Act. 19.5 Act. 22.16 But this cannot be done in the baptisme of Infants Ergo. We answer by limiting the major That
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.
of baptisme chap. 18. the baptizing of Infants And iâ— he did allow it as Mr T. adds it was onely in case of necessity as may appear by his words in his book De Animâ Chap. 39. We Reply to this 1. That both these places of Tertullian are before alleadged translated and discâ—ssed Animadver to be for Infant-baptisme chap. 13. of our Animadvers at the word TERTUL in the Margin which we desire the Reader to peruse over again where you may see that Tertullian hath nothing of allowance of Infant-baptisme onely in case of Necessity but if the places be well weighed he saith that which he saith for Infant-baptisme without any such limitation which Infant-baptisme among other passages is asserted by Tertullian in those words That the children of either Parent-sex sanctified are holy partly by the prerogative of the SEED partly by the RVLE OF DISCIPLINE Which what can it be but Baptisme And in those words Those children are Designati sanctitatis the designedones of holinesse or the marked ones of holinesse It is more like that Mr T. meant that Tertullian restrained Infant-baptisme to necessity lib. de Bapt. cap. 18. But we have abundantly cleered this also afore in the 13. Chap. of our Animadvers at the word TERTUL in the Margin and that not out of our own thoughts onely but out of learned Juâ—ius and Vossius Let the Reader have patience to peruse that we have there said We adde now That the most of Tertullians dispute against hastning baptisme chap. 18. of his book concerning Baptisme is against suddain baptizing men of ripe yeers For his words are Give not Baptisme rashly Give not holy things to dogs he counts not Infants of beleevers such as you heard out of his book De anima and here by and by calls them The INNOCENT age If the Eunuch were suddenly Baptised yet the Spirit commanded Philip to go to his Chariot If Paul were suddenly baptized yes he was soon known to Jude his Host that he was a chosen â—essell So Tertul c. It is true that after Tertullian speaks of Infants but what saith he Quid festinaâ— innocenâ—aâ— aâ— ad remissionem peccatorum Why doth innocent age hasten to forgivenesse of sinnes meaning Baptisme Is this a good reason a Scripture ground to defer the Baptisme of Infants He saith himselfe in his said book and 8 chap. De animâ That children are not holy till they be counted so in Christ And how in Christ When they be by means of one of the holy Parents under the promise of being a holy seed and by the rule of Discipline which for children while such was onely Baptisme And whereas Mr T. brings in learned Grotius as countenancing him in relying upon Tertullian against Infant-Baptisme we have largely and plainly layd open after in our Animadversions in this Chap. upon the sixth Section of Mr T. his EXAMEN see the margin there 1. That Grotius rejects Tertullians opinion as nothing swaying him against Infant-Baptisme 2. That Grotius by many Arguments is for Infant-Baptism 3. We now adde that it is true Grotius doth say Tertullianus de aetate quâ baptizandi essent qui Christianae disciplinae a parentibus consâ—crabantur nihil definitum fuisse suis temporibus hoc ipso docet c. That Tertullian sheweth that in his time The set time of Baptizing them that were CONSECRATED BY THEIR PARENTS to Christian Discipline was not determined But what is this to prove that in those times beleevers children must not be baptized till they are out of their Parents guardianship and of ripe years 2. Mr T. Objects against Cyprian EXAMEN Sect. 7. that indeed he handles Infant-Baptisme at large in his 59 Epistle ad Fidum and saith in that Epistle enough for it and more then enough unlesse he had spoken to better purpose The truth is the very reading of the Epistle upon which Hierom and especially Augustine rely for the proving of Infant-baptisme is sufficient to discover how great darknesse there was then upon the Spirits of those that were counted the greatest Lights in the Church You say * upon this occasion Fidus denyed not the baptisme of Infants Mr T. speaks to Mr M. but denyed that they ought to be Baptized before the eighth day But you might have observed that Fidus alleadged That the Law of ancient circumcision was to be considered And That the footstep of an Infant being in the first dayes of birth is not clean Whence it plainly appears that there was a relique of Judaisme in him and that he did not well understand the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law And the truth is the contentions about Easter neer that age do plainly shew that Judaisme was not quite weeded out of the minds of the chief teachers among Christians Thus Mr T. We answer 1 That however Mr T. despiseth here Cyprians testimony Animadver yet the renownedst pious learned esteemed it as Cyrill or John of Hierusalem Gregory Nazianzen Chrysostome Ambrose Hierom Augustine The places where in their works we quoted a little afore in the margin over against the end of the testimony of Cyprian Nor do ancienter writers onely esteeme it on whose spirits Mr T. saith there was such darkenesse and on whose spirit is there not some at this time of great light but also later learned pious writers even Mr T. his beloved Vossius Grotius so oft quoted by him Vossius saith Vossius Thes Theolog. Hist de paedo bapt Thes 9. Grotius in Mat. 19.14 that this testimony of Cyprian is above or beyond all exceptions Grotius saith That the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of baptizing Infants c. 2 When Mr T. urgeth the fathers in the least as one place out of one Origen or c. in a point of great doubt we must entertain it by Mr T. his intendment but when we urge many places out of many then saith he they are this and that 3 Better men then these fathers may have some darknesse John Baptist was greater then the prophets and he that is least in the Kingdome of the Church now is greater than he 4 Many men may in these dayes hold a solid truth yet not upon the best grounds of it for want of knowledge of them 5 That Fidus thus far expresly held the ceremoniall law to be abrogated that Baptisme was come in the room of Circumcision and might be administred at least as soon as Circumcision was to children Act. 21.20 Gal. 2. 6 We know that many Christian Jewes in the time of the Apostles and Peter himself did too much Judaize shall not we therefore receive that true light that was in them 7 For that of Ester wee know the controversie too farr and too long about that time invaded Christian England shall not we therefore be regarded in any truth Mr Fox book of Martyrs Yea did not the observation of Ester reach down to Mr
roy all to save without means And therefore Cyprian and his Collegues cannot be justly blamed for speaking no more then that the Scripture speaks and in the like phrase To the second particular the same answer will serve where also we have somewhat out of Cyprian to justifie that to be his meaning viz. instrumentally not absolutely For he saith seeing Christ came not to destroy mens souls but to save them therefore quantum in nobis est si fieri potest nulla anima perdends est idcirco â— baptismo gratiâ Dei qui omnibus misericors benignus pius est neminem per nos debere prohiberi That is As much as in us lies if it may be no soul is to be lost and therefore from baptisme and the grace of God who is mercifull bountifull and pitifull to all no man is to be prohibited by us So that as the Scripture saith 1 Pet. 3.21 22. that eight souls were saved in the Ark by water that is instrumentally the like figure or antitype whereunto baptisme now saveth meaning too instrumentally for otherwise there is no name under heaven whereby we must be saved but Jesus Christ Act. 4.12 Just so Cyprian speaks To the third particular that not onely Infants of believers but all Infants were to be baptized I find no such passage in all Cyprians Epistle that All Infants are put as the opposite member of the distinction to believers Infants This onely I find first that all Infants are put into opposition to Infants above eight dayes old that is that not onely Infants above eight dayes old but those under eight dayes old may as well be baptized As we heard afore in the quotation of Cyprian in answer to Fidus whilest Fidus thought that before the eight day Infants might not be baptized Secondly that all Infants are put in opposition to believers of ripe yeers and therefore most likely all believers Infants are meant For saith Cyprian if greater sins cannot hinder men of ripe yeers from baptisme after they believe much lesse may originall sin onely hinder an Infant from baptisme So Cyprian which Mr. T. after quotes in this his 7. Sect. of his Examen God himself he would have all men to be saved yet commands not all ordinances no nor baptisme to be given to all men So Cyprian may speak generally in the premisses yet intend onely a particular conclusion that onely some Infants are to be baptized sutable to the case he had in hand Lastly we answer to that of Tossanus first that there is no such sentence in all that Mr. T. hath translated out of this Epistle of Cyprian And therefore Mr. T. needed not to annex Tossanus his words to that he had translated with a WHENCE saying whence Tossanus notes this for Cyprians errour that Infants must be presently baptized lest they perish c. Secondly that there is no such sentence in all Cyprians Epistle as Tossanus reports nor to that effect But onely this as we translated afore upon another occasion That Cyprian speaking of baptizing Infants though they were not eight dayes old because the mercy and grace of God is not to be denyed to any born of men argueth thus Seeing the Lord saith in his Gospel the Son of man came not to destroy the souls of men but to save them as much as in us is if it may be no soul is to be destroyed See here candid Reader Cyprian doth not say Infants perish if they be not baptized But we should not by wilfull neglect of baptisme as much as in us is cause them to perish The rest that is in Mr. T. his Analysis of Cyprians Epistle is onely against Mr. M. about querks and nothing to the point in hand and therefore needs no answer from us Yet thus much we say that wheras Mr. Tombes would not have it that Cyprian doth at all put in originall sin among his Arguments for the baptizing of Infants This is clearly intimated by Cyprian That as men of ripe yeers beleeving are baptized to put away their many greater actuall sins so Infants are baptized to put away their lesser originall sins And for Mr. T. his calling this Epistle of Cyprian an absurd Epistle it is somewhat boldly spoken and with too much disrespect of so famous a man and Martyr in those times we might have more justly have said so of divers of the Authors Mr. T. hath quoted but have forborn it knowing that such words are not confutations but revilings I am confident that the intelligent Reader hath seen that the allegation of Cyprian hath not been absurd to the main point now in question to wit whether Infant-baptisme was in use and practise in the Churches in Cyprians time which so to have been Cyprian hath fully held out unto us and so Mr. T. his absurd is nothing to the purpose GREG. NAZIAN The next witnesse for the same is Greg. Nazianzen who lived about the yeer after Christ 375. * Helvic His words are ** Orat. 40. quae est in sanctum baptisma Baptisme is a seal for them that enter into the course of this life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And therefore saith he speaking of baptisme we must with all care and diligence provide that we want not this common grace or favour Some man may say let these things be so as concerning them which require baptisme but what will you say concerning them which yet are of a tender age and perceive not â—urt or grace shall we baptize them also Yea by all means if any danger presseth thereunto For it is better to be sanctified without sence or feele then to depart this life without the seal and innitiation And of this thing circumcision is a reason to us which was wont to be done upon the eighth day which after a sort did represent a figure of baptisme and was offered or given to them which yet had not the use of reason After the same manner also that anointing or sprinkling given to the doore-posts * Exod. 12.7.13 which were things void of sence did bring salvation to the first-born Concerning others I thus judge after expectation or waiting three yeers or somewhat lesse or a longer space of time for then they are able to hear some mysticall or spirituall thing and give answer and if they understand not so fully and exactly yet they are instructed and informed at length they may sanctifie their souls and bodies by means of the great Sacrament or mysterie of Baptisme * Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Vossius Bill Prun Mich. in Erem render it Baptisme And they that are acquainted with the use of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among Ecclesiasticall Writers Fathers and the Septuagints do well know that commonly by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant Baptisme And so here without all peradventure it being the businesse in hand discussed by Nazian or else hâ—s conclusion had not answered to the
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
integrity or ripenesse of body and mind c. but gives not proofs or reasons but onely one single instance of Augustine himselfe for an universall proposition 3. As we noted afore that Walfrid grossely mistook in the alleadging that one instance of Augustine For Walfrid saith in his book De rebus Ecclesiasticis which we have under our eye that Augustine reports in his confessions of himselfe that he continued a Catechumenus a chatechised person till he was 25 years old before he was baptized when as Augustine saith of himselfe in his books of confessions that he was not converted till about the thirtieth year of his age after which he continued a Catechized one about two years in which time he wrote against the Academians and wrote his Soliloquies and in his 34 yeer of his age he was baptized at Mellain of Ambrose You see then how little credit is to be given to dreaming Walafrid in this point of Augustine 4. Walafrid confesseth that upon the increase of diligent search into divine Religion men of understanding in Christian doctrine finding that peccatum originale Adae c. the originall sin of Eve did hold guilty not onely those that had committed actuall sinne but those that had not according to the 51 Psalm in sin did my mother conceive me and Rom. 3. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God and that from Adam we had all sinned c. That upon these grounds of Scripture they that is those religious men baptized their Infants into remission of sinne And this practise of Infant-baptisme Walfrid judgeth a token of the growth of Religion And alleadgeth Augustins book of baptism of Infants and the African Councills and the Fathers in generall for Infant Baptisme against that of Augustines practise baptized at ripe yeares and withall Walafrid saith That thus those wise Christians did Baptize their Infants into remission of sinnes and for regeneration and not as some Hereticall persons contra-opposing against the grace of God contend that Infants are not necessarily to be baptized And now I hope I have given Mr T. enough of his Walafrid upon his so oft and confident alleadging him and have satisfied the Reader touching him If Mr T. speaks of Walfridus his mention of the invention of Gossips as they call them following upon Infant-Baptisme and spirituall kin of Gossips following upon that as thereby to blemish Walafridus then Mr T. breaks his own shins For Mr T. did go upon the legs of Walafridus to fetch us an antiquity against Infant-baptism If Mr T. doth but use Walafridus his antiquity of the invention of those two things We Answ 1. Gossips were long before Augustines time even in Tertullians time many hundred yeers afore Superstitions of divers sorts crept into the Church soon after Constantines time And spirituall kin of Gossips is but a novell late dream of yester night in comparison of the Church of Rome falsly so called 3. That neither of these inventions necessarily depend on Infant baptisme more then a rope of sand or pebles in a With for as much as if beleevers practised the baptisme of their children it was seldome but one of the Parents were alive in the Infancy of the child Kneeling followed the Communion and adoration of the Elements followed that kneeling yet these do nothing disparage the Communion it selfe in the Institution and substance of it but onely defiled the Communicants that so superstitiously used that sacred thing Thus of Walafridus Strabo Now of Peter de Bruis and of Peter Cluniacensis his Epistles to two A. B B. and two B B. against him which are called Epistolae contra Petro-brusianorum Heinricianorum haereses And well may De Bruis and Heinricus be taxed with Herefie if that be true Cluniacensis chargeth upon them And he professeth twice that he would not accuse them upon uncertainties and reports but upon that writing taken from them and brought to him wherein he chargeth them as from their own mouths that they denyed all the Scriptures especially in the New Testament excepting the four Evangelists Evangelium at supra dixi vos suscipere Epistolas Pauli c. cur non suscipitis Respondetis quia non adeo certa nobis earum authoritas est And for this cause Cluniacensis spends two long chapters in proving the Old Testament and the New to be the true Word of God by quotations out of the four Evangelists which Evangelists Bruis and Henricus did acknowledge and Cluniacensis goes over all the Bible so book after book to so approve them to Bruis and his collegue But to come to the point in hand of paedobaptisme 1. Mr T. tells us that Peter de Bruis denyed Baptisme but tels us not the rest that Peter de Bruis denyed in that very point Mr T. shewed us fairly the green grasse but not the snake lurching in it Truely I could not but with fadnesse read Cluniacensis of Peter de Bruis when I found how there as formerly Mr T. takes here and there a touch of Authors that is for his turn and conceals that which is most necessarily mixed and twisted with it which if Mr T. had but intimated would have overthrown his quotations For Mr T. his Petrus Cluniacensis gives us the first Preposition so he calls it of Petrus de Bruis thus Mar. 16.15 Qui crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui verà non crediderit damnabitur Ex his apertè monstratur nullum nisi exediderit baptizatus fuerit hoc est nisi Christianam fidem habuerit baptismuni perceperit posse salvari Nam non alterum horum fed utrumque pariter salvat * And a little after this is made more plain Nec baptismus sine propria fide nec propria fides sine baptisme aliquid potuit Neutrum cuim sine altero salvat That is unde infantes licèt a vobis baptizentur quia tamen credere obstante aetate non possunt nequaquam salvantur Non rebaptizamus sed baptizamus quia nunquam baptizatus dicendus est qui baptismo quo peèccata lavantur lotus non est that is Mark 16.15 He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved but he that beleeveth not shall be damned Hence it is apparently demonstrated saith Peter de Bruis that none unlesse he beleeve and be baptized that is hath Christian faith and receives and perceives Baptisme can be saved For not one of these alone doth save but both of them joyntly see the Margin ** Neither could baptism without ones own proper faith be ableto do any thing nor ones own proper faith without baptism For neither of them without the other saveth So doth Peter de Bruis after explain himselfe Therefore faith De Bruis to Cluniacensis his partee though Infants be baptized by you yet because through the hinderance of their age they cannot believe by no means are they saved We saith De Bruis do not rebaptize but baptize because he is never to be said
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
the holy Supper to the Disciples 2 Cornelius his and the Gaolers families after the gathering of Churches were not by that numbred to any particular Churches or thereby made particular Churches that we read Now that which exists afore or after a thing without that thing cannot be the forme of that thing 3 That which is common cannot be proper and peculiar But baptisme is common to make men onely visible Christians in generall Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church And therefore though godly men or their infants have been baptized yet the Churches think according to Scripture that there must be somwhat more expressed to make such to own this or that preaching officer to be their pastor or teacher whom they must obey in the Lord and have in singular respect for the works sake Heb. 13. And to cause that Minister to own them as his flock Act. 20. if he meane not to take upon him a power Apostolicall for latitude to extend to all baptized ones Nor can it be pretended that this Minister baptizing them doth make them of his congregation because the Confession of the Anabaptists h Their confession of faith Artic. 41. set forth by the seven brethren of their fraternities say That any preaching Disciples that are no particular Church Officers or pâ—rsons extraordinarily sent but as considered Disciples are designed by Châ—ist to dispence this Ordinance Which we look upon us as a second fault in discipline following upon the Anabaptists Baptisme For we find not that any baptized others but either they were extraordinary Officer as the Apostles or Evangelists Or else particular Churches Pastours or Teachers Nor is there any thing in the Scriptures alleaged in their Confession but to the same purpose we speak Divine reason also concurs with us For a Disciple as a Disciple is only a member of the universall visible Church And so he can conferre nothing but what hee hath And so bring his brother no further in subjection to Church Ordinances than are administred by the universall visible Church and so can never be censured â—in case of lapse unlesse the universall visible Church concur which can never be And so Church discipline falls to the ground 3 Anabaptists have in many ages admitted generally all that will take up their baptisme Epiphan Anaceph p. 408. E dit Lat. Basil Epiphanius shews us in the fore quoted place That they affirme that for a man to stray in some great sin is nothing God required nothing but that hee should be of their faith Augustine in his fourth booke against the Donatists complains and quotes Cyprian as condoling the same That many Corde in melius non mutato c. That many being not changed in heart that renounce the world in words not in deeds were baptized And in another place speaks of it as an error of some in those times Errant qui pâ—aeter delectum omnes ad baptismum admittunt They erre saith Augustine that admit all to baptisme without any choice or difference And one of the late Anabaptists in a book called the marke or character of the Beast sayth that any man upon confession of sin though hee manifest no signes of grace ought to be baptized Thus of faults in discipline 4 By Anabaptisme have been occasioned many unnecessary disputes 1 Whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to baptize signifies to dip to rantize or to sprinkle whereas they baptized in old time some in their beds a See afore or couches b Clinidia therefore dipped not them The baptismes of Tables Mar. 7.4 here the word cannot signifie dipping The Israelites are sayd to be baptized in the Cloud and the red Sea But they were but sprinkled in the Cloud and not dipped in the Sea 2 Whether those baptized by men erroneous in judgment ought to be re-baptized Aug. against the Donatists 3 Whether there be originall sinne in infants 4 Whether they have faith 5 How long they must stay ere they be baptized c Of these 3 last we heard afore severally upon other occasions whether till three years old or under or till foure years old or over or how long whether till as old as Adeodaâ—us who was 15 at his baptisme as some will or till they be 30 years old which was the age of Christ As some thought in Nazianzens time Thus I have given you a taste of the manner of M. T. his disputing in those foure Arguments by an easier retorting them If M. T. condemne these our arguments retorted of impertinencie or invalidity he must of necessity also condemne his own And for my part if he will doe so I am contented that these foure arguments on both sides should goe for blank and so to leave the dispute where we found it as no great matter being done on either side to argue for or against by producing the errors and mistakes of men which may be laid aside on either side and yet a truth be held by either Though I doe not hereby mean to give away the Question of the lawfulnesse of baptizing believers infants And therefore we goe on to give particular answers to M. T. his foure Arguments aforesaid CHAP. XVI TO M. T. his first particular Exercitat § 19. of Sureties in baptisme urged in the minor of his sixth Argument touching humane inventions occasioned by Infant Baptisme We answer Animad 1 That sureties are known to have beene in Tertullians time and two hundred yeeres after in Augustines time as we have touched in divers quotations afore Whence I infer only this that the tenet and practice of Infant-baptisme were held in ancient times 2 That by vertue of Abrahams power and Guardianship over his houshold all his male family had the first signe or seal As the family of Cornelius and the Gaoler had the Governours believing and being baptized And usually those sureties that brought children to Baptisme promised to see them brought up in the fear of God or to that effect Whence I infer though I am not in the least for sureties onely I would have M. T. speak justly of things as they are That the sporting of profession of faith which M. T. here abjects was rather in the sureties that performed not that they promised then in thing it self To M. T. his second particular thence Exercitat of Episcopall confirmation We answer Animad that wee have already declared much of the Patriarchs imposition of hands of Christs imposition of hands of the Apostles imposition of hands of Churches imposition of hands since the Apostles upon little ones and usually after the first seal So that there is not so much human-invention in imposition of hands on baptized persons as there was arrogancy in the Bishops to assume this peculiarly to themselves To M. T. his third particular there That the reformed union Exercitat by examination confession and subscription of the received doctrine
cannot see what M. T. means in that darknesse If he means baptizing of the mother having the child in her wombe we have shewed afore that Councils have enacted against it Or what ever M. T. means we know no allowance given to it by orthodox Churches To his fourth particular of baptizing Infants of unceâ—taâ—n progeny Exercitat We answer Animad that this cannot follow upon our Tenet of baptizing believers Infants If others practises extended further it was the darknesse and corruption of the times without our line and the line of Scripture To his fifth particular Exercitat That they are baptized in the name of the Lord who know not the Lord nor ever perhaps will consent to the confession of his name Wee answer Animad Supposing that M. Tombes means saving knowledge or else hee speaks to little puepose 1 The same inconvenience might Abraham have objected against Circumcision of little ones at eight days old But hee did not yea hee circumcised Ismael though the Lord told him the blessing should be upon Isaak Gen. 17. Secondly The same objection wee can justly make against the Anabaptists baptisme by too much experience and testimony too from some of their writings wherein as we have before quoted that upon confession of sins or profession of the faith of the Anabaptists d See before Epiphan And the book called the mark or character of the Beast such are to be baptized though things otherwise are much wanting or amisse Thirdly If Infants may have saving grace as John Baptist had and those Mark 10. And M. T. before confessed they might And the meer acts of the reasonable soule doe not depend upon the organs of the body much lesse doth grace depend on them and the grace of God may act as conveniently in a well waking child as in a man a sleep or in a swound then we cannot boldly say with M. T. that all Infants that are baptized know not the Lord or doe not consent to the Lord. What they will prove after the promise of God I am the God of thee and they seed is as sure an evidence as the judgment of the Anabaptists touching them they baptiâ—e To the sixth particular Exercitat That Infant Baptime hath admitted into the communion of the Church and to the Lords Supper many ignorant and prophane For who sayth M. T. can deny rightly the right of the Church to the baptized Wee answer To that that of admission of them to the Lords Supper because baptized Animad is a meere Scripturelesse and an alogâ—call irrationall non sâ—quitur The Scriptures that bids give a childe of eight dayes the first seale and doth tell us Christ laid his hands on little ones and no where forbids to baptize believers Infants do tell us Christ gave the Communion only to persons of ripe yeers and forbids us to give it but to them that duly examine themselves It is unreasonable to infer that if one hath committed a fault in not right using the first Sacrament proving ignorant or prophane that he should be admitted to the second till hee amend Yea if M. T. holds Excommunication out and Baptisme an admission into particular Church Communion how I leave him to make out if I say he holds these then I suppose if he were in a particular Church he would give his vote to Excommunicate one that walks profanely after Baptism Then by the same proportion wee may keep back from the Communion one baptized in infancy and after proving profane and by a better pretence seeing by Baptisme we did not admit him into a particular Church where peculiarly is administred the Communion of the Lords Supper To M. T. his seventh particular in the minor of his eighth Argument Exercitat That Infant-baptisme doth prevent the order of Discipline that first a man be baptized and after is among the catechised We answer Animad 1 That God commanded Abraham to give the first signe or seal to all his male Family Gen. 17. After Gen. 18.19 it is said he would instruct his children 2 Instruction may follow receiving the Lords Supper else farewell Preaching therefore it may follow Baptisme 3 Wee have shewed plentifully out of good antiquity and famous modern Authors upon Heb. 6.2 That the Doctrine on Catechizings of Baptismes belonged to unbelievers children before Baptisme and the Doctrine of imposition of hands belonged to believers Infants after Baptisme 4 That to acknowledge one a member of a particular Church by a generall confession and the common act of Baptism is a greater overthrow to dicipline by leaving this man in that condition that you cannot call him to an account nor is hee engaged to come at your call to give you an account however he walks Exercitat To M. T. his 8 9 10 particulars That the Sacrament of Baptisme is turned into a meere Ceremony yea prophane meeting and feasting by Infant Baptisme Men forget Baptisme as if never administred It takes away zeal or at least diminisheth it Animad I say to these that I were as good give no answer to these empty things as to give such an answer as is most sutable for then that answer must be as triviall as the argument M. Tombes can answer himselfe that the same thing might be objected against the institution of Circumcision That there was a Feast at the weaning of Isaack yet no prophanesse and the Feast of Charity accompanied the Lords Supper a good while ere it degenerated That wee can well enough minde at ripe yeeres what was bequethed by Testament to us in our nonage That a sealed Covenant preceding when it comes into consideration by due education cannot cool our zeal towards a naturall worship to own God CHAP. XIX Exercitat TO M.T. his 1 2 and fourth particulars of the minor of his ninth argument That Infant baptisme hath occasioned the needlesse disputes about the baptisme of excommunicates-Excommunicates-Infants about the baptisme of apostates-Apostates-Infants about the baptisme of Next-unbelieving Parents Infants the Grand Parents about the baptisme of being believers Animad Wee answer that in our Churches there are no such disputes about these things We can easily by the tenour of the Scripture resolve on the negative that the children are not to be baptized whiles the next Parents are such as M. T. hath mentioned Exercitat To the third particular that Infant baptisme hath occasioned an unnecessary dispute about the baptizing of the Infants of believing parents that are not members of gathered Churches Animad We answer I never perceived the world troubled with this dispute Divers Churches without dispute can practice the baptizing of such And other Churches without dispute practice it not and so as much as in them is are kept back the more Infants to be baptized at ripe yeers according to M. T. his define who hath moved more dispute then any twenty of our Churches formerly have made
A VINDICATION OF BAPTIZING BELEEVERS INFANTS IN SOME ANIMADVERSIONS Upon Mr. TOMBES His EXERCITATIONS About Infant Baptisme As also upon his EXAMEN As touching the Antiquities and Authors by him alledged or contradicted that concern the same Humbly submitted to the judgement of all Candid Christians By NATHANAEL HOMES And Jesus called a little child and set him in the midst of them and said Except men be converted and become as little children yee shall not enter into the kingdome of heaven whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child the same is greatest in the kingdome of heaven And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which beleeve in me it were better for him that a milstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea Matth. 18.1 2 3 4 5 6. Published according to Order London printed by M. Simmons and are to be sold by Benjamin Allen at the signe of the Crown in Popes-head Alley 1646. TO THE READER DEdications of Books are to me a scruple The truth of God is lesse mine then a day or a place to dedicate to creatures and more able to defend it selfe then any thing on earth And Delarations in Epistles are in my opinion so curious a thing rightly to manage as that there is more hazard of their miscarrying then hope of doing good Yet seeing importunity will not be satisfied without an Epistle therefore thus Hearing of Mr. Tombes his book against Infants-Baptisme comming forth with such a mighty shout of acclamation though of some fitter to admire then to judge this made me in haste to see it if it might prove convincing upon my spirit But finding upon a conscientions weighing that it was not of strength to bereave the faithfull sonnes of Abraham of their right and hope to give the little ones of their tender bowels to the pledge of God the first seal annexed to the promise I am the God of thee thy seed Acts 2. Gen. 17. The promise is to you and your children But like a violent motion to be forced at first and languid towards the end I further considered it And having upon occasion of the question among my brethren then in order to be discussed found that I could fairly answer Mr. T. his arguments with abundant satisfaction to my selfe and some others but all that doubted could not at first hearing feel the weight of every passage I was partly occasioned hereby to give them my thoughts in print And the rather that I might heare the judgements of the Saints whether I had thought aright of the question And if not by friendly conference to cleare up to me the mind of God in it Mean while I could not but lament the untimely birth of Mr T. his Exercitation and his unnecessary falling in travell with it after at least six able brethren and about so many dayes by nervous disput ation had given him so much cause to doubt of his Tenet or at least a while to suspend it For the question about Infants-baptisme is yet rather a controversie of privat persons then of Churches these being most prudentially carefull now rather about the right form of a particular Church to which the administration of the first seale doth nothing contribute at least in the first instant of its generation Matth. 3. Acts 8. Acts 10. Acts 16. For many were baptized in the New Testament whose baptisme neither found them in nor formed them into any particular New-testament Church The Scripture is either contrary to or utterly silent concerning it Josh 5.4 c. Even as the Israelites while they were fourty years in the wildernesse without the administration of Circumcision all the circumcised saving a very few being dead are called a Church Acts 7.38 So that the supposed want of the due administration of the first Signe doth not unchurch a Church or prejudice the proper forme thereof But the insatisfactory calling of the Anabaptists-Administrators of their pretended better baptisme upon a former worseconceited-baptisme being either not extraordinarily called or not having the first Seale themselves or being Sebaptists that is self-baptizers or baptised with the old sort of Infant-baptisme in either of which they are most unlike to John THE BAPTIST hath justly caused many to hold off from them and many to fall away from them And many that are with them to be at a losse where to rest One Congregation at first adding to their Infani-baptisme the adult baptisme of sprinkling then not resting therein endeavoured to adde to that a dipping even to the breaking to peeces of their Congregation Since that the Minister first dipped himselfe Not contented therewith was after baptized by one that had onely his Infant-baptisme Thus doth Gods justice leave us to find nothing in an or dinance when we put too much upon an ordinance and from too much to fall to nothing but a crying out All Ordinances Ministeries c. are all polluted So that as before they could not tel where to end so now not where to begin to reform and so out of that pretence turn As they were in order Nothing Contrary to that unanswerable place Ephes 4. That Christ ascending left a Ministery or Ministeries Ephes 4.8 9 10 11 12. all or some by succession or new election or extraordinary mission still a constant supply of a Ministery for the work of the Ministery the perfecting of the Saints for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ I was thus forward to put forth before others of my abler brethren not out of self-confidence the Lord knowes but beside mine owne private interest in my doubting friends partly from advantage of time in knowing some of Mr. T. his arguments and partly from the assault of them that gave me the first Alarme I sent forth this scattered forlorn hope scarce well rallied and arraied to my mind through haste to set the moveable popularity at a stand if it might be keep the passe and maintain the fight till better help should come in This though lesse then I hoped by reason of pressures of mine own businesse and slownesse of Presses I have attained And so I expect those worihy brethren that have perhaps more time and more parts and reading I am confident then my selfe to carry on the main Battalio and to maintain their ground with those Brigades wherein they are by name engaged For it would have been disorder if not presumption and prejudice to the cause for me to have anticipated them In that I have done as I was hopelesse to please all so unwilling justly to displease any saving in the very opinio in question And therefore let no ingenuous reader take offence either at
the word Anabaptist used onely as the known term of distinction or at the much quotation of Fathers and Antiquities in an historicall way being necessarily drawn thereunto by Mr. T. or at any quicknesse of expression it being if I know my selfe rather the complexion of my stile then any intention of sharpnesse The Lord I trust hath now made me better to know and to make known a Gospel spirit especially in print and preaching If any notwithstanding that have read Mr. T. will not patiently read over those on the other part they cannot be excused of partiall injustice and of unfaithfulnesse to themselves and to the truth in that they will not heare with both eares Qui parte alterâ inauditâ aliquid statuerit licet aequum statuerit haud aequus est It 's the law of England he that without hearing either party passeth sentence though he determine a just thing yet he is not a just Judge The Lord settle thee and me in the truth of the Lord Jesus is the earnest prayer of thy faithfull friend in the Lord NATHANAEL HOMES ERRATA CAndid Reader since the sheets came to my hands as wrought off the Presse casting mine eye here and there I espied these faults page 104. CHAP. I. for CHAP. XII Pag 110. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 142. l. 31. Of Infants not in danger of death for of Infants in danger of death P. 150. l. 23. Sin merit for sins merit P. 217. l. 9. designe for desire P. 202. l. penult take for takes line 28. thus to be blotted out which makes me feare there may be more of the like nature but if so have not time to find them out and so am forced to leave it to thy charity as a Christian to correct or candidly interpret the faults of human frailty that can doe nothing perfectly ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Mr. TOMBES HIS EXERCITATION ABOVT INF ANT-BAPTIS ME. CHAP. I. THe present Tenent saith Mr. Tombes according to which Infant-Baptisme is practised is Exercitation Section 1. that the Infants born of Beleevers are universally to be baptized This Doctrine and practise conformable is doubtfull to me by these arguments 1 That which hath no testimonie of Scripture for it is doubtfull but this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme hath no testimonie of Scripture for it ergo it is doubtfull 1 We put in caution that we say not Infants but Infants of beleevers may be baptized 2 We retort Animadvers that institution against which there is no prohibition is doubtfully laid aside But there is no prohibition against the institution of giving the 1. signe or seal to beleevers children whilest children ergo it is doubtfully laid aside as the Anabaptists teach and do The minor saith he is proved by examining the places that are brought for it which are these Gen. 17.7 c. Act. 2.38 39. Exercitat Sect. 1. 1. Cor. 7.14 Mar. 10.14.16 Act. 16.15.32.1 Cor. 1.16 We answer Animad that the confirmation of our minor is proved by examining the Exercitators examinations of those Scriptures that are brought for the baptizing of beleevers children or infants The argument from Gen. 17.7 Exercitat Sect. 1. c. hath so many shapes that I may take up here that speech With what knot shall I hold shape-changing-Proteus We are sorry that Mr. Tombes should compare an endeavour fully to draw forth the marrow of a text of Scripture which every where abounds with sence to a poeticall fable touching Proteus Animadvers If Mr. T. will justifie that we may with more boldship 1 say of Mr. T. himself that had he been an Vlisses he might have constrained Proteus or a Gordius he might have knit a knot upon him whosoever he be that could not be untyed 2 That if the man for baptizing beleevers infants be a shape-changing Proteus what then is the Anabaptist touching the point in hand and in his answers to the text now in question to wit Gen. 17 For sometimes he saith that this Covenant with Abraham is a fleshly Covenant So Mr. B. S. P. c. sometimes a temporall Covenant sometimes a spirituall covenant and if a spirituall sometimes he saith it is a covenant of works sometimes he confesseth it is a covenant of grace in part But then one while he doubts whether seed here doth not onely signifie Christ another while if it doth signifie more whether it be not onely a particular covenant to Abraham To all which seeing Mr. T. hath occasioned us to mention them we desire to speak a little before we come to Mr. Tombes his answers The Apostle makes but two Covenants Answ 1 1. of works and 2. of grace and this of grace twofold in the administration viz. Old and New Hebr. Chap. 8. Chap. 9. where the Apostle makes it his businesse to set down all the main differences between the old and new Testament-administration of the covenant of grace but never mentions this of the Anabaptists that children of beleevers were to be signed with the 1. signe of the old in the old Testament and not with that of the New in the new Testament But to answer 2 more particularly to the severall reasons Obj. 1. P. H. Whether not fleshly because its a signe in the flesh A. So is Baptisme and holy Supper fleshly or carnal in the signe The outward shell of an ordinance may be carnall when the substance is spirituall Hebr. 9.10 See v. 9. yea see in the Apostles exposition of the whole Ceremoniall Law throughout the Epistle to Hebr. Ob. 2. Whether not a temporall covenant i. e. of temporall things As 1 Whether not of giving Canaan onely so Gen. 17. W. S. v. 8. Or 2 Whether not of making Abraham a father of many nations D. P. So Gen. 17. where it is mentioned three times v. 4. v. 5. v. 6. compare Rom. 4.11 Heb. 6.14 A. You see in the Gospel that the body of the Covenant of grace is God is our God in Christ But the appendices of temporals if taken in the shell as Seek first the kingdom of God and all other things shall be added to you Matth. 6.33 And all things shall work together for good to them that love him to them that are called according to his purpose Rom. 8.28 And I will not leave you nor forsake you Hebr. 13.5 do not make two covenants nor doth the latter make void the former And as considered in the kernel they relate to heaven blessed are ye that shall eat and drink in the kingdom of heaven Luk. 22.32 Behold I and the children Hebr. 2.13 If our earthly tabernacle c. 2 Cor. 5.1 and so fit to be joyned as appendices to heaven All our mammon made friends to us towards heaven Luk. 16.9 So in the old Testament Canaan and children Considered in the shell But in the meaning Canaan signifies the Church militant Jerusalem above Gal. 4.26 And triumphant If Jesus had given them rest Hebr.
a Gospel-covenant 2 That faith was the condition And yet it was administred to children and to some that had no faith either seminall habituall or actuall neither at the time nor after the time of their circumcision namely to Ishmael Therefore infancie or want of actuall faith or possibilitie of never having any true grace are not sufficient hindrances of administration of the signe of the Gospel-covenant But as God knowing all those things did yet command the outward administration and signing of the Gospel-covenant with the first Sacrament in the old Testament upon that ground that God was the God of the father of those children So thus far by Mr. T. his grant we may likewise signe the Gospel-covenant in the New Testament 2 To the distinction of the divers forms in which the things of the Gospel covenant were signified c. We answer What essentiall difference of form is there between the expression to Eve under the name of the seed of the woman and that to Abraham in the name of his seed or that between bruising the serpents head and blessing men in their deliverance from the serpent And whether was not the covenant as well confirmed in shadows to David who by divine direction set up very many in Gods worship as to Moses And whether the Covenant was not confirmed to Moses under the notion of a successâ—ur to him to wit Christ in the government of directing and preseribing in the name of the Lord. Deut. 18.18 Act. 3.21 22. And of rule namely Joshua called Jesus the type of our deliverance by the Lord Jesus Hebr. 4. to succeed him Deut. 31. Or doth the types of the covenant and the plain meaning Heb. 8.10 make severall considerable forms of a covenant Then sacramentall signes or seals and the meaning of them should make severall forms of the most Gospel-covenant in the New Testament 3 To the variety of sanctions we say that they are not so distinct as that they are not common to the persons mentioned The covenant was as well confirmed to Moses as to Abraham by circumcision to David by both circumcision and the paschal lambe as to the other And as well to us in the New Testament by oath as to Abraham Hebr. 6. Hebr. 7. 4 To the conclusion Mr. T. makes * Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 4. that therfore circumcision signified and confirmed the covenant to Abraham c. We answer That we can by no means be satisfied by this inference from the premisses how any thing is inferred by way of determination of the subject of Baptisme as to shew why children of beleevers should be circumcised yet not now baptized But you will say it lies in the illustration Therefore 5 To the illustration of the conclusion we answer To the 1. partic thus 1. That Baptisme doth as well confirm civill promises and benefiâ—s as Evangelicall as did circumcision Rom. 6. Baptisme signes oâ—scals Christ according to the promise To us a Son is given And God giving Christ with him mark with him freely gives us all things Rom. 8.32 which is further explained of deliverance from temporall dangers so that they shall not hurt us if hit us v. 35. to the end And 1 Cor. 3. two last We have all outward things the world c. because Christ is ours 2 That circumcision did confirm civill promises under a spirituall notion for a spirituall use that is to signifie spirituall things as we shewed afore even as baptized ones are to look upon all temporall things under spirituall confiderations Make you friends that is to further you towards heaven of the unrighteous mammon And all outward things are the addition to seeking and obtaining the kingdom of heaven and the righteousnesse of him that is Christ the King of that kingdom And so this difference is of no bulk to carry any breadth with it To the instance of Cameron we answer that when I seriously read the whole Thesis I can make no more then this that by primarily he means immediately and 1. in order and by secondarily mediately and 2 in order and cannot be understood as chiefly and not chiefly For sure the more ultimate and spirituall an end is and so more like and neer to God the more chief it must be So that according to Camerons instances for he gives three circumcision did more chiefly intend sanctification circumcision of the heart as the Scripture oft advanceth it and so spirituall separation of the mind from earthly things them the separating their nation from other kingdoms by a mark in their flesh So secondly the passeouer signed rather Christ our passeover for the delivery of our souls 1 Cor. 5. then the Angels passing over the Israelites and not slaying them in Egypt So the sacrifices did more intend our spirituall purification by Christ then any carnall purification as Cameron cals it We adde that Baptisme as well as circumcision doth not only signifie regeneration but puts a distinction between them and Heathens at least as all not circumcised in the old Testament were counted Heathens To the 2 partic of the illustration we thus answer That it is not in the formall analogie of circumcision between the signe and the thing signified nor set down in any expresse form essentially annexed to set forth the nature of circumcision that circumcision as circumcision doth signifie signe or seal Christ to come as to come For as Christ come himself was circumcised so many were circumcised after jure divino the ordinance being in full force till Christ was sacrificed if Paul did not by that rule after Christ had been long ascended circumcise Timothy Act. 16. So that for three yeers and an half circumcision from John Baptist ministerie to Christs death ran parallel and even together authoritively in the Church of the Jews in the New Testament in several if not the same subjects in some if not in all that received the 1. seal It is true circumcision and other ceremonies by the concurrence of the circumstance of time of administration in the Old Testament did imply Christ to come but could not of themselves either signifie or consignifie Christ to come for the reasons abovesaid Even as Baptisme either by analogie in the signe or expression of any form annexed as setting forth the essence of baptisme doth not signifie Christ as come For some were baptized as the Scripture cals it before Christ came As those in the Ark 1 Pet. 3. 21. the Israelites men women and children in the Red sea and the cloud 1 Cor. 10.1 2 c. And this the Jews understood as Baptisme and therefore do not say to John wherefore baptizest thou but by what authority Jeh 1.23 And the Rabbins make mention that the Jews foresaw also the baptizing with fire mentioned Matth. 3. To the third partic our answer is this That circumcision as circumcision belonged to all of all Nations and their children that should come in as proselites to the Jewish Church whether
signifies more then lawfully used as a carnall man may use his meat and drinksoberly and for a good end to fit him for his calling namely it signifies thus much That meats c. not prohibited are sanctified by the Word allowing them to us and giving us believing in that Word a right to them in Christ and by the prayer of faith we sue out a blessing upon them But Mr. T. Objects That it is not said 1 Cor. 7.14 The unbeleeving husband is sanctified in or by the beleeving wife but in or by the wife Nor is it said that the unbeleeving wife is sanctified in or by the beleeving husband but in or by the husband the Apostle purposely so speaking that the reason of sanctification may be intimated to be taken not from the faith of the yoak-fellow but from conjugall relation Answ The Syr. Text prevents all imagination of this conceit reading the Text according to the true meaning thus That husband which is not a beleever is sanctified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a beleever And that wife which is not a beleever is sanctified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the husband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a beleever 2. There are two Greek Coppies that Beza saw have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the beleeving wife And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Mr. Tombes not forgetting should not slight 3. Hear reason The Apostles purpose sure enough is to comfort beleevers married with unbeleevers And it is as sure that the Apostle layes the ground of that comfort of the beleeving husband in his condition of husband as oppositely distinguished from his unbeleeving wife and the comfort of the beleeving wife in her condition of wife as oppositely distinguished from her unbeleeving husband For saithe he the unbeleeving husband is sanctified in the wife What wife What can we answer but the beleiving wife And so of the husband Now seeing the Apostle layes it in a proper peculiar priviledge which is sometimes in the husband to wit when he is a beleever and the wife not And sometimes in the wife when she is a beleever and the husband not It must needs be that the foundation of the comfort intended by the Apostle is layd in faith peculiar but to one of the couple and not in marriage that was equally common to both And that faith doth rather sanctifie marriage then marriage sanctifie the married persons A harsh phrase for a Christian That civill marriage is a sanctifier either to sanctifie two unbeleevers which by Mr. T. his consequence it must or to more-sanctifie a condition to one that is a beleever But Mr T. observes further That ' Eâ— is not rightly rendred by in the old Latine and our new English Translation as if the faith of the wife were the cause of sanctifying the unbeleeving husband For no man will say the faith of the beleeving wife sanctifies the unbeleeving husband federally so that the unbeleeving husband should be capable of Baptisme by his wives faith which yet by the good leave of such men be it said doth as well follow from this place as that the son is federally holy and capable of Baptisme for the faith of the parent Neither can it be said that the Parent is sanctified with spirituall sanctification by the faith of the wife We Answ To render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by is tolerable seeing the Apostles do very oft Hebraize and make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew which oft signifies by * Sanctificatâ—â—â— est vir qui infidelis est in uxore fideli iâ—â—â— est per. Hebraismus Sanctificataesi mulier quae estinfidelis in viro fideli id est per. Hebraismus So Tremelius in his Translation of and Notes upon the Syâ— But we regard not whether it be rendred by or in that is in or through the beleiver his faith the unbeleiver is sanctified to him still it will stand good that faith may as well be the instrumentall cause of a lesser thing namely of sanctifying an unbeleeving husband to a beleeving wifes use as it is an instrumentall cause of a greater thing namely of justification Rom. 5.1 And every one may boldly say that the faith of the beleiving wife sanctifies the unbeleeving husband federally in this sence to wit as all outward things that have no holinesse in them meat drink cloaths carnall friends c. may be called federally holy to a beleever that is that they are and shall be for a beleevers good and comfortable use by reason of the Covenant she is in with God though her faith cannot sanctifie her unbeleeving husband federally for the Sacrament of Baptisme 1. Because the line of the Covenant runs not To thee beleeving Woman and thy husband or To thee beleeving husband and to thy Wife But to thee beleeving parent and thy seed 2. Because whiles the woman is a beleiver the husband is said here to be a known unbeleever And whiles the husband is a beleiver the wife is said to be a known unbeleiver according to this 1 Cor. 7.14 And all unbeleevers known to be such by apparent Scriptures are not to be accounted federally holy so as to belong to the Seal of the Covenant 3. Mr Tombes affirmes after that the unbeleeving husband is sanctified TO the beleeving wife The sanctification is not to her as the Covenant of the father is to the Infant but to her the beleever Which three Reasons makes me look on Mr. Tombes his comparison as a very strange one as if not well weighed before it was uttered viz. That it doth as well follow saith Mr Tombes from this place that the unbeleeving husband is federally holy so as to be capable of Baptisme by the beleeving wives faith as that the son is federally holy and capable of Baptisme for the faith of the Parent But let the candid Reader look back on what we have sayd on this 1 Cor. 7. or look forward to the Scriptures and judge whether this be not a very uneven comparison It is further objected by Mr T. that in this 1 Cor. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IN THE WIFE is more rightly rendred in Latine in the Dative as TO THE WIFE But we aske Mr Tombes in what latin is it so rendred Not in the old lat that is by Not in Vatabl that is also By. Not in Beza that is in Not in the Syr. that is also by If you mean is to be rendred or may or might be rendred better in the Dative TO for which you bring seven instances 1 We answer that those instances may be tolerably at least rendred in the ablative notion IN according to the note there of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In. As Gal. 1.16 To reveal his sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IN MEE that is not onely by the sound of the word to mee but by his spirit and the graces thereof and the effectuall
coming to him in their speciall indeavour thereunto Christ encouraging or conniving at their crowding toward him sure it would fairly forespeak that they should get some spirituall good by one ordinance or another afore they returned To Mr. T. his second cause upon the objection in the fourth Reason we have onely this First that if these texts Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. will form a perpetuall rule for confirmation of children by imposition of hands then it will suppose that they are first baptized Secondly that confirmation as confirmation * You heard of the original and manner of Scripture imposition of hands afore though after abused in later ages See Marlo on Hebr. 6.2 is not Episcopall no more then Baptisme of beleevers infants is Presbyteriall but both are Scripturiall if I may so speak to eccho to Mr. T. his distinction To the third cause in answer to the objection in this sixth Reason onely this that this argument may well suppose that they had been baptized whom Christ commanded to be brought to him and so commends this to them That theirs is the kingdom of God and blesseth them Yea can Mr. T. himself suppose lesse then that they were fitter for baptisme then many of the Jewish children for circumcision And if fit matter as is the Anabaptists own phrase why not to have that for which they are fit Obj. O but there was no manifestation of their fitnesse Answ Christ manifests it of children indefinitely that of such is the kingdom of God and to them is the blessing And if Christ commands them to be brought spiritually then sure his command prevails to make them to be brought spiritually And if any be justly repelled from baptisme the first seal sure they can be no lesse then repelled from Christ for that and for so long Matth. 3. And if baptisme taken in its full latitude as an ordinance of Christ may not be said to bring any to Christ to close with him sure it cannot be properly said to bring them to Christ after they be in Christ but rather to confirm them in him To his denying the major we say the major is universally true if taken according to the sence and circumstances of the Scripture upon which it is grounded namely that Christ is most willing they should be brought to him and commands them to be brought to the end to pronounce them blessed and tels us they are fit for it heaven being theirs But if the Proposition be taken as in the expresse of the text indefinitely there is no universall proposition to crosse it as that no infants may have the first seal Secondly saith Mr. Tombes the argument from these texts Exercit. p. 19 Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. for baptizing infants is this Those whom Christ imbraced laid his hands on blessed may be baptized But Christ imbraced infants c. therefore Answ This argument saith Mr. T. supposeth these acts of Christ to have been all one as if he had baptized But this is said without proof In very deed that act of blessing was more then Baptisme Note and yet it had not the same reason with baptisme Job 4.2 Christ did not baptize but his disciples But that blessing was an act by which he obteined some singular gift from God by prayers for those infants upon whom he laid his hands Nor is this benefit said to be bestowed on them for the faith of their parents but of singular favour with Christ as Lazarus with his sisters John the Apostle c. therefore the major proposition is to be denied For there is no connexion between this fact which is extraordinary and the act of ordinary ministery which is to be fulfilled according to the Lords prescription We answer to Mr. T. his preamble before his answer Animadvers 1 That it doth not appear by the argument nor by report nor by any thing that I have read that the Author of this argument or any else ever held that this fact of Christ in blessing the little ones c. was all one with Baptisme 2 That this fact doth suppose a fitnesse in infants for the lesser viz. Baptisine that are fit for the greater namely blessing as here which Mr. T. now confessed to be greater then baptisme 3 This doth suppose that these infants as Mr. Tombes here cals them had received baptisme before they were blessed thus by Christ For we find many impositions of hands in the Scripture but conferred on none that I know but on such as formerly had been baptized yea supposed to have grace See before in our form of argument on these texts of Matt. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. and the learned on Hebr. 6.2 4 That their baptisme was bestowed on them for the faith of their parents their parents being by all means to be supposed to be beleevers living in the Church of the Jews and circumcised and now they for who more likely bringing their children to Christ after the Jewish custome as to some great Prophet these children after their baptisme have this blessing bestowed upon them 5 I do not find where or what that is Mr. T. means touching Lazarus and his sisters and John But Mr. Tombes will not find us a place or particular where any were blessed by Christ with this solemne form of blessing which was not onely by lifting up of hands in prayer but with laying down of hands upon them but by all circumstances it presupposeth baptisme if not a manifestation of grace too 6 Mr. T. will not find any imposition of hands for spirituall use upon any in the New Testament but on such as by all means must be supposed to have been baptized As in the old Testament the Patriarks layed not their hands of blessing but on those that had been circumcised Secondly to Mr. T. his deny all of the major Proposition as if there were no connexion between this blessing and baptisme We say first there is a connexion in the things as between the foundation and the edifice as between first and second the second supposing the first And there is a connexion in the argument à fortiori If the greater be done which is not done till after the lesser then the greater supposeth the lesser as its introductorie To the touch that this blessing by Christ by imposition of hands was extraordinary 1 It was not extraordinarie that is unusuall for it was customary with the Patriarks and Prophets to lay on hands and blesse them that had the 1 seal circumcision 2 If extraordinary signifies supernaturall so is every ordinance both in the institution and efficacie supernaturall 3 If extraordinarie be put here to signifie extraordinary gifts above ordinarie saving grace or the increase of it there is nothing in these texts to make it out For here is nothing to represent the same but confirmation of saving grace other miracularie or supereminent gifts to act withal were not given to children that we read 4
namely Vnction and to prove that neither Vnction or imposition of hands were Sacraments which though he proves by this argument that they were only appendices of Sacraments yet he doth not assert as from himselfe or from Antiquity that imposition of hands was to be conjoyned with Baptisme but rather tels us the contrary partly from himselfe partly from those authors he quotes As that the rule of the Roman Church was that they gave in command that men should be reconciled by imposition of hands Sect. 53. That reciliation is proper to repentance Sect. 54. That though confirmation belongs to the solemnities of Baptisme yet after a while after Baptisme To Mr T. his Quotation of HIERONIMVS Tom. 2. In his Diolog Adv. Lucif 1. We reply that if Hieronimus doth confesse imposition of hands on them that had been baptized though he doth not alleadge all Scriptures for it and so not that Heb. 6.2 the antiquity holds good that Imposition of hands was used to bee after applyed to them that have been baptized 2. That Hieronimus in that place quotes other places then the Acts of the Apostles and speakes to our purpose thus Orth. Neither can it be that he that is holy in Baptisme can be a sinner c. Luc. I receive a Lay penitent person by Imposition of hands and invocation of the Holy Spirit Knowing that the Holy Spirit is not conferred by Hereticks Orth. Seeing that hee that is baptized in the name of the father sonne and holy spirit is made the Temple of God c. it appeares that Baptisme is not without the holy spirit And to prove that that place Acts 19.2 did suppose they had received the saving gifts of the Spirit in Baptisme he brings Math. 3. That Johns Baptisme was a Baptisme of Repentancè into remission of sinnes And a little after if John did not baptize in the Spirit then not into remission of sinnes For no mans sinnes are remitted without the spirit So Hieronimus Wherefore he supposes Imposition of hands may be on them that had the spirit in Baptisme afore So Hieronimus with much more which we omit to avoyde tediousnesse Thus far of Mr Tombes his first Argument against Infant-Baptisme CHAP. XI THe second Argument followeth Exercitat That which agreeth not with the Lords institution of Baptisme Argu. 2 § 15. The Argument from the institution of Christ Mat. 28.19 against Infant-baptisme confirmed that is deservedly doubtfull But the rite of Infant-Baptisme agrees not with the Lords institution of Baptisme Ergo. The Major is proved because Institution is the rule of exhibiting worship to God The Minor is proved from the words of Institution Mat. 28.19 Going therefore disciple ye all nations baptizing them Whence I gather thus That rite agrees not with the Lords Institution of Baptisme according to which they are baptized whom the Lord appointed not to be baptized But after the rite of Infant-Baptisme they are baptized whom the Lord appointed not to be baptized Ergo. The Major is manifest of it selfe The Minor is proved The Lord appointed not Infants to be baptized Ergo. The Antecedent is proved Those and no other the Lord appointed to be baptized who have been made Disciples But this cannot be said of Infants Ergo. The Argument is confirmed from Iohn 4.2 where it is said that Iesus made more disciples then that he baptized first it is said that be made disciples then baptized Some one perhaps will say that Baptisme of Infants is elsewhere instituted although not here To which is answered Let he that can bring forth that institution and the doubt will be loosed But Infants may be disciples for they may be sanctified by the Spirit Answ It is true Infants may be sanctified by the Spirit of God purged by the blood of Christ saved by the grace of God my minde abhors from the doctrine of them that assert That Infants not baptized necessarily perish or are deprived of the Kingdome of God nor do I doubt but that the Elect Infants dying in Infancy are sanctified yea if it should be made known to us that they are sanctified I should not doubt that they are to be baptized remembring the saying of Peter Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have receined the holy Ghost as we Then you will say make disciples in that place may be so expounded as that it may include Infants Answ It follows not but this onely follows that in case extraordinary we may depart from the ordinary rule But the ordinary rule is make disciples that is by preaching the Gospell make disciples as appears from Mark 16.15 and baptize them to wit whom you have made disciples and in the ordinary course of Ministery we must follow the ordinary rule Perhaps some one will except that Christ teacheth that such disciples should be baptized but that the speech is not exclusive Refut But it is meet he remember who shall thus except if institution be the rule of worship it is necessary that he that shall administer the worship binde himself to the rule otherwise he will devise will-worship and arrogate the Lords authority to himself Surely the Apostle in the businesse of the Lords Supper insinuates this when being about to correct the aberrations of the Corinthians concerning the Lords Supper he brings forth these words 1 Cor. 11.23 For I have received of the Lord that which I also have delivered unto you Besides as Christ Mat. 19.4.8 argues from the institution of Marriage against Divorce for a light cause and Polygamy because it is said Two not more then two shall be one flesh so in like manner it may be here argued Christ said Baptizing them and not others therefore these and not others are to be baptized But as for him who gathers from this place Infants are to be baptized because Christ Commands all Nations to be baptized verily he is faulty 1. In casting away that restriction that Christ hath put 2. By determining that all men whatsoever are to be baptized so that this is not a priviledge of beleevers and their children but common with them to all Infidels and their children And in very deed however assertors of Infant-baptisme crack of a priviledge of beleevers and their off-spring not onely the usuall practise of baptising any little children offered but also Sayings prove that men have gone far not onely from Christs institution but also from the principles upon which men at this day are busie to establish Infant-baptisme I shall prove this by some instances In the 59 Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus from which Augustine is wont in his disputations-against the Pelagians to take his proof for Infant-baptisme and to which Writers attribute much although that I may say no worse without cause this reason is put why it was not assented to Biship Fidus who thought that an Infant was not to be baptized afore the eighth day according to the Law of ancient Circumcision We
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
T. yet he would be beleeved in his Exercitation 8 What is all this that Mr T. hath said to the point in hand For we alleadge not Fidus his Epistle to Cyprian but Cyprians to Fidus relating their judgement and reasons for Infant-baptisme of which afore largely and fully And now observe that Cyprian saith in the name of the rest in that his Epistle to Fidus that concerning that opinion That the footstep of an Infant in the first dayes of his birth is unclean and so not to be then baptized It seemed far otherwise to all of us in the Councell and then reasons against it 9 Hierom and Augustine did not so rely on Cyprian but that they had many reasons of their own out of scripture to prove Infant-baptisme of which after 3. Mr T. objects against Cyprians Epistle to Fidus EXAMEN Sect. 7. you saith Mr T. to Mr M. say Cyprian assures Fidus that by the unanimous consent of 66. BPP in a Councell baptisme was to be administred to Infants c. and not to be restrained to any time which is true saith Mr T. but you add saith he to Mr M. and proves it by such arguments as these They are under originall sinne they need pardon are capable of grace and mercy God regards not age But saith Mr T. the resolution of Cyprian with his colleagues is not so lightly to be passed over seeing the determination of this Councell as far as I can finde by search is the very spring head of Infant-baptisme To conceive it aright it is to be considered that you are mistaken about the proofe of their opinion the things you mention are not the proofe but are produced in answer to objections The proofe is but one unlesse you will make a proofe of that which is in the close of the Epistle which is That whereas none is to be kept from Baptisme and the grace of God much lesse new-borne Infants who in this respect do deserve * â—he words â—â—erentur de â—ight have â—in translated â—ore favouraâ—ly by Mr T. â—or 1. Mercor â—â—gnifies someâ—â—mes onely to â—â—et attain or 〈◊〉 receive 2. â—n opposition â—â—o merit Cypriâ—n saith nihilâ—liud faciunt â—ot agunt 3. â—e saith de â—pe nostra Now what can â—n Infant meâ—it of a man 4. There is a â—ifference beâ—ween mereri â—liquid and mereri de aliquo which latter oft signifies to owe to one As Infants owe more to Gods mercy 5. It is said Gods MERCY more of our ayd and of Gods mercy because in the beginning of their birth they presently crying and weeping do nothing but pray The onely proof is this the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to none that are borne of man for the Lord saith in the Gospel that the son of man came not to destroy mens soules but to save them and therefore as much as in us lies if it may be no soul is to be lost and therefore all Infants at all times to be baptized Animad We answ That in much of all this Mr T. rather seems to pursue a man then the matter I shall rather pursue the matter then Mr T. for so doing Therefore I animadvert First the Matter is not of consequence whether there be one or two or three proofes Doubtlesse the ingenuous reader may see in that Epistle that infant-Infant-baptism is argued for out of Scripture first and last in the middle according to the light of the times And let us blesse God for that of their records we have to shew us the practise of ancient Churches in many materiall points Had we lived in their times it is a question whether we should have seen as much as they did If we now see more its because we dwarfes are set upon the shoulders of those Gyants Secondly that Cyprians Epistle is not the spring-head of Infant-Baptisme First Because that Councell of which Cyprian speakes in that Epistle did not first coyne that opinion as meerly their opinion depending upon their Votes but as arguing it according to their Light out of the Scriptures 1. That it is a part of Gods favour that sent his Son to save and that is by Ordinances 2. The equalitie of Gods divine gift to all Infants and men as in Elisha his fetching the child to life 3 God is no exceptor of persons and so not of ages 4 That by that law which is now established spirituall circumcision is not to be hindred by the carnall circumcision that is as he had said afore in that Epistle by restraining baptisme to the eighth day and not under but to admit all that is of all ages and to count none unclean as Peter speaks Act. 10. with other Reasons there urged Secondly because that Fidus afore the advise of this Councell as it seems come was for baptisme of Infants no doubt from the ground of circumcision onely he stuck too much on the ceremonie of the eighth day Thirdly before Cyprian or that Councell were Justin Martyr Irenaeus Clem. Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen all for Infant-baptisme in many passages all which we have before translated alledged and discussed excepting Clem. Alexandrinus See in the margin after CLEM. ALEXAND whom we alledge by and by after this Therefore Mr. T. how ever it seem to you it cannot seem to us that the resolution of Cyprian with his Collegues was the spring-head of Infant-baptisme To the last clause therefore all Infants at all times to be baptized we shall speak to in our Answer to the next objection Secondly EXAMEN Sect. 7. Mr. T. objects against Cyprian out of that we have translated that his testimony conteins some grosse things as first that they thought baptizing giving Gods grace and the denying it the denying of grace Secondly they thought that the souls were lost that were not baptized Thirdly that therefore not onely Infants of believers but all Infants were to be baptized Whence Tossanus in his Synopsis notes this for Cyprians error that he taught that Infants were straight wayes to be baptized lest they perish because that the mercy of God is not to be denied them We answer 1. In generall If we should grant all this to be true Animadvers yet this doth not overthrow but that in Cyprians time the Churches held Infant-Baptisme and that is the main point in hand Secondly in particular we answer To the first particular we say that what error or hurt is it to say that baptisme gives grace instrumentally and that without warrant wittingly to deny baptisme is to deny Gods grace Even as it is said in the Scripture The word of life The washing of regeneration The bread we break is the communion of the body of Christ So on the contrary Where there is no vision the people perish Vnlesse we are born again of water and the Spirit we cannot enter into the kingdom of God All which are meant instrumentally and according to Gods oâ—â—inary dispensation allowing him his prerogative
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 the youngest and learnedst and most orthodox and pious knew well the last generation in which they lived His words are very considerable in his tenth book De Genes ad literarum cap. 23. The custome saith he of our Mother the Church in baptizing little children is by no means to be despised nor altogether to be reputed superfluous nor by all means to be beleeved but that it was an Apostolicall tradition Where he means by Apostolicall tradition the Apostles Doctrine delivered brought down to us in the book of the New Testament by tradition or handing of it from one generation to another So to be his meaning is plain 1. Because Augustine in his dispute against the DONATISTS for Infant-baptisme Li. 4. de Bap. cap. 21. prove it from the Scriptures 2. Because in his first book De pecc mer. remiss cap. 26. saith thus Some of the PELAGIANS do grant under some notion that little children are to be baptized who cannot go against the Authority of the universall Church which without all doubt was delivered to them by the Lord Christ and his Apostles 3. In his tenth Sermon of the words of the Apostle speaking of the Baptisme of little children saith let no man whisper unto you strange Doctrines This the Church alwayes had alwayes held This it received from the Faith or Faithfulnesse of our Ancienters And this it keeps with perseverance to the end 4. These things to be most truly spoken by Augustine we doe know saith Vossius by this that the Pelagians some of them durst not deny them For Augustine writes in his second Booke against Coelestius and Pelagius that Coelestius himselfe in a booke which he put forth at Rome confessed in these words Infants are baptized into remission of sinnes according to the rule of the universall Church and according to the SENTENCE OF THE GOSPEL But observe his cunning in what sence he meant that Infants were baptized into remission of sinnes to wit into future remission if they lived to commit actuall finnes and thereby stood in need of pardon not into present remission of sinnes whiles Infants as not standing in need of pardon or else they that is Pelagius Coelestius and their Sect said onely in words that Infants were baptized into remission of sinnes but thought otherwise in their Principles they held This is plaine out of the Affrican Councell held under Boniface and Celestinus in the 77. Canon whereof it is thus Item placuit qui parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat c. that is It pleaseth the Counsell that whosoever denieth that little ones newly borne from the mothers wombe are to bee baptized or saith that they are baptized into remission of sinnes but they contract or draw nothing of originall sinne from Adam which need to be expiated by the laver of Regeneration whence it followes that by them the forme of Baptisme into remission of sinnes is not truly but falsly understood let him be Anathema Thus the said Counsell By the playster made by this Counsell you may perceive the disease of Pelagius c. And in the Epistle of the Councell of Carthage Anno 416. Bin. to Innocentius which is word for word the 90. among Augustines Epistles there is this mentioned that Pelagius and Coelestius deny the Baptisme of Infants because say they Infants perished not neither is there in them that that needs salvation or to be redeemed with so great a price for as much as in them is nothing vitiated nothing is held captive under the power of the Divell neither is it read that bloud was powred out for them unto remission of sinnes Albeit Coelestius in his Booke hath already confessed in the Church of Carthage that Infants also are redeemed by the Baptisme of Christ And then to explaine this how many and how or in what manner confessed this with Coelestius the following words fitly serve But many who are represented to us to be or to have been their Disciples doe not cease to affirme these evills whereby they endeavour by all the craft they can to overthrow the Fundamentalls of the Christian Faith So that if Pelagius and Coelestius be corrected or if they say they never thought those things and deny those writings to be theirs what or how many-soever they be that are brought against them yet is there not whereby to convince them of a lye So the Epistle of the Councell at Carthage Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 8. But Mr. T. hath many things to say against Augustine in his EXAMEN That the Authority of Augustine was it which carried the baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controul as may appear out of Walafridus Strabo placed by Vsher at the yeer 840. who in his book De rebus Ecclesiasticis chap. 26. having said That in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them onely who were come to that integrity of minde and body that they could know and understand and what profit was to be gotten in baptisme what is to be confessed and beleeved what lastly is to be observed by them that are new born in Christ confirmes it by Augustins own confession of himself continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized But afterwards Christians understanding Originall sinne c. Ne perirent parvulisi sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur statuerunt cos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod et S. Augustinus in libro de bapismo parvulorum ostendit Africana testantur Concilia aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and addes one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these wordes Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem vt sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem carnalem Quod si casu evenerit non habebunt carnalis copule deinceps adinvicem consortium qui in communi filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacensis placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis who denyed Baptisme of Infants sayes of him that he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of Greeke and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas therefore he runnes to the Scriptures he alleageth the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infants Baptisme by and then addes Quid vos ad ista Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis negate From these passages I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedo-baptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greeke
spare the Greeks or men of any other language But if perhaps they at least by meanes of your sober examination have escaped your peremptory sentence what is that to me So far forth as concerns the businesse in hand it little or nothing advantageth seeing I am onely a Latine I cannot use those testimonies of a strange tongue which I understand not whereby I may convert or convince you Because ye disdain to give credit to the holy learned Doctors of the Church I must return to the most pure fountain of all rivulets and witnesses are to be brought out of the sayings of the Evangelists Apostles and Prophets if neverthelesse you receive so much as them This is the onely likely place that I finde in all Cluniacensis his chapters and Treatises agaist De Bruis touching the point of paedobaptisme which I can imagine Mr T. should mean And in all this let the reader judge whether Mr T. his 3 suppositions in his Observation can be found but rather the contrary As 1. That Cluniacensis did not urge the Latine Doctors but expresly waved them And of Augustin particularly he saith in another place in arguing against De Bruis out of the Scriptures Eeâ—â— hoc non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli I have produced this not out of Augustine but out of the Gospel 2. That therefore Augustines authority is not advanced in this point by Cluniacensis against De Bruis 3. That De Bruis did not appeal to the Greek Church nor doth Cluniacensis charge it upon De Bruis that he the said Bruis being ignorant of the Greek did appeal to the Greek Church But as you heard in the translation of Cluniacensis That he the said Cluniacensis professed himself a meer Latine ignorant of the Greek For Cluniacensis makes a supposition that perhaps De Bruis and Heinricus might despise the Greek Church and other Churches as well as the Latine Or if perhaps they did not despise the Greeks yet Cluniacensis being a Latine could not urge them So also in the Translation afore And there is the lesse probability that Cluniacensis should charge De Bruis with appealing from the Latine Church to the Greek as if it sided with De Bruis in the point of Anabaptisme For Cluniacensis urgeth on his own part the Greek Church for Paedobaptisme against De Bruis in a generall historicall way thus Tota Gallia Hispania Germania Italia ac universa Europa a trecentis vel quingentis ferè annis nullum nisi in infantiâ baptizatum habuerit That is All France Spaine Germany Italy and all Europe hath not had any baptized for the 300. or 500. yeers but Infants All Europe containes Greece Continent and Islands And Cluniacensis wrote as Mr T. quotes out of Vsher about the yeer after Christ 1150. and so his 500. years reacheth up to 650 after Christ This passage of Cluniacensis comming to my eye as I read him I observed after that Mr T. should think that Cluniacensis charged De Bruis with appealing to the Greek Church as with him against Infant Baptisme When as Cluniacensis at most doth but intimate that perhaps De Bruis and Heinricus may not so peremptorily censure the Greek Doctors as they had the Latine However if they didor did not Cluniacensis was not skilled in Greek Doctors to quote and urge them to convert or convince De Bruis and his collegue which to me is an intimation that Cluniacensis had understood some how by Latine history or report that the Greek Doctors also were for Infant Bapiisme or else he would not have spoken by way of excuse that he was onely a Latine and not skill'd in the Greek thereby to convert or convince De Bruis in case he had appealed to them After the allegations aforesaid of Walafridus and Cluniacensis Mr T. goes on in the same Section of his EXAMEN to tell us a story EXAMEN sect 8. That the reason of Augustines authority was this The Pelagian heresie being generally condemned and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed as being the hammer of the Pelagians the following refuters of Pelagianisme namely Prosper Fulgentius c. the Councils that did condemne it as those of Carthage Arles Milevis c. did rest altogether on Augustines ARGUMENTS and often on his Wordes We answer that here Mr T. asserts much without any proofe Animadver and to what great purpose I know not But I must follow Mr T. Therefore we say It Augustines workes were greatly esteemed as the hammer of that detestable Heresy of the Pelagians then generally condemned as Mr T. confesseth I hope Mr T. dislikes not this that men should be famous for opposing an infamous heresie especially seeing by Mr T. his words Wicked Pelagianisme was as well generally condemned as hammered by Augustine who could do no lesse in faithfullnesse to the place and time he lived in against an heresie bolted forth just in his time when he began to bee famous And they that condemned the totall of Pelagianisme That men by their own free will can repell sinne and keepe the Commandements so apparent against Scripture as was no need for any to pin their faith on Augustines sleeve they could not but condemne that shredd of Pelagianisme See before in our Quotat of Hierom and the Council of Carthage and the 90. Ep. among Aug. Epistles That Infants need not be baptised into remission of sinnes as having none but if they must needs be baptized then they are only baptized into the Kingdome of heaven An apparent lye against the truth of Scripture That saith in Adam we all dyed who sinned not after th similitude of his transgression Rom. 5. And in sinne did my mother conceive mee Psal 51. with many more Scriptures which would have informed the Churches if Augustine had held his peace that Infants have sinne in them and are baptized into remission of sinnes or into nothing Or if the Churches had wanted prompting from learned men Cyprian Clem. Alexandrinus Hierom with many other ancient orthodox learned yea Mr T. his Walafridus would have held out so much if Augustin had been mute For Prosper its true he hath some verses on the Acts of the Councill of Carthage wherein being inflamed with an incomparable zeal against the Pelagian heresie he describes the convention of the Africans * Vide Notas in Concil Capthag Et Baron an 416. nu 4 5 6 7 8. But what is this to Prospers resting upon Augustine or if Prosper writes De Gratiâ libero arbitrio in defence of Augustine this shewes that he was rather an Advocate for then a Client to Augustine Therein Augustines workes depended on him not hee on them And if hee writes to Augustine in that not as from Augustine For Fulgentius I finde not that he doth quote Augustine in the main dispute touching Pelagianisme in his responsory book to Peter Deacon but often and aptly quotes the Scriptures In his bookes to Monimus touching piae destination
the Scriptures as we have often quoted and then the result of Mr T. his argument will be only this Augustine read the Scriptures for originall sinne in Infants and Infant-baptisme and so did the Councill of Milevis Ergo the Councâ—ll â—f Milevis depended on the authority of Augustine A non-sequitur that every man will perceive Two Councellours urge the same clause of a statute or the same deduction thence clear to both their reasons will it follow therefore that the ones judgement depended on the other But saith Mr T. I value Augustines judgement EXAMEN just so much as his proofes and reason weigh Wee answer Animadver That 's well But as we may not extoll good men too much so nor depresse an Augustine a Luther as if we would by a back blow strike out their eyes and then say they saw nothing Augustines retractations and Luthers voluntary suffering of so many losses and crosses for the truth are incomparable signes they aspired not to be high in authority over mens consciences Augustine argued out of the Scriptures plentifully according to his light for that he held so doth Mr T. so do others Therefore let us not too rashly despise one anothers arguments The Councill of Milevis did Anathematize them that did deny originall sinne and perhaps them that said Infants were not baptized into remission of sinnes but they do not curse them that will not make Infants originall sinne an argument for Infant-baptisme Sure Augustine did not so Anathema and therefore the C. of Milevis tooke no such thing from him and therefore no wonder they doe not practise it But Mr T. again urgeth the baptisme of Augustine at above 30 years old EXAMEN §. 8. of Alipius his friend at ripe years of Adâ—odatus his sonne at 15 to prove that the custome of baptizing Infants was not so received as that the Church thought it necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their Infancy Wee answer first in generall Animadver That they were perswaded that of Equity they ought to baptize all Christians children as the stream of Antiquity hath carried it of which afore abundantly And Mr T. himselfe chargeth Augustine and Cyprian that they thought too many Infants were to be baptized namely all that had Christian parents or undertakers If therefore in fact some few were not baptized in infancy it must needs be that there was some outward forcible stop no inward lett in the judgement As the Israelites in fact gave not their children the first Seal or signe of Circumcision for 40 years in the wildernesse by reason of their pilgrimage there so long and God bare with it though by equity they should have done it upon the eighth day after birth upon pain of cutting off Gen. 17. 2 In particular Touching Augustine's baptisme that it was not done till he was about 34 or 35 yeares of age we have before acknowledged and we shall give a full account why anon after when we have done with this 8. Sect. of Mr T. his EXAMEN and returne to his EXERCITATION Section 17. where Mr T. urgeth the same thing touching Augustine But mean while for Adeodatus Augustines sonne if Mr T. be sure he was baptized at 15 the cause might be this Seeing Augustine when he was at mans estate about 32 years old ranne into most blasphemous errors and after that became Catechumenus A Catechised about two years and so not baptized till about 34 or 35 he might possibly have a sonne of about 15 years old unbaptized till the father were owned in the Church for a Christian and then he and his sonne Adeodatus and his friend Alipius might be baptized the same Day Augustine and his friend being men Adeodatus his sonne being a youth of 15 years of age But there is no mention or probality that either Alipius had believing parents or that Alipius had been long a Christian but rather the contrary * See August Confess lib. 6. c. 7. And it is uncertain to me and not to me only looking more wishly on the wordes of Augustine whether Adeodatus were baptized the same time his father was or no ** Inde ubi tempus advenit quo me nomen dare oporteret relicto rure Mediolanum remeavimus Placuit Alipio renasci in te mecum Jam indato humilita esacramentis tuis congrua fortisumo domitore corporis ulque ad Italicum solum glaciâ—â—e â—udo pede obterendum insolito â—â—su Adjunximus etiam nobis puerum Adeodatum exâ—â—e â—â—tum carnaliter de peccato meo Tu bene feceras eum Annorum erat feâ—me qui decim ingeniâ— praeveniebat multos graves doctos viros Munera tua tibi coâ—fâ—eor do nine deus meus creator omnâ—um mulâ—um potens reformare nostra deformia Nam ego in illo puero praeter delictum nihil habebam Quod enim enutriabatur a nobis in disciplina tua tu inspiraveras nobis nullus alius Aug. Confess lib. 9. cap. 6. Nor is it of moment whether he was or was not For Mr T. his conclusion from these premisses of Augustine Adeodatus and Alipius I say his conclusion that the Church thought it not NECESSARY That all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their Infancie doth not necessarily follow But Mr T. in his EXAMEN Sect. 8. asserts further that though he conceived with Grotius on Mat. 19.14 That Baptisme of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of necessity in Affrica then in Asia or other parts of the world for saith he in the Councilis you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome then the Councill of Carthage yet Mr T. doth very much question whether they did in Africa even in Augustines time baptize children except in danger of death or for the health of body or for such like reason I do not finde saith Mr T. that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases for it is cleer out of sundry of Augustines Tracts as particularly Tract 11. in Johan that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized and the use of catechising afore baptisme still continued ANIMADVERS We Answer 1. For the judgement of Grotius as it appears there we have abundantly spoken of it afore as for us 2. For this particular quotation as applyed by Mr. T. we say besides that it is a naked thing not backed to a sufficiency of a cleer and manifest assertion from negatives especially in the point of necessity we may justly Quare 1. How much more frequencie and necessity doth Mr T. meane How much more can he make appear For sure he cannot dispute from punctilio's And what use will Mr T. make of it if for a time there appeared a grain more in Africa then in Asia An Argument is not managed by countenance or gravity of asserting Men in divers countries may more frequently and with more â—â—al practise a truth and yet the
We answer First we have but now in that answered for Augustine by Augustine 2 That the Papists put too much of justification in faith as it is absolutely considered as a quality may not we therefore hold justification by faith relatively considered as taking in the object Christ So the over zeale of those fathers touching the necessity of Infant-baptisme must not beat us off from the mediocrity of truth touching it 3 For Augustine let us go no further then Mr T. his quotation of him to clear him Tom. 2. Ep. 28. That Infants cannot be saved but BY THE GRACE OF THE LORD CHRIST which he hath commended to us in his Sacraments He saith there they are saved by the Grace of the Lord Christ. And saith only Christ commendeth his grace to us in the Sacraments And for my part when Augustine and others of the Fathers do speak so confidently of the salvation of Vnbaptized Martyrs yea of the Vnbaptized Theefe I cannot imagine that it was their constant absolute opinion that salvation lay in the very bare ordinance Or that all unbaptized Infants were certainly damned We gave you touches afore that the fathers writing infinit much speaking sometimes in one extream against the opposites on the one hand did after in their polemicall dealing with the opposites on the other hand or in a doctrinall way moderate the same So we must take their sayings altogether or we shall wrong them and our selves too And therefore Mr T. might have done well not to have charged up so fiercely upon Augustine and Ambrose in this point seeing Mr T. confesseth presently following That Ambrose and Augustin in his 4 book de Baptisme contra Donatistas c. 22. yeilded That either Martyrdome or the desire of baptisme might supply the defect of baptisme We could add severall other expressions of Augustine to the same purpose Tom. 5.713 Edit Bas contra Donat. l. 5. To. 7.452 Edit Bas Ibid. 101. Ibid. 663. As that death sometimes supplyes the place of baptisme That suffering faith conversion of the heart supply the room of Baptisme That the Baptisme of blood is greater then the Baptism of the river That little ones not baptized have a most easie condemnation Lastly whatever the rigidnesse of Augustin and Ambrose was in some passages touching infant-Infant-baptism the grand point in hand is whether Baptisme in these mens and other fathers times were in practise as an unwritten tradition or as grounded on the Scriptures And for the latter those and the rest of the ancients are full and to purpose as we have heard For Mr T. indeavouring to detract from Augustine touching his inferring the necessarynesse of Infant-baptisme from Iohn 3.5 Because Aquinas and Bellarmine urge the same place for the same point * See Marlorat on the place Bullingers words to me is a poor argument Do the Papists and we agree in no truth Do not generally all our most famous godly and learned Protestants within this last hundred years understand that very place of baptisme And dare any of us in our Pulpits say there is not necessitas praecepti medy a mandatory and instrumentall necessity of ordinances that at our perill we may not wilfully neglect them So that with Cyprian afore quoted we conclude we must not as farr as in us lies debarr our posterity from salvation Likewise the next objection of M. T. is not so considerable EXAMEN §. 8. where he saith that he cannot find among the Ancients for Baptisme that ground of ours that the Covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their Seed For first we demand Animadver must not the worthy Ancients be said to hold a tenet upon scripture-arguments for that is the point at present unlesse they hold it upon all arguments 2 We find few of our arguments against Episcopacy in the Fathers yet in this we side with Aerius against them though they condemned him for Hereticall 3 Antiquity hath somewhat of the Covenant of grace in relation to Infant-baptisme in the things we have afore quoted Tertullian sets recounting in Christ over against counting in Adam Cyprians Epistle tells us in those times they looked to circumcision for Infant baptisme Gre. Nazianzen once and Augustine oft makes parallels and comparisons between Circumcision and Baptisme Tertullian again saith that the children of either parental-sexe sanctified are holy by the prerogative of the seede and the rule of discipline See also before Clem. Alexandrinus and Hesichius yea some of the Ancients were so farre transported in the consideration of the descent of the line of the Covenant of grace from the parent to the child that they did transcend to this opinion that the child conceived and being in the mother at her baptisme was some how baptized in the mother This appeares partly from Augustine disputing the contrarie * August lib. 6 contra Iulian. Col. 11 19. edit Basil and it is not my note only but the note of some others also and partly from one clause in a decree of the Neoâ—asarien Synod held Anno. 313. after Christ as some interpret it ** Balsam et Zanar wherein they decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is the woman great with child may be baptized when she please for in this she that is about to bring forth imparteth nothing to the child that is to be borne Now if this be so Ex malis moribus bonae procreantur leges that a law supposeth a fault then there is some how some what too much inspection in some of the ancients upon the Covenant of grace in relation to the Baptisme of Infants EXAMEN Animadver As for the Popish Schoolmen Biel Cajetan and Gerson touching the necessity of the Baptisme of Infants which Mr. T. alleadgeth we are not carefull to give any answer to them as we are not to care for their opinions Protestants are not tyed to make good the dreames of Papists Or if this will not go for an answer let one of their owne tribe answer them namely Peter Lumbard in his sence of the text 3 of Ioh. ver 5. upon which Aquinas and Ballarmine and the rest of that route towred up on high their too sublime and absolute necessitie of the baptisme of Infants upon paine of salvation Peter Lumbards words are The place of Ioh. 3.5 unlesse a man be borne againe of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God is to be understood saith he of those which may be yet contemne to be baptized To that Mr. T. objects about Augustines opinion of giving the holy Supper to Infants we will answer to God permitting anon when we returne to Mr. T. his Exercitation Sect. 17. Where he hath the same charge against Augustine though it be quite beside the point in hand of Infant-Baptisme and without all coherence of argumentation in the dispute Mr. T. Yet againe urgeth even to a surfeit upon it Augustines opinion of the
Baptisme is sound to be also against the authority of all the Scripture but the 4 Evangelist c 14. p. 161 Robert Lord Brook alledged by M. T. against Infant Baptisme produced by us for it c. 14. p. 194. Baptisme doth not exhibit one a member of a particular Church c. 13. p. 207 Of private Baptisme c. 18. p. 203 C THe multiforme phantasie the Anabaptists have touching the Covenant with Abraham c. 1. p. 2 Their conceits about the Covenant confuted c. 1. p. 2 3 4 A maine difference to be put between the inward efficacy and the outward form of administration of the signe of a Covenant c. p. 4 Children are reckoned with the parents c. 2. p. 8. The Soule an Angell in a body c. 2. p. 8 No Covenant of grace but is mixt in regard of signification of temporals as well as spiritualls c. 2. p. 12 The Covenant largely discussed c. 2. p. 17 18 c. why Melchisedech Lot and Iob are not Circumcised c. 3. p. 26 Churches not unchurched for want of the 1 Seal c. 3. p. 26. Col. 2.11.12 whether Baptisme succeeds in the roome of Circumcision largly discussed c. 3. p. 24. c Cofessions at Baptisme in Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles time nor high nor venterous for fear of persecution c. 7. p. 67 Cyprian Alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 131 Cyprian Obiected against Ibid. p. 134. c. Cyprian Vindicated Ibid. p. 134 13â— c. Clemens Alexandrinns alledged for his Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 143 Chry sostome alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 148 Petrus Cluniacensis misquoted touching Infant Baptisme is rectified c. 14 p. 160 161 c. Of the Councils of Carthage touching Infant baptisme c. 14 p. 167 168 c. Of the Councils of Milevis touching Infant baptisme c. 14. p. 167 168 c. Of the Councils of Arles touching Infant baptisme c. 14. p. 167 168 c. The Covenant was looked upon by the Ancients as the ground of Infant baptisme contrary to M. T. his obiâ—ction c. 14. p. 177 Why Constantine the great was not baptized young c. 14. p. 184 185 Of Episcopall Confirmation c. 16 p. 210 Whether the Church Covenant be an human invention whether divine or civill And whether somewhat equivalent to it be not necessary for unâ—ting people into a particular Church c. 16. p 211 D MAtth. 28.19 Go teach is not rendred to Disciple or make Disciples by the Arabick Syriack and S. Mark or the exactest Latins c. 2 p. 78. or by the best translations of the N. Testament in French Dutch German Hebr. Another Syr. Ital. maâ—g Or by the holy Ghost Mar. 16 15. c. 11. p. 10â— The wide difference between the two words Matth. 28.19 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 2. p. 7 E WHat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies c. 5. p. 42. Text and margin Epiphanius alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 145 Cluniacensis asserts that very few or no Gentiles have bin baptized but in Infancy in all Europe for 300 or 500 yeers afore him who himself lived 1150 after Christ c. 14. p. 165 Of the Baptisme of Infants of Excommunicates c. 19 216 F OF Federar and to be signed c. 〈◊〉 p. 20 21 c. Federall holinesse discussed c. 6. p. 47. c. Fulgentius is not led by August c. 14. p. 167 The forme of uniting a Church c. 16. p. 110 111 G GEn. 17. And Act 2.39 paralleled c. 2. p. 9 The mayn hinges of the Gospel move upon the Covenant with Abraham c. 14. p. 125 Gregory Nazianzen Alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 139 Gregory Nazianzen Obiected against by H. D. 〈◊〉 14â— Gregory Nazianzen Cleered by us p. 141 Gregory Nazianzen Obiected against by M. T. p. 142 Gregory Nazianzen Vindicated by us p. 142 The Greeke Fathers and Churches obiected against touching Infant Baptisme and vindicated c. 14. p. 143 144 145. H. Grotius pretended to be against Infant Baptisme cleered to be abundantly for it c. 14. p. 145 146 147 148 Genuadius alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14 p. 150. margin De Bruis doth not as M. T. instances appeal to the Greek Churches against Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 105 H HIcronymus alledâ—ed and discussed touching imposition of Hands on them that had been baptized c. 10. p. 88 Hefychius alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 144 Hieronymus alledged for Infant Baptismâ— c. 14. p. 149. I IMposition of hands when and to whom applyed c. 7. p. 58 59 60. c. more c. 10. p. 63 c. It supposeth Baptisme c. 7. p. 66 Of Imposit on of hands out of Tertullian and Ierom c. 10. p. 86 87 88 89 Iustin Maâ—tyr and bee under that name Alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 13. p. 110 Iustin Maâ—tyr and bee under that name Contradicted by M. T. Ibid p. 110. Iustin Maâ—tyr and bee under that name Vindicated by us Ibid. p. 111 Irenzus Alleged for Infant baptisme c. 13 p. 115 116. Irenzus Contradicted by M. T. Ib. p. 118 Irenzus Vindicated by us Ibid. p. 119 c. Of the Baptizing of the Infants of Excommunicates c. 1 p. 9. 216. Of the Baptizing of the Infants of Apostates c. 1 p. 9 216. Of the Baptizing of the Infants Of believing Grand parents the next being unbelievers c. 1 p. 9 216. Infants may have saving grace confessed by the Anabaptists c. 21. p. 224 K M. K. answered that Baptisme is not that form or forming of a particular Church c. 15. p. 207 L LVdovicus Vives alledged answered about Infant Baptisme See Vives M What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie whether they differ c. 5. p. 42 Matrimoniall and Federall holinesse discussed c. 6. p 47. c. N GReg. Nazianzen alledged and cleered for Infant baptism c. 14. p. 139 140 c The Neocaesarian Synod alledged and cleered touching Infant baptisme c. 14. p. 146 The Fathers opinion of the necessity of Infant baptism cleered c. 14. p. 178. and c. 17 p. 212 O ORigen Alledged for Infant baptisme c. 14.127.128 Obiected against p. 129 Vindicated p. 129-Orig alledged by M. T. to prove Infant baptisme to be a Tradition c. 14. p. 182-Vindicated by us Ibid. p. 182 P THe Anabaptist as much a Proteus as the Paedobaptist c. 1. p. 2 The priviledges of the O. and N. Testament compared c. 4. p. 37 38 The difference between polliceri and promittere c. 5. p. 42. margin The cunning of the Pelagians opposing Infant baptisme c. 14. p. 149 The many Fathers that wrote for Infant baptisme afore the rise of Pelagianisme c. 14 p. 148 The many that wrote after the rise of Pelagianisme and yet long afore Walafridus c. 14 p. 150 Prosper is not led by Augustine c. 14. p. 166 The most excellent letter of M. Philpot the Martyr against Anabaptisme and where to be found c 20. p. 218. Q WHether the Questions ad Authodoxos be Iustin Martyrs or whose they are and of what antiquity and authority c 12. p 110,111,112,113 R MAster Daniel Rogers alleadged by M. T. against Infant Baptisme is produced by us as for it c. 14. p. 196 Of Robert Lord Brooks in like manner ibid. p. 194 S THe Seed of Abraham distinguished c. 2. p. 15 16 M. T. would have Churches subiect to Nationall Synods without adding any limitation yet disputes against the baptizing of infants as to carry it by argument what ever Synods should determine c. 9. p. 78 The mention in ancients of giving the Lords Supper to Infants 〈◊〉 c 14. p. 188 189 Of Sureties used in Baptisme their antiquity the rise the seeming ground c. 16. p. 210 T HOw the N. Testament quotations out of the Old hold analogy c. 3. p. 26 Tertullian de Corona Militis alledged and discussed touching imposition of hands at Baptisme c. 10. p. 86 Tertul. lib. de Anima Alledged for Infant baptisme c. 13. p. 121 Tertul. lib. de Anima Vossius his sence upon him Ibid. 122 Tertul. lib. de Anima Iunius his Notes upon him Ibid. p. 122 Theodoret alledged for Infant baptism c. 14 p. 150-why the Emp. Theodosius Magnus was not baptized till at mans estate c. 14. p. 187 V LVdovicus Vives urged for adult baptisme and answered c. 9. p 81 82 Walafridus Strabo alledged by M. T. for adult baptisme is answered by Vossius c. 13 p. 109 Vossius intimated for Infant baptisme but is shewed to be for it Ibid. p. 109 Of the union of members into a particular Church c. 16. p. 210 W OF Witnesses or sureties at Baptisme Their antiquity what mistake might bring them in c. 11. p. 101 102 Walafridus Strabo alledged for adult baptisme answered c. 13. p. 109. more largely c. 14. p. 158. Of Womens baptizing c. 18. p. 203 FINIS
new we must in our allegations keep to the substance so the Apostles in alledging Scriptures of the old Testament they kept to the substance not regarding the circumstance as innumerable instances may be given Take this one Rom. 10.15 the Apostle proving that faith comes by hearing of a Preacher that is sent saith out of Isa 57. As it is written how beautifull are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace and bring glad tydings of good things Now the place whence it is quoted Isa 52.7 is thus How beautifull upon the MOVNTAINS are the feet of him that bringeth good tydings c. Because the Word was to go forth out of the mountain of Zion Moriah and other mountains on which the Temple and Jerusalem stood Now this place is to be applied to Ministers now though they come not upon those or other mountains or else the Apostles proof fals to the ground So if the command of the seventh day may not be alledged for a seventh day we have no command for the Lords day Chap 2. in our answer to Mr. T. his 4. Except 1. partic To that of Lot Melchisedech and Job we adde by way of answer beside that spoken afore that if Lot Job Melchisedech were not nor were to be circumcised there may be speciall reasons First not Melchisedech alias Shem 1. because he was baptized in the Ark 1 Pet. 3.20 21. Secondly he was to be a speciall type of Christ in that he came not of the tribe of Levi that ceremonious Ministerie and so to be exempted from that ceremony in the shell circumcision For Lot and Job God would shew in them that he was not so tyed but that he could save without an outward ordinance when he will not extend it or if he please to take ☞ away the opportunitie of having it A faire item for the Anabaptists that put so much in Baptisme that the want of it say they doth unchurch Churches c. Lot and Job had churches in their families And the Israelites in the wildernesse fourty yeers is called a Church Act. 7.38 all which time there was no circumcising among them nor but two Josuah and Caleb circumcised left among them Josh 5. 2 Saith Mr. T. It may be so understood Exercit. p. 5. as if the right of baptisme then began when the right of circumcision did or was of â—ight to end but this is not to be said for John Baptist and the disciples of Christ baptized Joh. 4.1 2. before circumcision of right ceased and they who were circumcised were after baptized being converted to the faith as is manifest concerning Paul Phil. 3.5 Act. 9.18 Answ Yet before Mr. T. saith p. 4. that circumcision did sigcifie Christ to come Animad If Mr. T. pincheth upon that of Christ to come of Isaac we say we see no more in the analogie of circumcision nor in the words of institution for it to signifie Christ to come of Isaac then of Abraham or Jacob. 3 Saith he It may be understood as if Baptisme did succeed in the place of circumcision in respect of signification Exercit. p. 5. which is true in some things First it is true that both signified the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 1 Pet. 3.21 Secondly it is true both signified sanctification and this is all may be concluded out of the place alledged Col. 2.11 12. To which I think it meet to adde that if the text be looked into that place speaks not of any circumcision but of Christs circumcision in whom we are compleat and by whose circumcision we are said to put off the body of the sins of the flesh Nor doth the text say we are circumcised because we are baptized but we are compleat in Christ because we are circumcised in him and buried with him in baptisme in which or in whom ye are also risen together through the faith of the operation of God that raised him from the dead Answ If they agree but in those two significations Animadâ— they agree sufficiently in signification to favour the argument out of Col. 2.11 12. that baptisme comes in the room of circumcision and fitly that as circumcision signified and signed those two to beleevers infants so baptisme now signifies and signes the same to beleevers infants But whether this be all that may be concluded out of the place alledged Col. 2.12 as Mr. T. affirms I shall appeal to the ingenuous Reader of our observations on this place of Scripture which are from the analysis scope argument and method of prosecution which if not exactly attended we may easily feign plausible interpretations for our own turns but loose the drift and argument of the Apostle The Apostles designe is to take off the Colossians from false doctrines of false teachers teaching with entising words Philosophy vain deceit traditions of men rudiments of the world among which were the shels of Jewish ceremonies as circumcision considered in the shell of the outward signe c. And the argument the Apostle useth as the best means to fetch them off was to advance Christs fulnesse to the full worth before the eyes of their minds This designe and this manner of pursuance of it are so oft mentioned and repeated combinedly that they cannot be hid from an ordinary eye looking upon the text Once v. 3 4. again v. 6 7. a third time v. 8 9. Now the Apostle saying ye are compleat in Christ v. 10. Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filled up or made compleat he intimates what need the Colossians hearken after Jewish ceremonies as circumcision c Now because the Colossians might object that Abraham and the Patriarkes had Christ and yet were circumcised too he anticipates and prevents this objection v. 11. saying they had inward circumcision which is the chief In whom also ye observe the also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of sins c. Your persons are not onely circumcised in the circumcision of Christ who is as our common nature and so imputed to you as in Adam the common nature of man we finned and so his sin was imputed to us but you are circumcised with the vertue of Christs grace signified in circumcision to make you put off the body of sins even as Adams sin was not onely imputed to us but his corruption of sin derived into us But because the Colossians might object again that though Abraham had inward circumcision before Rom. 4. yet he had outward circumcision too and so others and therefore they were not so compleat in Christ as beleevers in the old Testament The Apostle preoccupates and prevents this objection too in v. 12 saying that instead of outward circumcision they had been baptized and baptized effectually into Christ Buried with him in baptisme wherein also ye are risen through the faith of the operation of the Son of God c. As if the Apostle should say
them off with an offence and not drawn them on with an encouragement Those places Mr T. quotes out of Rom. 4.13 14 16. Gal. 3.9 14.22 and his assertion upon them they concern the parents to be signed upon their beleeving with the first Seal thereby instating their children whiles children to the same lying under the favour of one and the same promise with the parents I am the God of thee and of thy seed To the 3. particular of Mr T. his answer to Act. 2. wee say that though order of naming things in Scripture be a very uncertain argument to prove the order of nature of things yet we grant the thing it selfe to be true for parents not for their Infants which Mr. T. here doth not prove To the 4 particular we say that the reason of that is because it is spoken to them of ripe yeares pricked at their hearts But else the promise it selfe I am the God of thee and of thy seed or the promise is to thee and thy children according to Gen. 17. is sufficient to give right to them repenting and being baptized to conveigh Baptisme to their children We conclude therefore 1 That M. T. hath not rightly limited the Minor nor justly denyed it unlimited 2. That he hath not rightly answered to the Major To his first reason that the Text is not expresly of infants but of children indefinitely We answer it is meant according to the places where it is quoted Gen. 17. Gen. 22. But those places by seed and children understand as well those but 8 dayes old as others To his 2 reason that the text speakes not of the children of Gentiles at all we have answered afore in the full reading of the text to be extended to the children of them that are called though formerly afar off CHAP. VI. THe Argument from 1 Cor. 7.14 Exercitat § 5. The Argument from 1 Cor. 7.14 may be thus formed They who are holy with Covenant holinesse may be baptized but so are beleevers infants holy Ergo. The Major is not true universally understood as is manifested from Rom. 11.6 If the first fruits be holy the lump is holy c. That is Abraham is the first fruite and holy root the elect Israelites are the branches and lump so that it followes that the elect of the Israelites not yet called are holy in respect of the Covenant and are not yet therefore to be baptized For although they may be said to be holy in regard of the Covenant of old entred into with Abraham and the gracious respect of God to them to be manifested in time yet in their present state they denying Christ neither infants nor men are to be baptized unlesse we would have the branches broken off to be grafted in And therfore though the sence of 1 Co. 7.14 were your children are holy with Covenant holinesse it followes not they are to be baptized who yet manifest no shewes of divine grace 2. The Minor is not proved hence For it doth not speak of federall holinesse but of holinesse that I may so call it matrimoniall So that the sence is your children are holy that is legitimate So Master Tombes 1. To the Major we say That that proposition is universally true de jure in equity Animadver though not de facto in act when God and man concur to make an exception in practise It was de jure in right and equity an universall Proposition That every man-child of the circumcised parent shall be circumcised Gen. 17. So Ismael is circumcised being a sonne of circumcised Abraham but if Ismael in matter of fact turne scoffer and persecutor of Isaac Gal. 4.29 and so be cast out by Gods command Gen. 21.10 his children are not circumcised but suspended from the actuall practise So this Proposition they that are holy with federall or Govenant holinesse may be baptized is by divine right universally true but if in practise the generations of Abraham alive at the comming of Christ will not own the SEED of Abraham Christ and so renounce their own Seed-ship God gives them up in fact to be broken off for certain generations Rom. 11. Left without the Word and Sacraments of the New Testament Act. 13. And yet the jus the equity so holds universally true that when they shall turn to the Lord own Christ the children of them the parents signed with the first Sacrament of the New Testament I say their children shall be signed with the same too Affirmative commands universally binde semper though not ad semper alwayes though not at every circumstance of time To Mr T. his proofe of his deny all of the Major out of Rom. 1◠we say 1. That Mr Tombes cannot make election any footing or ground of the argument of the holinesse of the lump in relation to the holy root Abraham For that were to put aside the Apostles visible argument and fall upon another thing secret to God 2. That would infer that those Jewes broken off were broken off of the election which is impossible But if relation to beleiving Abraham be the footing and ground of the Argument then when the Parents come in by faith to owne Christ their brother in Abraham and so their son-ship to Abraham signed with the first signe appointed at the time of their conversion namely Baptisme then the practise interrupted goes freely on again of giving the same first Seal to the children of all believing baptized parents To Mr T. his answer to the Minor That it is not proved because the place doth not speak of federall but matrimoniall holinesse we reply that so Mr T. saith But in all his tedious Oratorious not Logicall discourse urging mens authorities not his own arguments or confirmed positions he doth not proove Mr T. can easily thinke that Aquinas a Papist whom he quotes and we can lend him Stapleton too and other Popish authours no doubt that will stand stifly with him for the advancement of marriage to have in it a matrimoniall holinesse that it may be the fitter to be a Sacrament according to their interest in the question And Mr T. can as easily thinke that if the decision of the question might be made according to plurality of Votes of Protestant Authors we should soon out-vote him Therefore we shall passe by his Protestant authors and our own onely with this touch His That Camerarius doth not speak so punctually whiles he saith Sanctificatur in conjugij legitimo usu not in legitimi conjugij usu The unbeliever is sanctified in the lawfull use of marriage not in the use of lawfull marriage which latter expression would have better advanced the pretended matrimoniall holinesse and prevented that the lawfull use of marriage be not taken for an using it according to the word and prayer the more likely meaning of this text by far Nor doth the same Camerarius hide or refute another meaning of these Words viz. a sanctifying by faith that is to the believers
shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe shall not enter therein It is spoken occasionall as in a parenthesis which may be left out and the sence of the story of blessing the little children as to whom heaven did belong stand full and perfect Or as that which may be put last as done last after Christs whole speech and action to the little ones and so it is put last Luk. 18.17 spoken by Christ to quip those that kept off the little ones from Christ as esteeming them or the motion of bringing them to Christ contemptible as if Christ said to them you had need look to your selves that ye be so happy as little children c. By all which it appears that this speech about men is not of the body or substance of the solemnitie of blessing the little ones or of the doctrine why they should be permitted to be brought to Christ but is onely a circumstance and cause made to the standers by As for Mat. 18.3 4. there is not a tittle of Christs blessing little ones but the pride of the disciples occasioning Christ to set a childe before them for a text out of which to preach humilitie to them Obj. But lest this exposition of such that is humble men should not stand firm but fall before some such reasons as we have given Mr. T. provides another exposition That of such must not signifie all infants of beleevers but onely them whom he blessed and those persons who either are so blessed or are converted and humble as little children Answ 1. Christ doth not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such 2 Christ speaks indefinitely who shall presume to restrain him with Ifs and And 's The Apostle saith Act. 2. more precisely to you are the promises yet may not we apply that to us when we are pincht in heart for sin being whatsoever things were written afore as the Apostle speaks Rom. 15.4 were written for our instruction or learning that we through patience and COMFORT of the Scriptures might have HOPE for us and ours 3 What ever persons else this may be extended to by Mr. Tombes that doth not exclude other beleevers infants Positâ una affiematione c. one affirmative doth not take away another For Mr. Tombes his denying major or minor we leave the Reader to judge by that which hath been said Those on whom Christ layed his hands must be supposed to have been baptized afore Or if Mr. Tombes could evince they were not contrary to the custome of the Scriptures yet they must be as fit or more fit for baptisme then imposition CHAP. VIII THe Argument from the place * Eâ—cercit Sect. 7. The argument from Act. 15.16 c. for Infant Baptisme examined Act. 16.15.32.33 Act. 18.8 1 Cor. 1.16 is thus formed If the Apostle baptized whole housholds then Infants but the Apostle baptized whole households Ergo Answer This Argument rests on a sleight conjecture that there were Infants in those houses and that those Infants were baptized whereas the words of the Text evince not these things yea those things which are said Act. 16.32 He spake the Word of the Lord to him and to all in his house and vers 33. He rejoyced beleeving God with all his house Act. 18.8 Crispus believed the Lord with his whole house do plainly prove that under the name of the whole house are understood those onely that heard the Word of God and beleeved Whence it is answered by denying the consequence of the major Proposition We reply * Animad If this be but a sleight conjecture whether there were Infants in these houses why do the Anabaptists proclaim with such confidence that for certain there was none and that there is for certain no instance in the New Testament of any baptized Me thinks they should leave it at least uncertain when they say it is uncertain 2 It is not so sleight a conjecture to all as to Mr. Tombes whether there were children For the Syr. in the story Act. 16. hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He the Goaler 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his house Vid. Schindl de voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Buxt Sure enough a son of eight dayes old is a son And if sons of the house then some sons of the father of the house what ever notes may be put on the text different from the words in the text 3 It is not so plainly proved that under the name of the whole house children or infants are not understood First because when the holy Ghost mentions house it means children too if there be no expresse exception Gen. 50.22 for they abounded with children Exod. 1. So 1 Tim. 3.5 for there is mention of the children v. 4. I omit many other instances for brevities sake Secondly where by house children are not included they are expresly excluded Gen. 50.7 8. And Joseph went to bury his father and all the house of Joseph went onely their little ones they left in Goshen Numb 16.32 33. And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up and all their houses and all the men that appertained to Korah Numb 26.11 notwithstanding the children of Korah dyed not Thirdly it is distinctly said Act. 16.32 that Peter spake the word to the goaler and to all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IN his house which is more then to all OF his house The holy Ghost makes some such distinction Rom. 9.6 They are not all Israe that are of Israel So that all IN the Goalers house seems to be put to include those prisoners at large and others that were not of his family but onely in his house at that time by reason of the hurry and noise of the prison open c. running together to see what was the matter Fourthly He spake the Word to all in his house is a speech that may not absurdly in some proportion be extended to children when something by it redounds to children as it is said John leaped in the wombe of his mother Elizabeth And Elizabeth was filled with the holy Ghost at the salutation of Mary And Act. 2. The promise is to you and your children for they should be the better for this The Word was spoken was extended to the goalers children in that by his faith they were nearer to and in a readier capacitie of salvation then before when the father was an enemie What means else that v. 31. Believe THOV and thou shalt be saved and THINE HOVSE Can we possibly exclude here some that were not able to hear the Word distinctly Fifthly it is said signanter acuratcly and by way of distinction for him and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And HE was baptized and all THOSE that were HIS How can this be true if those children he had were not baptized And therefore Mr. Tombes was too bold to speak that latter clause
wrong parties as the Anabaptists pretend both and proclaime thereupon a nullity of Baptisme of such persons justifie that then and there is a due succession of the Church Yet thus hath the Baptisme of beleevers infants ten thousands for one of ripe years continued in Holland Scotland England and other Churches in France and Germany and where other-wise beyond the memory of the oldest man alive Where then hath been the succession of the Church all that while according to the principles of the Anabaptists touching childrens Baptisme Sure they will not hold the preaching of the Word an infallible essentiall note of a Church so long as whiles Infants grow up to be men For true preaching of the word of God on the preachers part may be to heathens Doubtlesse as M. P. and Vossius distinguish Wide is the difference of a Church in the constitution when men of ripe yeares must receive the first Seale from a Church constituted wherein the first Seal descends from the beleever to his child for any precept that appears in the Old or New Testament to the contrary But Mr T. faith in his second particular which will nothing please the Anabaptists perhaps it is not necessary to be said that the Baptisme of Infants because not lawfull is not therefore null Note Wee reply Mr T. speakes but perhaps and it is not necessary and to say so But what perhaps will M. T. say and how necessarily say Baptisme of Infants is all null by that time he hath fully concocted this principle of the unlawfullnesse of the Baptizing of any Infants as thousands of others have done and some honest men and scholars who upon the said principle of Antipaedaptists have turned Anabaptists though they drew their originall of Re-baptisme from most scripturelesse Se-baptisme I may well put the question For by that time M. Tombes is gone six leaves further Viz. in the 34 and last page of his Exercitation he begins to be beyond perhaps and speaks as if it were necessary to say that The assuming of Baptisme in ripe years by those who were washed in infancy is not a renouncing of Baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance conceit but indeed a firmer avouching of Baptisme according to Christs mind If the Reader will but marke these lines well and especially those words we have put in another character hee will easily be a Commentator to himselfe upon Mr Tombes his warping judgement To Mr T. his third particular wherein he aesserts That there was in the Church Baptism of persons grown in al ages and quotes LVDOVICVS VIVES to prove it We reply first to his assertion First that is very generall for an answer to an argument There were persons How many In all ages What meanes that In every hundred yeares or ordinary age of man Suppose sixty years or lesse What is all this to clear a continued succession of the Church in point of baptizing persons of ripe years Secondly let us deal plainly one with another in things of this nature Can M. T. or any else produce proof that in England Scotland Ireland c. there hath been baptized in either of these at least one of ripe yeares every year for these 80 or an 100 yeares last past If not or if so where is a sufficient number to continue the succession of Churches we talke of in point of adult-Baptisme Baptisme of persons of ripe years 2 To his quotation of LVD VIVES we say First he is but of yesterday to say without proofe what hath been in former ages For in all his Notes on August he cites not one Scripture not one Antiquity not one Author nor any thing that may go for a Reason but only tells us of a fashion of questions put to humane-devised God-fathers and God-mothers as they call them and of an hear-say out of Italy a likely place to preserve any pure truth 2. Though Lud. Vives were a good Schollar in Arts yet we must not give credit to him in divine things when his phrase departs from purity and his assertion from verity He saith Nems olins sacro admovebatur baptisterio that is No man of old was brought unto the holy Baptistery Font or Vessell to wash in He puts holinesse in or upon the Vessell in which these persons of ripe yeers were baptized for it should seem by him they were not baptized in a River which phrase of Lud. Vives Mr Tombes covers with a double garment first Translating Baptisterio by the word place that being wide enough in signification to include rivers Secondly Translating sacro Baptisterio the holy place by the place of holy Baptisme LVD VIVES goes on Nisi adulta jam aetate that is unlesse he were of ripe age already Now this is a grosse mistake and opposite to the best approved antiquity that tels us it was a known custome in the Churches to baptize infants within few years after the death of the Apostle John And therefore this custome could not totally invade the Churches on such a sudden without any mention in Antiquity but flowed doubtlesse downe from the Apostles So Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Gregory Natianzen Ambrose Augustine and others For the pretences made by Mr T. against some Quotations of those fathers I doubt not but to take them off and to justifie these antiquities when we come in our XIII CHAPTER to Mr Tombes his fourth Argument against the baptizing of Beleevers Infants In his Exercitation § 17. For the present we have no more to say to VIVES or Mr TOMBES upon this argument but only to admire that Mr Tombes would translate VIVES as if he had said that the person of ripe years desired to be washed more then once in the water of Baptisme for so it lies fairer in Mr Tombes his Translation to please an Anabaptist namely The person of ripe years defired to be washed in the water of Baptisme and that more then once whereas Mr Tombes following the Latin closer which is So ablui illâ— aquâ peâ—eres nec semel peteres he might have translated clearer that he desired and desired more then once what to be washed with that water CHAP. X. SEventhly Heb. 6.2 Exercitat § 14. The Argument from Heb. 6.2 for Infant-baptisme examined The Apostle speaks of the doctrine of baptismes and laying on of hands now this is not likely to be understood of laying on of hands in healing sick persons or bestowing the Holy Ghost for these were extraordinary or miraculous and therefore not to be put in the number of the principles of the oracles of God the foundation milke for babes nor of imposition of hands for ordination to speciall function in the Church for that though ordinary yet not likely to be put among the principles the foundation milk for babes therefore it remaines that it was the laying on of hands on children formerly baptized in infancy which though corruptly made a Sacrament by Papists and superstitiously abused yet being freed from the
abuse were very usefull as being an Apostolicall ordinance from this Text and manifests that there was Infant-baptisme in the Apostles dayes which is confirmed because it is coupled with baptisme and therefore seemes to be a consequent upon it Answ 1. There is great incertainty what this imposition of hands mentioned Heb. 6.2 served for the reason â—prove that it could not be either for healing or giving the Holy Ghost because they were miraculous or extraordinary is not cogent for though they were by more then ordinary power yet were they frequent in those times and might well be put among the elements to be in those dayes first learned nor is the reason cogent to prove it could not be the imposition of hands in ordination for speciall function in the Church for it is more likely that it should be meant which it is certain was still in use and to continue to be used and therefore it was needfull to be taught younglings as well as the doctrine of baptismes then laying on of hands for confirmation of baptisme of which there is no certainty though pretended examples in scripture be brought to give some colour to it nor is imposition of hands in ordination unfitly coupled to baptisme both being ordinances for initiation the one into the profession of Christ the other into sacred function 2. But if it were supposed that this imposition of hands meant Hebr. 6.2 were on the the Baptized yet this proves not the baptisme of Infants in the Apostles dayes unlesse it could be proved that it was used after the Baptisme of Infants onely for a confir mation either of the Baptisme or baptized On the contrary it is apparent out of Tertul. de Corona militis C. 3. That in the primitive times the baptized did make his confession at Baptisme sub manu antistitis that is the Minister laying hands on him And to save labour in reciting testimonies Chamier may be seen who in his Pans Catholicâ tom 4. l. 1. c. 11. Sect. 14. at large proves out of the Ancients that the imposition of hands which after was made a distinct Sacrament called Confirmation was either a part or appendix of Baptisme and many passages he cites to shew that it was when the Baptized was to confesse the faith and to renounce Satan And if HIERONIMVS Tom. 2. in his Dialogue against the Luciferians do assert that use of imposition of hands from Scripture that he alleadgeth not Hebr. 6.2 for it but the examples of giving the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands in the Acts of the Apostles To Mr T. his first Answer Animadver That our reason to prove imposition of hands for Healing or giving the Holy Ghost cannot be meant Hebr. 6.2 Because those were extraordinary is not saith Mr T. a cogent reason We reply First that Mr T. doth by and by as good as confesse it is a cogent reason For whiles Mr T. goes about to prove that imposition of hands here mentioned is for ordination because it was still in use and to continue to be used he justifies our reason that Healing and giving the Holy Ghost were not to continue because extraordinary and so not put here among the principles of the foundation 2 Will any ingenuous man weighing and pondering things say that Mr T. his answer is cogent namely That those miraculary things of imposition of hands for healing and that kinde of giving the Holy Ghost because usuall onely in that little time of the Apostles should be joyned with and put among the first principles of Christian religion to be taught young ones to fit them for baptisme or to give an account of their faith after Baptisme Or whether that reason of Mr T. be cogent that little children should be taught as one of the first elements of the christian faith the imposition of hands to ordain Ministers This rather should belong to the going on unto perfection as the Apostle speakes v. 1. Nor is Mr T. his reason cogent that Imposition of hands for Ordination should bee joyned with Baptisme both being ordinances for Initiation which likes the Papists well that make imposition a Sacrament and see it so well coped and coupled with a Sacrament by Mr T. For first and first or Initiation in its great latitude doth not so assimilate Baptisme is the Initiation for all at their first solemne entrance into the Church that imposition for Ordination doth initiate but few that is ministers and that into an office and long after they are members We may as well couple marriage with the first principles of religion which being to be done by invocation upon God and instruction out of the word doth first initiate most single people into the honour and authority to govern children and families to serve God Clearly enough to Mr T. his imposition of hands and admission to the Lords supper would better cope together both appertaining to mature grown Christians 2 We answer to this first answer of Mr Tombes that a naked honest explanation of the text blowes all Mr T. his mists away and clears the text and discovers that these answers of his are but shifts In laying open which meaning I hope learned and pious Mr Pareus Calvin Bullinger Marlorat Hofman which were no Independents will weigh as much as Mr Tombes who all tell us the summe of all approved antiquity to save our labour of pestering the vulgar reader with the gibberish of quotations Pareus upon Hebr. 6.2 Some saith he conjoyne the two heads of Baptisme and Imposition of hands because as there were two rankes of Catechumeni that is chatechised persons so there was a two fold initiating Ceremony 1 Those of ripe years of the Heathen who did before their Baptisme recite the Articles of the Creed of the Christian faith And this is that the Apostle cals the catechising or Doctrine of Baptismes 2 The Infants of Christians who by the right of the promise being baptized in their Infancy after they were past their childhood were received into the Church by imposition of hands at which time they rehearsed the same articles of faith before the Church And this was the doctrine of Imposition of hands So Pareus Calvin speaks to the very same effect whose words we set down at large in our 7. chapter of this controversie Mr Hofman Marlorat Bullinger Calvin speake further that as Imposition of hands was of a manifold use so among the rest it was a solemne right of praying by which Symbol also they did approve the profession of faith young youth made So that the originall of Imposition of hands came down from the Apostles Thus far these learned men Ye have also before in the same 7. Chap. of this Controversie the words of Mr Cotton and his reading out of Antiquity and his Reasons That though young children were baptized yet were not received to the Lords Supper and the full fruition of all Church-liberties till being grown up they made their profession of faith and
as he saith having been formerly larger I say who knows but Mr. T. and Mr. D. formerly have so thought and so done themselves or at least have not professed against it which now they dislike in others Therefore let me offer to Mr. T. and Mr. D. and others of their judgement these three considerations First who that hath eyes as they Revel 4. as well within as without may not arreign himself guilty of this encroachment of extending his practise beyond the rule In many practises he throws open all fences and turns them into common But if he be questioned by the weakest disputant he cannot he dares not justifie himself in his sins but confesseth his way is butted there and bounded here and all the rest trespasse against the line he ought to walk by Secondly who is that professor especially a Minister living in this Summer of the Gospel at this time of the assent of Reformation to our Pole that forgets how in the dark and stormy Winter he saw lesse and stumbled more Even many of the Antipaedobaptists whom we own as brethren if they count Non-baptizing of beleevers children a peece of further Reformation a spark of clearer light must of necessitie confesse that not long since they thought not they did not so why then should we insult over our brethrens failing or taunt them for setting neerer their meridian closer to the rule that instead of baptizing all children they now state the question that onely believers children ought to be baptized unlesse in some speciall cases of which after Thirdly though meerly that second nature custome and that whirlwinde of persecution did precipitate many of later times to baptize all Protestant professors children confessing Christ to be come in the flesh and justification to be rooted in his righteousnesse alone yet all Ministers did not the same upon the same principles But 1. They knew that very anciently as appears by Tertullian living ann Dom. 195. which was not long after St. John Helvic This Tertullian being alledged in this question by H.D. the Churches did not baptize the children of unbeleevers out of the Church without Sponsores or Susceptores undertakers which we call Witnesses who engaged themselves as parents to look to the Christian education of such children called Godfathers as if fathers under God or for godlinesse to see them trained up in sound Religion Tertullians words in his Treatise de Baptismo cap. 18. are these Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio baptismi utilior praecipue tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non tamnecesse sponsores etiam periculo ingeri On which words Junius his note is this Tria hic distincti proponit Auctor quae si rectè intelligantur locus est sanctissimus Conditio personarum baptizandarum est quod sint in faedere sive grandiores sive parvuli Dispositio est quòd credant obsequantur Evangelio profiteanturque Aetate non qui sunt in faedere nam parvuli piorum liberi in faedere sunt sed qui profitentur fidem recognosci solent Quum itaque dicit praecipue tamen circa parvulos id de extraneorum non de faederatorum domesticorumque liberis opus est intelligi ut aetiologia sequente confirmatur Illud autem sr non tam necesse etiam sine injuriâ auctoris abesse potest Not to spend time in construing all this we now onely give you the summe of both in the point now in hand for we shall more largely speak to every particular afterwards That which they both say concerning witnesses to children that in these ancient times they were used for children whose parents were without and not of the faith not of the Church We speak not for the using of witnesses or godfathers c. in baptizing children as the wont was among us But Secondly that this ancient custome as ancient at least as Tertullian might possibly have some respect to the Scripture Gen. 17. according to Mr. Cottons observation His book of the way of the Churche in N. England pag. 115. Baptisme saith he may orderly be administred to the children of such parents as have professed their faith and repentance before the Church Or where either of the parents have made such profession Or it may be considered also whether the children may not be baptized where either the grandfather or grandmother have made such profession and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the childe For it may be conceived where there is a stipulation of the covenant on Gods part and a restipulation on mans part So M. Grcenham also See his works where he saith the children of unbeleeving parents are within the covenant by virtue of their believing grandfathers Or else how is God the God of their seed to shew mercy to thousands of generations of them that love him there may be an obligation of the covenant on both parts Gen. 17.7 Or if these fail what hindereth but that if the parents will resigne their Infant to be educated in the house of any godly member of the Church the childe may be lawfully baptized in the right of its houshold governor according to the proportion of the Law Gen. 17 12 13. So far Mr. Cotton both his judgement and his grounds Now in imitation of this last clause in all likelihood were Witnesses used though abusively in baptizing the children of some unbelievers and strangers from the Church yet therefore we have not such cause to trample upon any of our brethren about their error in baptizing too many Infants seeing they erred with some antiquitie and some pretence of Scripture before they saw this light for which God must be glorified and not man prided The last thing Mr. T. objects in this Argument on Matth. 28.19 is that if this place doth not exclude all Infants from Baptisme then nor doth 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat exclude Infants from the Lords Supper saying by the like elusion that the speech of the Apostle is not exclusive Yea verily saith Mr. T. neither will the Argument be of force from the institution of the Supper Matth. 26.26 27. that believers onely are to be admitted to the Lords Supper We answer And first to that comparison of 1 Cor. 11.28 with Matth. 28.19 we reply two things First that there is expressed in 1 Cor. 11. an universall determinating terme singling out all communicants man by man that they must be able to examine themselves before they eat But there is no such determinating word about Baptisine in Matth. 28.19 For first we have already in severall places of our Animadversions shewed that there is no certaintie at all that the Greek word here must signifie to-disciple or make-disciples For first most learned men render it no more but teach And so the Syriack and Arabick Translations * In the best Translations of the French
in baptizing people of ripe yeers de facto in fact confession of sin c. did precede and forego But neither John Baptist nor the Apostles make any such expresse rule that de jure of equitie none should be baptized by them but those that could make confession of sin or profession of faith Nor doth all the Scriptures brought by Mr. T. prove any such rule Mr. T. himself intimatedly confesseth that John the Baptist did not make a rule for confession but onely in practise those Jews of ripe yeers that John Baptist did baptize did first confesse their sins And that Act. 2.39 Act. 16. c. have been alreadie discussed that they shewed children were baptized who could not make confession or profession But Mr. T. objects Act. 8.37 If thou believest with thy whole heart thou mayest be baptized Where the Apostle implies in his speech to the Eunuch that defect of faith was an impediment of baptisme We answer Mr. T. afore confesseth p. 24. Infants may be sanctified If therefore he means the defect of manifestation of faith we answer It is true in men of ripe yeers For there it is known that they are worse then Infants So was it in circumcision If Ishmael be a known scoffer he is cast out and so his children are not circumcised unlesse perhaps after at yeers they gave good testimonie of their due subjection to the Law So that to the whole argumentation we say that here is mention of the manner of the practise of that first administration of baptisme to the parents with confession and profession by many examples and intimations but not a rule set down that thus it must be in the succession of believers children We list not to speak any thing more of this major Proposition and the proofs onely wonder that among the crowd of Scriptures Mr. T. quotes he would thrust in that of Act. 19.5 for baptisme of water which was onely a conferring of the miraculary gifts of the holy Ghost by imposition of hands as many arguments from the place can evince But Mr. T. objects this for a confirmation of his Argument That if it be rightly argued from 1 Cor. 11.28 that the Lords Supper is not to be granted to Infants because self-examination is pre-required by like reason we may say Baptisme is not yeelded to Infants because repentance and faith are pre-required Act. 2.38 Act. 8.37 and that of those that descended from Abraham and to whom the promise was Besides what we said afore we answer to this Argument great in shew that there is not the like reason between those places for Baptisme and that for the Lords Supper For 1. That of the Lords Supper speaks of every Communicant viritim as counting one after another Let the partie whosoeuer it be enter into self-examination before eating But that Act. 2.38 speaks in the gub or generall to the parents And that Act. 8.37 is spoken to one onely man and in that phrase that cannot be found elsewhere on that occasion 2. There is no intimation in the New Testament of children admitted to the Lords Supper But in that Act. 2. presently in the next verse v. 39. there is an intimation of their Infants admitted to Baptisme as before we have evinced That clause of descending from Abraham and the belonging of the promise is of no weight in this Argument For 1 The parents by putting to death Christ had made themselves in wickednesse worse then Gentiles 2 That confession and profession is expresly called for onely from them that were so apparently wicked 3 That if they did come in by repentance the promise saith the Apostle presently runs to their children CHAP. XIII THe fourth Argument saith Mr. T. is taken from the next Age after the Apostles Exercit. Sect. 17. The 4. Argument against Infant Baptisme from the practise in the next age after the Apostles That tenet and practise is doubtfull of which it cannot be proved that it was in force or use in the next age after the Apostles But it cannot be proved that the tenet or practise of Infant-Baptisme was in force or use in the Age next after the Apostles Ergo. The major is of it self manifest The minor is proved by the testimony of Lodovicus Vives above-recited to which Vossius in the sibus Historico-Theologicis of Infant-baptisme joyns the testimony of Walafridus Strabo and by the examining of places brought to that purpose and by the continuation of questions propounded to the baptized in Ages following and others tokens from Councils and Ecclesiasticall Writers which in historicall businesse are wont to beget credit The words of Walafridus Strabo who lived about the yeer 840. in his book Derebus Ecclesiasticis Chap. 26. are these We are also to note that in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont onely to be given to them who by integritie both of body and minde were already come to this that they could know and understand what profit is to be obteined in Baptisme what is to be confessed and believed what lastly is to be observed of them that are born again in Christ Thus farre Mr. T. and his quotation of Walafridus 1. To Mr. T. his major we say Animadvers that it is not of it self manifest For what if we cannot produce any Records of Antiquitie for the use and practise of many things in the Age next to the Apostles are they therefore doubtfull when as we have the Word of God for them Therefore the meer failing of the Votes of humane Writers do not make a thing doubtfull though the Papists urge us with the like Argument that the Protestant Churches are not true because we cannot produce Histories c. to shew their succession in all Ages If we fail in Records of Antiquitie we may thank the Papists chiefly who as we may say martyred by fire and otherwise as well good books as godly men and yet the Truth according to Scripture stands where it did To Mr. T. his minor we say In generall 1. That Mr. T. tels us beside of Lodovicus Vives and Wal. Strabo of places brought to that purpose of the continuation of questions propounded to the baptized in ages following of other tokens from Councils and of Ecclesiasticall Writers but quotes them not which is not the way to beget credit in the judicious Reader It were too much to believe every Author upon his bare word without other circumstances and therefore by much more too much to believe Authors not produced but onely intimated by Mr. T. 2. Mr. Tombes gives us in two late-men in comparison of the stream of ancient Antiquitie which is contrary to those two 3. If those two had been a considerable number or had produced to us any considerable Reasons or quotations of Antiquitie higher then themselves or any fair probabilities or circumstances how they gather it they would sooner have begot credit then as they are now proposed In particular first to Ludovicus Vives we answered
signifying or implying Baptisme So the Scriptures so Irenaeus and the Fathers mean by Born-again new born or regenerated though Mr. T. denies it Scriptures The first Scripture is in Joh. 3.5 Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit Where the Spirit signifies the inward work accompanying or following where God converts the outward signe seal and conveighance of Baptisme as we have before discussed this place where we have given you the generall consent of orthodox Authors and some Reasons that the water of Baptisme is here understood We now adde first the water of baptisme must be here meant because of the order water is put first the Spirit next Now where a metaphoricall epithite or word is put to set forth the nature of the Spirit the Spirit is put first and the metaphoricall terme or word after Matth. 3. Baptized with the holy Ghost and fire that is with the holy Ghost which is like fire Secondly Christ is speaking to Nicodemus one of the Pharisees who did put much in outward legall and ceremonious washings Mark 7.1 2 c. Therefore doubtlesse Christ would apply his speech sutable to the condition of Nicodemus to take him off that washing by propounding to him the Gospel washing of Baptisme already begun by John Baptist on which usually followed an inward effectuall work of washing by the Spirit Both these Reasons are hinted by Beza who by all means would rather have an externall washing here meant beside the inward of the Spirit And prevents an objection that grace is not here tyed to the Sacrament of Baptisme the peculiar Sacrament of regeneration saith he no more then it is to the Lords Supper Ioh. 6.53 Besides saith he there is mention after of the Spirit without water Thirdly regeneration is attributed to the outward and more common means of preaching the Word 1 Pet. 1.23 why not therefore to Baptisme the peculiar Sacrament of regeneration And so Nicodemus hath here for the businesse in hand which is his conversion all three means compleatly represented to him Christs word Baptisme and the holy Spirit We list not to abound in proof of a thing so plain and commonly received If one or two think otherwise it is not of weight to say so without proof Nor do I know any reason why any should dissent unlesse for a dream of tying grace to Sacraments which Beza and others excellently take off or for fear of mens private interests in an argument which is not considerable The second Scripture is Tit. 3.5 According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost Where washing according to divers learned orthodox Authors signifies or implyes Baptisme The reasons that evince our consent is 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for washing signifies not so much the act of bare washing as the place where the water is and the action is done For it signifies a Bath or laver of water and therefore cannot be so fitly applyed to the inward washing of the Spirit as to outward baptisme 2 The spirituall working of the Spirit follows in the next clause The making of us new by the Spirit 3 It is usuall with the holy Ghost to call the whole work by the name of the outward signe of baptisme Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 even as Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17. though but the signe or seal of the Covenant Thus of the Scriptures that by the words born again new born or the like is signified or implyed baptisme sutably to Scriptures Secondly Irenaeus takes his own word Renascuntur that is born again or new born to signifie baptisme Compare that place of Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 18. where speaking of the corruptions by Hereticks touching redemption and Baptisme c. he hath these words in the beginning of the Chapter This kind that is of Sect was sent by Satan for the denying of the Baptisme of regeneration or new birth towards or according to God and for the destruction of the whole faith This place clears the thing and Mr. T. his exceptions which are 1 possibly this might not be Irenaeus his words 2 That Irenaeus is corrupted by the Latin Translation we wanting the Greek copie To which we answer That this quotation out of the first book and 18. Chap. of Irenaeus takes away both objections For Mr. T. his Rivet confesseth That the first 27. Chapters of the first book of Irenaeus are inserted in Epiphanius his Panarium which we have in Greek And so much of Irenaeus entirely is to be had in Greek in Irenaeus his works And accordingly Epiphanius saith that That circumcision continued serving to the time till the greater circumcision came which is the laver of regeneration So Epiphan lib. 2. cap. 28. We have not time to seek more though he speaks often of baptisme sometimes calling it the great circumcision sometimes onely the laver c. But Mr. T. objects Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 4. that Voss Thes Theolog. de Paedobapt intimates that the proper acception of renascuntur that is born again or new-born is to signifie sanctification We answer Vossius doth not speak so much for Mr. T. but against him in this point Animadvers as we conceive Whether we conceive aright let the Reader judge Vossius his words are these We can prove by apparent testimonies of them that lived before the Pelagian Heresie that Infants were baptized Such a testimony is Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 39. Where he saith Christ came to save all by himself all I say who by him are born-again or new-born by him towards God infants and little ones c. where by the word born again or new-birth is set forth Baptisme according to the common form of speech of the Ancients Although if we take the word born-again curiously yet in as much as Irenaeus saith regeneration is in Infants It sufficiently refuteth the opinion of them who indeavour by this Argument to prove that because regeneration as they think may not be in Infants that therefore they may not be signed with the outward signe So Vossius But Mr. T. objects again M. T. EXAM Sect. 4. that Irenaeus his scope is to confute the Gnosticks that hold Christ did not exceed 31. yeers of age against whom Irenaeus alledgeth that Christ lived in every age that by his age and example he might sanctifie every age We answer Animadvers But Irenaeus layes the foundation of his sanctifying all sorts of ages in this that they are new-born by Christ to Godward both Infants and little ones and then follows he was made an Infant to Infants to sanctifie them having before regenerated them whereof what signe is there to us but Gods institution and act that Infants should have the first seal But Mr. T. yet further objects Mr T. EXAM Sect. 4. that Irenaeus speaks not of baptisme because he saith Born again by him that is by Christ We answer Animadvers That Mr.
procure health to their bodies as is plain by his words epist 23. ad Bonifacium Nec illud te moveat quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt vt gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem non enim propterea illi non regenerantur quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur celebrantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter so as to excuse if not to justifie their fact who made use of Baptisme in so prophane a manner as to cure diseases by it which is no marvaile if it be true which is related of the approbation that was given of the Baptisme used by Athanasius in play amongst boyes 5. You may consider that in the same Epistle when Bonifacius pressed Augustine to shew how Sureties could be excused from lying who being asked of the Childs faith answered He doth beleeve for even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before He defends that act in this absurd manner Respondetur credere propter fidei Sacramentum and thence he is called a believer because he hath the Sacrament of faith Which as it is ridiculous playing with words in so serious a matter before God so it is a senslâ—sse answer sith the interrogation was of the Childs faith before it was baptized and the answer was given before and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the Sacrament of faith which came after 6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle that Infants were then admitted to baptisme whether they were the children of believers or not it was no matter with what intention they brought them nor whose children were brought yea it was counted a worke of charity to bring any children to baptisme and in this case the faith of the whole Church was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith So that whereas the present defenders of Infant-Baptisme pretend Covenant-holynesse a priviledge of beleevers it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients but they baptized any Infants even of Infidels upon this opinion That Baptisme did certainly give grace to them and if they dyed without Baptisme they did perish And thus I grant that it is true the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Augustine But neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it nor doth it advantage your tenet that you have cited his citation of it Thus farr Mr T. his long answer to Mr M. short quotation of Augustine Wee answer and Animadver First to that That the Authority of Augustin was it which carryed the baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controul we answer three things First that Augustine flourished not till long after the first age from that that was next after the Apostles which was the time Mr T. said afore wherein baptisme of Infants began to be in use as an unwritten Tradition For Mr T. saith Augustine flourished not till 405 or 410 years after Christ So that his authority prevailed not but in his and the times following him But what was it that carryed the Baptisme of Infants the 300 or 400 years afore Augustin For all that time it was frequent as we have abundantly shewed out of good Antiquity Secondly if any after were carryed by Augustin to hold Infant-baptisme sure they heard or read Augustin arguing the thing by Scripture and divine reason * As against the Donatists Pelag. c. And then doubtlesse they were carryed by the Scriptures and Reasons he urged and so not by the authority of the man ** Mr T. himself confesseth in a matter of 40 lines after that Councels c. that did depend on Augustine depended on his Arguments Augustin himselfe had taught them better who in his works professedly rejects some of the Fathers when he thought they went not along with the Scriptures Thirdly It cannot be said that Augustines authority did in his time carry Infant-baptisme in a manner without controle seeing he had so much bickering with the Pelagians about it who under some notion did contend against it as wee shewed afore 2 To Mr T. his quoting of Walafridus Strabo we answer first That seeing that author is in such credit with Mr T. in that he quotes him so oft we expect he should be believed as well for as as against us Now Walafridus is for us against Mr T. in these things 1. About Imposition of hands that it did suppose baptisme which Mr T. denyed upon the discussion of Heb. 6.2 in his 14. Sect. of his Exercitation But Walafridus affirmes it De rebus Ecclesiasticis chap. 26. sub initium Saith he * Primis temporibus impositione manuum baptismum confirmari solere In the first times Baptisme was wont to be confirmed with Imposition of hands 2. About Athanasius that in Athanasius his time to his knowledge there was Baptism of little children Mr. T. doubts of it in his Examen Sect. 6. But Walfride shews us that Legitur quoque in ultimo Ecclesiasticae historiae libro Athanasius adhuc puer c. That saith he we read in the last book of Ecclesiasticall history that Athanasius being but a little child did act the imitation of Baptisme among his childish companions which being done with recitall of the words that the baptizer did aske and the baptized answered when those able to speak were baptized Alexander the chiefe Minister of Alexandria knowing the same judged they should not be re-baptized but ratified with confirmation Thus Walafridus 3. About Infant Baptisme which Mr T. denies but Walafridus Strabo quotes many authorities and antiquities for it As that it In concilio Gerundensi unius diei infans si in discrimine sit baptizari jubetur In that Councill it was commanded that an Infant one day old if in danger of death should be baptized Divers passages he hath to the like purpose 2. We answer to the Quotation of Walafridus Strabo that he faulters and is much faulty in the thing he is quoted for For first He calls the times of Augustine who is but of late in comparison of many Ancients we have quoted Prima tempora that is the first times for Walafridus quotes Augustins practise that was not baptized till of ripe years to proove that in the first times as Walfridus calls them men were not baptized till able to know well and make profession when as Augustin himself as we have shewd and Mr T. hath confessed did refer himselfe to ancienter times a great deal as to Cyprian that was almost 200 years afore him for the practise of baptizing Infants 2. Walafrid saith illis solummodo c. that is To them onely the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given who were of
to be baptized who is not washed in the Baptisme wherewith sinnes are washed away Thus was the Tenet of De Bruis as it is in Mr T. his Cluniacensis Whence observe 1. That De Bruis did hold That no Infants while Infants can have any faith Contrary to that That Iohn the Baptist was filled with the holy Ghost from his mothers womb which filling or in being in a sanctifying manner is by the fruits of the Spirit Love joy faith Gal. 5. As it is said Rom. 5. The love of God that is as part of the meaning the apprehension of the love of God is shed into our hearts BY HIS SPIRIT The little children Mar. 10. had grace because Christ confirmes their grace And all graces go together 2. De Bruis did hold That all whether beleevers Infants or beleevers of ripe yeares dying unbaptized are damned And so condemnes many of the Martyrs to hell 3. By this opinion of De Bruis he falsifies the Text he quotes For though it be sayd in the affirmative joyntly He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved yet it is not said joyntly in the negative that unlesse One de both beleeve and also be Baptized he shall be damned but onely singlely he that beleeveth not shall be damned 4. De Bruis holds that God the principall agent cannot work or doth not work he wants power or will to worke the work of mans Salvation without the Instrument Baptisme So that God is stript of his Prerogative and tyed to meanes 5. That if a man be baptized at ripe years and that by De Bruis or his companion Heinricus they conceiving him to be a beleever yet if it prove after he was not a beleever at that baptisme he is not to be said to have been baptized So that if after indeed that he beleeves he be baptized that is no re-baptizing because his former baptism was nothing By this the Intelligent Reader may see 1. That ill might Mr T. alleadge De Bruis for the Antipaedobaptisme he contends for 2. That well might De Bruis refuse not onely the Fathers but all Orthodox Writers for this is such an Opinion as he knew he must stand alone without company And therefore his best course was to professe it as a singularity 2. M. T. tells us that Cluniacensis saith of De Bruis that he did reject the authority of the Latin Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of the Greek To this I Answer That I have run over with mine eye De Bruis his proposition of Antipaedobaptisme and Cluniacensis his answer and proof but finde not that sentence nor sence that De Bruis was a Latin ignorant of the Greek This I finde that Cluniacensis confesseth of himselfe he was a Latine and not skilled in Greek as we shall shew by and by See ☞ in the Margin a little after in our translation of Cluniacensis and at our third particular in our answer to Mr T. his fourth particular viz. his Observation 3. Mr T. saith that Cluniacensis saying of De Bruis that he did run to the Scriptures Cluniacensis alleadgeth against De Bruis the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infant baptisme by To this we Answer that the naked truth is this 1. That one of Cluniacensis his businesses was to prove That children were counted neerer to Salvation by the faith of the Parents and so a fortiori urgeth as from the non parentall-kin to the beleeving Parent from the curing of the body to the curing of the soul that Christ cured the bodies of some upon the faith of them that were no Parents that brought them 2. Another of Cluniacensis his businesses was to prove That infants might be saved while Infants and accordingly alleadgeth 1. That as in the first Adam children whiles children dyed spiritually so children whiles childrend might be made alive spiritually in the second Adam Christ 3. That there was not an absolute necessity of a joynt concurrence of baptisme with faith in all that should be saved or else no Salvation For if Cluniacensis had not spoken to this he had for saken the termes and state of the question And therefore urgeth some of the Martyrs and that saying of Christ He that confesseth me before men him will I confesse before my Father in heaven and many other things that some are saved without baptisme that Martyrdome goes for baptisme His fourth businesse was to prove that children might be baptized and for that urgeth Mat. 19. Mar. 10. Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not c. 4. Mr T. makes an observation upon the former passages as he himselfe hath represented them From these passages faith Mr T. I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for Paedobaptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors so Peter de Bruis and Heinricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greek Church We answer Here Mr T. makes a great treble intimation 1. That Cluniacensis urged Latin Doctors 2. That therefore Augustines Authority was then in the great esteem to carry the question of Infant Baptism 3. That De Bruis did appeal to the Greek Church as if that were for him against Infant Baptisme But I can finde neither of these in Cluniacensis This onely I finde which I suppose is that Mr T. alludes to that Cluniacensis speaks to De Bruis and Heinricus the Apostle as he is called and De Bruis too thus Ad Vestram c. * Ad vestram brutamhaeresin refellendam innumera mihi doctorum Ecclesiasticorumtestimonia suffragantur Sed vestra authoritas sapientia tanta est ut cos coram producere non praesumam maxime cum didicerim Hilarium Ambrosium Augustinum Hieronymum Leonem Gregorium c. judicio majestatis vestrae esse damnatos Cumque Latinos omnes a regno caelorum excluscritis nescio si Gracis vel alterius linguae hominibus peperceritis Quod si forte vel illi sobrietate vestri examinis peremptoriam sententiam evadere potuerunt Mihi quid quantum ad praesens negotium spectat aut parum aut nihil prodest Cum homo tantum Latinus peregrinae linguae quam ignoro testimoniis quibus vos aut convertere possim aut convincere uti non valeam Quia sanctis Ecclesiae Doctoribus fidem praebere dedignamini ad puritlimum rivulorum omnium fontem mihi reverteudum est de Evangelicis Apostolicis seu propheticis dictis testimonia si tamen vel illa suscipitis sunt proferenda That is to refell your brutish heresie innumerable testimonies of the Ecclesiasticall learned Drs give me their Votes But your Authority and wisdome is so great that I may not presume to produce them especially seeing I have understood that you have cast off or excluded Hilary Ambrose Augustine Hierom Leo Gregory c. from the chair of the learned Doctors and from the kingdome of heaven I know not whether you will
he recites Monimus quoting Augustine And at the end of Fulgentius his workes are printed at Basil together with them Augustines or rather Prospers booke of answers to articles imposed upon him and some bodies 6 bookes Hypognosticon in answer to the Calumnies of the Pelagians Now whether all this may argue Fulgentius his relyance on Augustines arguments let the reader judge For Mr T. to say Prosper Fulgentius and those three Councels rested on Augustines wordes and to bring us no instances or to say they rested on his arguments and to bring us no paralell of both their arguments is to dictate not to prove Or to say they relyed on his arguments and after to say they relyed on his wordes is an expression of inconsistencies Or to say they relyed on his arguments is improbable Likely they might rely upon arguments by him used but not as his but as divine out of the Scriptures where Augustine urged them But for Mr T. to say they relyed altogether on Augustines arguments is impossible for Mr T. to make good to us or for us to believe of those worthyes For the Councells Mr T. doth not intimate much lesse Cipher to us which for there are many of those names he means If he mean those Coetanian convented in the same 416 year after Christ Reus Bucholc Perk. when about by consent of Chronologers Pelagianisme began to be condemned in Councils and Augustine had now a while been famous Wee answer it is true that in this Councill of Carthage Pelagius and Coelestius the Hereticks are condemned but by notable Scripture-arguments without the least mention of Augustine And it is true that that Councels Epistle to P. Innocent the first and that P. Innocents Epistle backe to that Councill are by some body put among the Epistles of Augustine and are there the 90. and 91. Ep. But neither doth P. Innocent in his Epistle take the least particular notice of Augustine nor do the Councill in their Epistle Nor do I know whether Mr T. doth confide that Augustine was at this Council by the names subscribed thus To the most blessed and most honoured brother Innocent the Pope Aurelius Numidius Rusticâ—anus c. who were present in the Councill of Carthage Therein being then Aurelius Bishop of Carthage as appears in the Epistle of the aforesaid Council of Milevis to the Emperours Archad and Honor. But when Augustine Bpp of Hippon is named at a Council he is called Augustinus And if there be two of the same name at a Council they are both named with alius As at this Council of Carthage Restitutus alius Restitutus and Victor alius Victor But here is but once Aurelius and no Augustinus As for the said Council of Milevis it is true that in their Epistle to P. Innocent there is among the rest expressed Silvanus Valentinus Aurelius Donatus Restitutus Lucianus Alypius Augustinus Placentius c And that that Council also was convented against Pelagius and Coelestius But we finde not either in the Acts of that Council or in the Epistle or c. that there is any more particular notice of Augustine then of any of the rest much lesse of any of his arguments against the Pelagians or of his urging any one argument Yea Bucholcerus saith that after these two Councils viz. in Anno 417. Augustine began to refute the Errors of Pelagius By this Augustine should rather learn at these Councills to dispute against Pelagianisme then they to rely on him In the next Council of Carthage in order of the printed Councils though Augustine be there yet any Dispute of Pelagianisme is not there In the seventh Council of Carthage Bin. alias a part or 2 Session of the sixt we finde but five titles of chapters or canons But they say there were recited 105 whereof a great part were those at the third Council of Carthage and in the Council of Milevis as they say in the title of this seventh or sixth Council But that which they call the third Council of Carthage they date in the title to be in Anno 438 which was saith Bucholcerus 8 years after Augustines death If they mean that Council of Carthage and Milevis of the same 416 year after Christ to them we have answered already If the residue of the Canons of this seventh Council of Carthage are as the notes on it tell us and I rather believe recited in the following African Council convented in the time of Boniface and Celestin there indeed that Council is in diverse Canons against Pelagius and Coelestius too and that about baptisme of Infants which wee mentioned afore at large But there is no mention at all of Augustines persons or rrguments there and is after that which Mr T. Quotes For the Council of Arles if Mr T. meanes the second It was too ancient being under Siricius who was Anno 385. I say too ancient to be swayed by Augustine who was not famous according to Mr T. till Anno 405. or 410. against Pelagianisme if there had been in it any debate about it as there was none If Mr T. meane the third Council of Arles this was too young and of too later times being Anno 461 or as others 514 under P. John 1. for Augustine to be there Nor was there need of his arguments for there are but few Canons and none about Pelagianisme It is true one Faustus writes an Epistle to one Lucidus a Pelagian against his Errours which he had vented in a book which Caesarinus Avitus and Johannes Antiochenus confuted in writing and this Council approves Faustus his Epistle in neither of all which is there the least mention that I can find of Augustines name or arguments If Mr T. think I have not said enough or not punctually to his 3 Councils and two Fathers let him blame his non-quotations and generall and confused intimations Thus of Fulgentius Prosper and the three Councils Next Mr T. objects that Augustine being counted as one of the four Doctors of the Church like the four Evangelists EXAMEN §. 8. his opinion was the rule of the Churches judgement and the Schooles determination as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have been of late Answer Animadver To that of Augustines respect and authority in matters of dispute we have spoken once and again that it hath not beene so high as Mr T. his elevation There were sundry Antagonists and some honestly minded as Acrius c. did pritty well keep Augustine Hierom c. from too much hight and extravagancy as the Calvanists did the Lutherans and like instances might begiven of later times But Augustine EXAMEN Ibid. saith Mr T. proved originall sinne from the baptisme of Infants and so did the Council of Milevis anathematizing them that did deny it Ergo great was the sway of Augustines authority We answer Animadver having spoken of the Councills afore and of their Scripture arguments that Augustine proved Infant-baptisme from
Infant baptisme in Augustines time as that it deserves no answer Only we desire but this equitable favour of Mr T. and his friends that upon just occasion we may have but the same freedome to plainly lay downe to the world the strange phantasies of severall ages of Anabaptists or Antipaedobaptists as he hath wrung even to bloud as we say a few unwary expressions and pettie mistakes of the most Godly and learned Martyrs and Saints of God EXAMEN Whereas Mr T. doth paraphrase upon Boniface his question to Augustine about Sureties at baptisme That even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before We anser Animadver 1 We wonder Mr T. will assert confession of faith in all ages before all baptisme from witnesses or Sureties when as we know that the first intimation of touching them was not till about 195 years after Christ And how novel the invention of their confessions is who can justly tell 2 I propose it to grave consideration Whether confessions of Sureties were not at first in imimation of Christian parents in whose stead they stood So that as children were baptized when their parents had formerly made confession So Sureties confessed in relation to themselves that they might be reputed fit to stand as a kind of parents to a child of an unbeleeving parent to be baptized even as Abraham profession of his beliefe in God Gen. 15. Gen. 17. made him stand as a parent to all his houshold The last thing Mr T. objects against Augustine EEAMEN and through him against Antiquity is that in those times they baptized all Infants whether of believing parents or not or whether with this or that intention they brought them We answer 1 Too much Animadver doth not overthrow enough in antiquity to prove Infant-baptism in those times which is the dispute now in hand 2 That this argues against Mr T. that Infant-baptisme hath been anciently more universally practised then adult baptisme 3 That in Augustine's time Boniface scrupled whether the sinnes of parents might not praejudice the baptisme of their Infants seeing the faith of believing parents did advance the baptism of their Infants Augustin Epist 23. And Augustin himself there answeres that Infants are regenerated he means baptized by the spirituall will of them parents or in place of parents that bring them And in effect hath this further in his first book de animâ ejus origine chap. 11. That those children that are born of wicked parents and are not commited into the hands of any godly persons that may stand instead of parents * As Abraham did to all his family of strangers c. and so dye unbaptized are damned by the traduction of originall sinne from their parents 4 You heard before how Antiquity looked upon the discent of the Covenant of grace from parents to children Thus by many instances and vindication of ancient Writers you have seen that that particular of Mr T. his Minor in his fifth argum of his Exercitation That in some ages after the first from the Apostles the Tenet and practise of Baptisme was in use as a Tradition not written I say you have seen it proved to be most false and have vindicated the Ancients from Mr T. his objections in his EXAMEN Exercitat §. 17. Now let us returne to his Exercitation § 17. Where Mr T. will undertake to prove it that at one time at least in one place where Origen lived by one author to wit Origen that Infant-baptism went for an unwritten tradition And for this he quotes only one place and only quotes it not giving us the words he intends in any language But we have given you the place afore in the beginning of this 14 chap. of our Animadversions Animadver in our quotation of Origen And that place out of him in his fifth book on the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Rom. Mr T. quotes here by the name of Hom. on Rom. 6. where we have cleared it that Origen cannot understand by Tradition an unwritten Tradition To which we add now that which is very considerable to clear the mind of Origen from holding any baptisme to be a meer tradition namely in that he speaks so often in his 6 Hom. super Iesum Nave that Baptism without limitation is the second Circumcision And once hath there these words Sed ex quo venit Christus dedit nobis secundam circumcisionem per baptismum regenerationis c. that is But since Christ came and hath given us the second Circumcision by baptisme of regeneration he hath purged our souls So Origen So that now Mr T. may take his choice Would Mr T. accept of Origen on Rom. 6. for his witness for an unwritten tradition of Infant baptisme We have heard his witnesse examined him by circumstances he speaks no such thing Or would Mr T. impeach and disgrace his own witnesse as not competent saying that he is uncertain whether he reads Origen or Ruffinus that reads that enarration on the Ep. to the Romans Why then doth Mr T. quote that one place thereby before the ignorant to assay to blast all the best antiquity almost since the Apostles that constantly say Baptisme of Infants came from Christ and the Apostles and ground it upon severall Scriptures and divine reason Why did Mr T. hang so huge a weight on so small a wyer Hee hath produced but one pretended place on Rom. 6. for himself and that he weakens too with a glance at Origens works on Leviticus to prevent our quotation of any thing thence But as we have given him one place out of Origen on Levit and another out of him on Rom. 6. both as they are translated out of the Greek by Hierom as the best Editions promise us so we have given him a place out of Origen on Luke against which Mr T. hath made no exception And we say further if Mr T. be not sure whether he reads Origen on Rom. Then he is not sure whether he reads Ruffinus for his doubt lies between them two To that of Mr T. concerning Augustine and Hieromes relyance as he supposeth onely on Cyprians 59. Epist Exercitat §. 17. to Fidus for Infant Baptism we say onely this Let the Reader turn back to what we have translated out of those Authors or turn to our Quotations of them and read their Scripture Arguments and then judge whether Mr T. doth not much mistake I confesse since I took thâ—s work in hand to Animadvert a little upon Mr T. his Exercitation I have oft wondred that he speakes sometimes so unwarily that had such long time to consider sometimes gives forth great things with small hints and glanceth intimations for positions and probations But I answered my self with this likely he remembred he was propogating a now-taking-opinion He therfore that will not consider but will be mistaken let him be mistaken if he
What connexion and inference it hath to make an Argument 1. For the proofe And first for that Mr T. doth but intimate in the words and others It is true that in the eighth Sermon upon the Words of the Apostle This a true saying and worthy of all acceptation c. put among Augustines workes in the tenth Tome are these Expressions Infantes sunt c. That is They are Infants but they are Christs Members they are Infants but they receive his Sacraments they are Infants but they are made partakers of his table that they may have life in themselves But * Censura patrum Rob. Cooke * Cens tom 10. Erasmus and they that put forth the Lovaine Edition * In that Edition Augustine name is not praefixed do doubt whether the 2.4 6.8 Sermon with many more of them there on the said words of the Apostles be Augustines or no. Secondly for that proof Mr T expresseth the first part of it is here out of Cyprian de lapsis quoted by August in Epist. 33. the second part is in his Examen out of Augustine in his 1 book of merit and remission of sin chap. 20. on the words Iohn 6.53 and Maldonat on Iohn 6. who confesseth that Innocentius the first Bishop of Rome held it necessary for Infants and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 years in the Church though it be now rejected by the R. Church in the Council of Trent Thus Mr T. Now we answer to these things in the Generall thus 1. That here is produced onely matter of fact but no rule so much as pretended out of any Scripture Councell or any Father for it by those that used it 2. That this fact was for about 150 years From Cyprian till Augustine very rare As before Cyprian Helvie from whom up to the last of the Apostles are neer 140 yeers I finde no mention of it at all in the best antiquity And for this reason it was rarely used because the Ancients upon Scriptures swaying them were all along so confident as we have heard that baptisme alone was as Ordinance fully sufficient to assure them of the salvation of Infants which caused the universality of practise of Infant-Baptisme all along in those times In particular 1. To Cyprian we say if this place be not interlined and corrupted with patches by others inserted as those books that are altogether accounted Cyprians are * So Revet Perkins Cooke Possevin and if in this silly story of a phantisied miracle unworthy of learned pious Cyprian ** The story in a word is That a mayden Infant being made by the Idol worshippers to suck in a little of a bit of bread sopped in wine left by them that had there sacrificed she being after brought by her mother to the communion the Deacon forcing into the Infant some of the Sacramentall wine she presently vomitted c. which is taken as a miracle to discover the sinne before unknown of her partaking of the Idol-sop Popish Pamelius indeed huggs this story to prove miracles since the Apostles and transubstantaition But for Protestants they maybe rather ashamed of it then own it this wine were given to the child not as aliment but as a Sacrament why was not the Sacramentall bread given to it too And if it could not sucke downe a crumme of that bread as it is said they gave it the idol-sop because it could not suck upon the flesh how is it said to receive the Lords Supper For it is said by the Apostle The bread that we break is the Communion of the body of Christ We leave this uncertain and simple Testimony of Infant Commuuion in Cyprians time Let us come secondly to Augustine letting passe his weaknesse in too credulous quoting that weake passage in Cyprian his rash asserting that the child received the Lords Supper and his in considerate application of it to warne persons of ripe yeeres of unworthy communicating whereas more fitly he might have inferred that it shewed what a sinfull humaine invention it was to force the wine of the Sacrament into an Infant I say letting passe these things in his 23. Ep. Let us consider what is alleadged out of him In his book of the merit and remission of sinnes Chap. 20. upon occasion of his alledging Iohn 6. To which we say 1. That Augustiue doth not speake of Infants receiving the Communion as the common Tenet of those times 2. He brings in some disputing against him that that place of Iohn 6.53 doth not belong to Infants 3. When Augustne weakly endeavours to pull that text to reach to Infants from the verb plural unlesse yes shall eat and that it must belong to children too or else to those only whom Christ there speakes and not to us also in following ages c. In the conclusion he sayth only this That flesh which was given or the life of the world was given for the life of LITTLE ONES and if they SHAL not eat the flesh of the sonne of man nor SHAL they have life speaking in the future tence or time As for Maldonat that Popish Calumniator I think it nor worth while to turne to him if I had him or to believe him if I read him If Innocentius the 1. Bishop of Rome so thought and sayd its wonder there were no letters or Epistles between him and his Coeve friend Augustine concerning this point too And that Boniface succeeding Innocent and was also in Augustines time did not mind Augustine of it nor Augustine alleadge Innocent to Boniface in his 23. Ep. to Boniface Augustine touching upon this very point and alleadging Cyprian for it in that Epistle Howsoever if the 600. yeeres of that opinion and practise were those next before the Council of Trent thâ—n the opinion and practise was rare and privat in Cyprian and Augustines time if the 600. yeeres must begin at Cyprian yee a or at Augustine and his Coeve Innocentius how is it averred that the Council of Trent first rejected it Sure it was a grosse thing in the opinion of all Orthodox Churches that the Council of Trent must reforme Thus of Mr T. his proofe that the error of Infant cummunicating went along with Infant-baptisme Now according to promise a word of the connexion and inference to make it an argument 1. We have proved Infant baptisme to be no error therefore it cannot beget an error in the Administration of the Holy Supper 2. The adjunct or companion cannot necessarily argue the badnesse of the subject or thing The Sunne shineing many men commit evil yet this doth not prove the badnesse of the Sunne-shine 3. The Sacraments are two things specifically different distanced by expresse rules that only selfe examiners may Communicate it s not said so of baptisme therefore they that give the Communion to Infants erre for want of eyes not for want of light distinguishing between Sacraments 4. Many errours for many hundreds of yeeres clave to
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
in the Church before the communion of the Eucharist is an human-invention following upon Infant baptisme We answer Animad 1 That M. T. all this while hath contended that Examination and confession before Baptism and consequently afore the Communion is an ordinance of Christ How then says M. T. now that they are human-inventions 2 If subscription be added It is but a visible or legible profession and not so dangerous as Ministers subscriptions have been in the Prelats time though some have had the mercy out of the University to subscribe with their own conditions 3 That there is mention in Isay 44.5 That one shall call himself by the name of Jacob and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord and sirname himself by the name of Israel So that to subscribe to the truth of God professed in a Church to be called a member of the same is no such Scripture-lesse human invention as M. T. would make of it To M. T. his fourth-particular That the Church Covenant Exercitat yea as set forth in the book of the Churches of New England called CHURCH COVENANT is an human-invention devised to supply the place of baptisme We answer We will not say that this is Cynically but wee will say it is boldly spoken by one man Animad so to censure so many brave men for Learning Godlinesse Conscience and Sufferings For 1 we quaere whether M. T. doth thinke the late Nationall Covenant to be a meer human-invention If not let him be moderate in his opinion of Church Covenant 2 Wee assert that whatsoever ingenuous and understanding Reader shall peruse the Book called the Church Covenant will finde it stronger for a Church Covenant then M. T. his Treatise for the Anabaptists way of baptizing 3 We put M. T. in mind that all relations except naturall are founded upon mutuall covenant and agreement as between husband and wife Master and servant amp c. Therefore that between Pastor and flock 4 That Baptisme exhibiting one to be a member of the universall visible Church now on earth doth not make him to belong peculiarly to my flock a See before in the former Chapter touching faults in Discipline that are bound in Scripture duties to mee or mee to be a Pastour and bound in conscience of Pastorall duty to him 5 In that seeing some particular expresse intimation there must be seeing we have not the intellectuall communication of Angels that he or she is of my flock and I their Pastor What can M. T. find out to effect this if he lay aside all Covenantall expressions 6 If the Church Covenant were composed by men as those of mariage servantship c. are yet all divine duties may follow upon this as upon them by divine imposition CHAP. XVII TO the 1 and 2 particulars in the minor of M. T. his seventh Argument of Errours occasioned by Infant Baptisme Exercit. § 20. as that Baptisme confers grace by the work done that Baptisme is regeneration We answer Animad 1 M.T. in all his allegations of Antiquities or others that are orthodox in the mayne hath not to our knowledge produced any such expression as that Popish one that Baptism confers grace by the work done 2 That wee have produced places of best antiquity that expresly tell us that their meaning was that we should not in denying Baptisme to Infants as much as in us lyes hinder their salvation a See before out of Cyprian Thirdly that ancients do call Baptism regeneration is no more than to speak Scripture phrase b Which place the Ancients oft quote in that point John 3.5 Titus 3.5 Fourthly that the ancients did not think Baptism did profit all baptized persons c Lib. 4. contra Donatistas Augustine sayth What profits the Sacrament to them that receive it unlesse they be inwardly changed And blaming some in his time sayth What profits the Sacrament to them that receive it unlesse they be inwardly changed And blaming some in his time sayth Spem baptiz andorum auferunt à Domino Deo in homine ponendam esse persuadent That is They take off the baptized from their hope in God and perswade them to place it in men To M.T. his third particular thence Exercit. that Infants dying are saved by the faith of their parents We reply Animad 1 How doth this agree with the former assertion that we hold baptisme confers grace exâ—pere â—perato by the work done 2 Where in approved antiquity or late Protestant Writers is any such expression Wee say upon very good Scriptures urged afore that a child of a believing parent is to be reckoned within the Covenant by vertue of that parents faith but to pronounce him to be saved thereby is a doctrine unknown to us For those expressions of M.T. annexed to his third particular put upon us as that Infants are saved by the faith of sureties of the Church receiving into her lap wee desire they may be carried back to Rome whence they were brought the dispute now is not between Papists and Protestants To M T. his fourth particular in that argument Exercitat that some regenerate persons may fall from grace We answer Animad That neyther is the dispute betweene Prelaticall-erring-time-serving-vassals and us Have therefore these things away to the Prelaticall Arminians and their State-serving-Complyants CHAP. XVIII TO M.T. his first particular of his minor in his eighth argument Exercitat that Infant-baptisme hath occasioned private Baptisme We answer Animad If M.T. means private in regard of place for wee never knew of difference of forms as that which is done in a dwelling house we demand what danger or derogation is there in that more then in that which is commonly called a Church Or 2 that Baptisme which is not done in a River wee demand whether Baptisme in a dwelling house or in a meeting place in the company of 40 or 50 be not as publike as when two or three steal to a Rivers side in some uncouth and unfrequented place yea and as well done in the sayd houses as there as to the question now in hand of private or not private To M.T. his second particular of Baptisme by women Exercitat occasioned by Infant Baptisme We answer Animad 1 we know no such thing to haue been allowed in the Protestant Churches since Luthers time 2 For ancienter time before the invasion of grosse Popery into the World Bin. The fourth Council of Carthage Ca. 10. commands Mulier baptizare non prâ—sumat that is Let not woman presume to baptize So that if an over-forward Midwife or Matron presumed to baptize upon the example of that bold woman Zippora circumcising her sonne shee had by Moses yet this was not allowed by the orthodox Churches To the third particular Exercitat of baptizing children before they are brought into light We answer Animad wee
way of reply 1 To Cyprian c. They hold not universality of grace but the indefinit offer of grace How they held in point of baptisme and upon howmany Scripture grounds we have before shewed cap. 13 14. 2 To Augustine we reply that M. T. before fiercely charged Augustine for holding Infant-baptisme upon Cyprian grounds Nor doe I remember in all M. T. his quotations out of Augustine any such thing as he here mentions of him 3 To Bernard we reply Thst M. T. tells us neither what nor where he sayth it It he did say so any where we know he lived in late corrupted times and far more worthy to be slighted in this then Cyprian Augustine c. whom M.T. hath so slighted 4 To the English Liturgie Tolerabiles ineptiae Calvin seeing M.T. aleadgeth that English-masse those tolerable fooleries as Calvin calls them Covenanted against by us all put down by Parliament and no more to be urged against us then against M. Tombes himselfe and the Preachers of his judgement We reply give the Devill his due the English Liturgie urgeth for infant baptisme the 10 of Mar. And the Catechisme therein sayth Faith is necessary to Baptisme what ever other unnecessary expressions be added 5 To the Lutherans opinion seeing we must take it upon M. T. his bare word we say onely this That M.T. confessed that infants may when infants have regeneration saving grace c. 6 To that of the faith of a holy Nation we have answered afore upon M.T. his reply to 1 Pet 29. And add so far as a Nation is holy and believing so far all parents are such too and so this sixth particular is all one with the fifth of believing parents which we have maintained all along as a sufficient ground of giving their children the first seal 8 To that of parensa in Covenant in a gathered Church we have answered a little afore a See afore in Chap. 13. Infaults in Disciplne we add that those that so practise looke in baptisme to the saith of parents more then to that their Covenant CHAP. XXII THe last and that a weighty reason of doubting is because Infant baptisme seems to take away one Exercit. perhaps the primary end of Baptism Argu. 12 § 25. for many things argue that it was one end of Baptism that it should be a signe that the baptized shews himself a disciple and confesseth the faith in which he hath been instructed The Argument against Infant-Baptisme from its voyding the chief end of Baptisme confirmed 1 The requiring of confession by John Baptist and the Apostles was wont to be before Baptism Luk. 3.10 Act. 8.35 Act. 16.31 2 The frequent manner of speaking in the new Testament which puts Baptism for Doctrine Act. 10.37 Act. 19.3 shews this Beza in his A not on Act. 19.3 The answer is most apposite in which they signifie that they professed in Baptism the Doctrine propounded by John and confirmed by use of Baptism with which they had been baptized whereby they had acknowledged Christ but very slenderly 3 The form of Christs institution Mat 28.19 compared with the phrase as it is used 1 Cor. 1.13 Or were you baptized into the name of Paul implies the same On which place Beza The third reason is taken from the form and end of Baptisme in which we give our name to Christ being called upon with the Father and Holy Spirit 4 That which is said John 4 2. He made and baptized more disciples And Mat. 28.19 Going make Disciples in all nations baptizing them Intimate this And if as some affirme Baptisme was in use with the Jews in the initiating of proselytes into the profession of Judaisme this opinion is the more confirmed But in Infant-Baptisme the matter is so carried that Baptism serves to confirm a benefit not to signifie a profession made and so one perhaps the chief end of Baptism is voyded And here I think it is to be minded that the usuall description of a Sacrament and such as are like to it That it is a visible signe of invisible grace hath occasioned the misunderstanding of both Sacraments as if they signed a divine benefit not our duty to which in the first place the Iustitution had respect In seems to some that Infant-baptism should be good because the devil requires witches to renounce it which reason if ought worth might as well prove Baptism of any Infants Baptism by a midwife good because these the devill requires them to renounce as well that which is of the Infants of believers by a lawfull Minister But the true reason why he requires the Baptisme of witches to be renounced by them is not because the baptisme is good in respect of the administration of it but because the Faith mentioned in the form of baptisme is good they that renounce not their baptisme do shew their adherence to that faith in some sort which cannot stand with an explicite Covenant with the Devill Nor is the assuming of baptism in ripe years by those who were washed in infancie a renounceing of baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance conceit but indeed a firmer avouching of baptisme according to Christs minde This more likely might be inferred from the Devils practice in requiring witches to renounce their baptisme That the profession of Faith is the main businesse in Baptisme which should be before Baptisme if it were rightly administred after the first pattern We answer Animad 1. In generall That as circumcising of infants did not in se in regard of itself intrinsecally considered take away one end of it to wit that signing of duty and obligement unto profession so nor doth the baptisme of infants 2 That signing of profession is not the primary that is either the first or chiefe end of baptisme but the signing of Gods favour to us and his giving grace into us whereby we should afterwards walke dutifully towards him For the seal confirmes the Covenant and so runs the Covenant of Grace 3 We before proved by two Scriptures b Iohn 9.28 Acts 15.10 that the children of those parents that are reputed members of the visible Church were accounted and called Disciples in both Testaments 4 That children signed with the 1 signe or seal are ingaged to be active Disciples when they come to be of years as in the Old Testament so in the New as we have before shewed For Circumcision see Gal. 5.3 and for Baptisme see Mat. 28.19 20. ver 19. Goe teach and Baptize c. ver 20. Teaching them effectually so the word signifies to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 5 That the Anabaptists generally affirme with M.T. that they must be first made Disciples and known to be made such before they are baptized and yet M. T. asserts a little afore that baptisme exhibits him â—â—member of the Church and here that baptisme is a signe that manifests him to be a Disciple Now if they have not
manifestations of grace if they be not manifestly Disciples or discipled as M. T. formerly spake they will not baptize them And so by this they are manifestly Disciples or discipled afore yet manifested to be disciples in baptisme 6 Baptisme of infants doth not anticipate profession but oblige unto it in due time 2 To answer particularly as to the reasons to prove that one end of baptisme is to be a signe that the baptized shews himselfe a Disciple and of his confession of faith 1 We say that all those proofs reach but to those that were baptized at ripe years as hath been before largely discussed 2 M. T. his inferring that profession may be the end of baptisme doth not infer that it must be made by the baptized at every time whatsoever Affirmatives binde always but not to every point of time 3 M. T. his inferring that profession is one end of Baptisme doth not conclude that it is all or the chiefe end of baptisme For whereas M. T. would have that description of such like of a Sacrament An outward signe of invisible grace to be an occasion of misunderstanding of both Sacraments as if they signed a divine benifit not our duty we say that to our knowledge no true Protestant ever so understood it And the Papists understand it for ought I can perceive more of duty then they should in that they put so much in their act or bare doing as if thereby to please God as they put merit in their other actions To that M. T. speaks in the conclusion of all his arguments concerning the Devill requiring witches to renounce their baptisme or rather their profession in baptisme We answer 1 Sure enough the devill requires those to renounce their baptisme that were baptized in infancâ—e when they could not make profession If they made profession after upon that baptisme then it appears against M. T. that Infant-baptisme proves obligatorie to them grown up 2 It is no way sure that Satan doth require those witches to renounce their nominall baptisme that they received from midwives 3 As an answer to all the most likely reason why Satan requires witches to renounce their baptisme being the titular seale of all their hypocriticall profession is that they might detest all wherein they had seemed any ways to have any thing to doe with God Now the God of truth and love make us one in every truth and mean while one in love Amen FINIS An Alphabeticall TABLE of some principall things in the insuing Animadversions A THe 1 generall Argument of M. T. of the doubtfulnâ—sse of Infant Baptisme retorted chap. 1. pag. 1 Our 1 Argument out of Gen. p. 6 Our 2 17. omitted by M. T. p. 9 Our 3 urged by us c. 2. p. 9 Animadversions upon M. T. his answer to the 1 particular argument by him propounded out of Gen. 17. c. 2. p. 11 To the 2 thence and Col. 2.11 12. c. 3. p. 24 To the 3 c. 4. p. 36 Animadversions upon his answer to the argument out of Acts 2.39 c. 5. p. 41 Vpon that to 1 Cor 7.14 c. 6. p. 45 Vpon that to Math. 19.15 Mark 10.14 16 Luke 18.15 16 17. c. 7. p. 54 Vpon that to Acts 16.15 32 33. Acts 18.8 1 Cor. 1.16 c. 8. p. 70 Vpon that to Ex. 20.6 Psal 112.2 c. 9. p. 73 Vpon that to Isay 49.2 ibid. p. 74 Vpon that to 1 Cor. 10.2 ibid. p. 74 Vpon that to Ephes 5.26 ibid. p. 76 Vpon that to 1 Pet. 2.9 Ex. 19.5 6. ibid. p. 77 Vpon that of the Churches succession ibid. p. 80 Vpon that to Heb. 6.2 c. 10. p. 83 Animadversions upon M. T. his second genâ—rall argument out of Math. 28.19 c. 11. p. 89.92 c. Vpon his 3 generall argument from Iohn Baptist administration of Baptisme and the Apostles practice therein c. 12. p. 10â— Vpon his fourth From the use of Infant baptisme in the next age after the Apostles c. 13. p. 107 Vpon his fifth from the pretended tradition of it in succeeding ages c. 14. p. 123 In gen c. 15. p. 201 212 In particular Vpon his sixth from human-inventions accompanying it c. 16. p. 21â— c. In gen c. 15. p. 201 212 In particular Vpon his seventh from errors accompanying it c. 17 p. 212 In gen c. 15. p. 201 212 In particular Vpon his eighth from faults in disâ—ipline accompanying it c. 18. p. 203 In gen c. 15. p. 201 212 In particular Vpon his ninth from its occasioning unnecessary disputes c. 19. p. 226 Vpon his tenth that the same men that oppoâ— Infant baptisme opposed superstition c. 20 p. 217 Vpon his 11 of the disagreeing of the paedobaptists c. 21. p. 223 Vpon his 12. that Infant baptisme takes away one and of baptisme viz. to shew a disciple c. 22. p 225 A wide difference between the efficacy and administration of an ordinance and the different Scripture expressions touching both c. 1. p. 5 Act 2.39 parallâ—ed with Gen. 17. c. 2. p. 9. discussed p. 10. more largely c. 5. p. 41 The Histories of the Anabaptists written by divers learned men c. 14. p. 126 Clemens Alexandrinus alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14. p. 143 Ambrose alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14 p. 148 Aug. Alledged for Infant Baptisme c. 14 p. 150. 151 Aug. Obiected against by M. T. 152. 153. c. Aug. Vindicated by 〈◊〉 p. 157 Of the supposed Baptisme of Adâ—odatus the son of August at 15 yeers old c. 14. p. 17â— Infant Baptisme frequent aswell in Asia as Africa c. 14. p. 172 Arians have been Anabaptists c. 11. p. 94. c. 14. p. 184 Pelagians have been Anabaptists c. 11. p. 94. c. 14. p. 184 Arminians and other Sects have been Anabaptists c. 11. p. 94. c. 14. p. 184 The Anabaptists dâ—ffer in their grounds c. 21. p. 223 Why Augustine was not baptized till he was a man c. 14. p. 185 Why Alipius Augustines friend was not baptized till of age c. 14. p. 171. p. 186 The Anabaptists Human inventions c. 15. p. 202 The Anabaptists Errours p. 205 The Anabaptists Faults in Discipline p. 207 The Anabaptists Vnnecessary disputes c. 15. p. 209 B A Parallell betwâ—een Baptisme and circumcision c. 2.18 M. Balls iudgment about Infant Baptisme alledged and cleered c. 4. p. 40 Of two sort of old Baptized Catechumeni and Belevers Infants c. 7. p. 58 59 The confessions or professions at Baptisme in Iohn Baptist and the Apostles time was neither high in nature nor dangerous for fear of persecution c. 7. p. 67 The Baptisme of the old Testament c. 9. p. 75 The commission to Baptize Mat. 28.19 will dot hold parallel with the corruption of abuse of mariage Mat. 19 4 6. the Apostles correction of abuses in the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. to prove Math. 28. to be exclusive c. 11. p. 97. p. 102 Basil alledged for Infant Baptisme as speaking the same with Ambrose c. 14. p. 148 margin De Bruis quoted by M. T. 〈◊〉 against Infant