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
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
T. that if it were so manifest as you speak you should find nothing in Eusebius for Infant-baptisme nor in Ignatius nor in Clemen Alexandrinus nor in Athanasius nor in Epiphanius Animadvers We answer 1. Mr. T. brings but one place out of one Origen to prove as he pretends that Infant-baptisme is but a tradition We bring foure for the contrary Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen and Nazianzen and yet these are not sufficient with him unlesse we hear Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus c. say so too 2 A non dicto and non factum not valet consequentia Many things have been done in the Church which those Authors may not mention 3 They may speak of Infant-baptisme in some of their works which long since were lost 4 Mr. T. saith that YOV should find nothing in Eusebius Ignatius c. for Infant-baptisme And we say it is wonder Mr. T. did find nothing in them to the contrary in his 7 or 8 moneths time to write his EXAMEN which we not having much above 8 weeks for our Answer and so have not time to ransack every book But fiftly CLEM. ALEXAN li. 3. Strâ—m p. 461. He flourished about the yeer of Christ 193. Buchol Helvic this we cast our eye upon in Clem. Alexand which makes me think somewhat might be found in him towards Infant-baptism if we had time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Neither doth Gods divine providence now likewise command 〈◊〉 of old that he that hath risen from the conjugall bed should be washed For the Lord doth not necessarily take off from procreation of children those that are believers whom he hath by one Baptisme washed in all respects according to his wont who by one baptisme comprehends all the Baptismes of Moses Therefore the Law of God by carnall generation foretelling our regeneration did for the seminall facultie of generation hold forth baptisme Vide Graecum textum not loathing humane generation Thus Clem. Alex. with much more which for haste we cannot stand to translate Give us leave to adde a note or two 1. Let me observe with Hervet Aurelianus that this place relates to Levit. 15 16 17 18. If any mans seed of copulation shall go out from him then he shall wash all his flesh in water and be unclean untill the evening And every garment and every skin whereon is the seed of copulation shall be washed with water and be unclean untill the Even The woman also with whom the man shall lye with seed of copulation they shall both bathe themselves in water and be unclean untill the even This is the LAW and these are the BAPTISMES of MOSES of which Clem. Alexandrinus speaks here HESYCHIVS 2. Take the note of ancient and learned Hesychius * He flourished about 402d yeer after Christ Helvic on this place which is this The Lord himself saith he sheweth that mankinde must have the necessary regeneration of baptisme saying Vnlesse a man be born again of water and the holy Spirit he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven Joh. 3. The untowardnasse of which filth in us was transfused from Adam Whence David saith he was born in iniquity and conceived in sin Psal 51. not accusing his mother but intimating his sinfulnesse which ran down from his progenitors And now the Law-maker commanded him out of whom proceedeth the seed of copulation that is â—e that hath effused his seed for procreation of children yea also the woman that hath received it to wash the body because she hath received it by which is described this whole temple of ours that is the whole man consisting of soul and body In that Adam was made filthy by disobedience he made his seed to be filthy and so necessarily the body to be filthy which is of the seed in which he is unclean untill the Even that is the end of the time wherein Christ coming shews the water whereby our generation should be cleansed And that till then we remained unclean is proved from thence that they also that had not yet sinned actually that is were in their tender age have necessarily the seal of baptisme lest by death preventing they dye unclean c. Thus Hesychius with much more Thirdly If it pleaseth Mr. T. he may read Gentinus Hervetâ—â— Aurelianus his note on the place of Clem. Alexandrinus who is carefull to set forth the sence of Clemens though we heed not all his owne excursions Therefore Clem. Alexandrinus saith Gent. Hervet Anrel intimateth that many were the Baptismes of Moses anciently which were figures of our regeneration by Baptisme by which originall sin is washed which one onely Baptisme indeed is necessary for by it it is that the seed is no more uncleane though after to be further cleansed So Gent. Herv with much more Thus you have a touch out of one of Mr. T. his five Gr. Authors which he saith have nothing of Infant-Baptisme Wee will give you another touch out of another of his silent Authors as Mr. T. intimates and so dismisse the rest as not having all the Authors nor time to go looke after them EPIPHANIVS contra Haeres 30. p. 52. Epiphanius in his second Booke 2. Tom. contr Haeres speaking before of the Circumcision of Christ that he was circumcised to dissolve or abrogate that Circumcision to bring in a greater And that the Circumcision injoyned Abraham was not perfect but a signe of grace given and for the instruction of them in future times and thence wisheth Ebion not to imitate Christ in Circumcision of himself or others at last he speaks in these very words For the Lord saith Epiphanius hath removed the time of this Circumcision For he came and fulfilled it having given the perfect Circumcision of his mysteries and that not in one member onely but in the whole body sealed and circumcised from sinnes and saving not one onely part of the people that is men only but also all the people of Christians indeed signing or sealing men and women and liberally for the inheritance of the Kingdome of Heaven and not in exhibiting the seale defectively to one ranck or state virorum of men in the time of their imbecility but to all the people c. Thus far Epiphanius writes there of Infant-Baptisme and I am confident more might bee found in other places touching it had we time to seek though Epiphanius sayes nothing of it as Mr. T. weakly objects in lib. 2. Haeres 46. vel 47. in his disputation for Infants inheriting Heaven against the Hieracites We are not to teach other learned men what to speake nor when to speak nor to say they speake not at all of such a point if they do not speak where and when we expect 2. Mr. T. objects against the Greek Fathers alleadged by us EXAMEN Sect. 6. and in them against the custome of the Greek Churches touching Infant-Baptisme thus But besides the continuance of the questions to baptized persons and answered
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
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
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