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
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
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-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
will be mistaken Thus of Mr T. his first particular in his minor That Infant Baptisme was an unwritten tradition in some ages after the first of the Apostles but he cannot tell when as we have proved To his second particular of Jewish imitation Exercitat We have spoken already in answer to the Major Animadver And we have shewd that the pious learned ancients had other Scripture reasons then only Circumcision or their greedinesse to increase the number of Christians who so oft gave warning to take heed to whom they gave that sacred thing baptisme * Caeterum Baptismum non temere credendumesse sciunt quorum officium est Nolite dare sanctum canibus ne participes a liena delicta c. Textul lib. de baptis cap. 18. or Mr T. his perhaps a fine word for an argument and in divine things heathenish lustration of little ones When Justin Martyr Tertullian c. apologized against heathenisme for Christianity and many of our quoted authors sealed their opposition against Heathenisme with their blood And if there were any true Jewish imitation of Circumcision in Infant-baptisme it was in Fidus that thought children might not be baptized till the eight day and not in Cyprians Epistle that confuted him Nor do they more intimate the necessity of baptisme to salvation then Christ himself Iohn 3.5 Except a man he borne again of water and the spirit c. which is a place they oft quote or the Apostles that say we are baptized into remission of sinnes and for receivall of the holy spirit which they Hierom and others also alleadge And it is most sure there is such a necessity in regard of Gods precept and means as to us in the use of ordinances as let them venter their salvation on the willing neglect of them that dare I dare not As it is a sinne to put more in an ordinance then God ever put in it as the Anabaptists talke of wonderfull strange manifestations at and in the act of dipping I know what I speak or to think one is damned without an ordinance when God prevents the having it by death or otherwise so greater is the sinne to contemne an ordinance injoyned when it may be had As Tertullian speaks in his book de Baptismo chap. 13. Hic ergo scelestissimi illi c. Here those most gracelesse follows provoke questions So that they say baptism is not necessary to whom faith is sufficient c. To Mr T. Exercitat §. 17. his third particular in his Minor that Infant-baptisme was not universally practised for Constantine was not baptized whiles an Infant though his mother Helena were a Christian Nor Augustine though his mother Monica was a Christian c. We answer 1 No wonder if baptisme of Infants be not universally practised in all ages Animadver when so many Sects under one notion or another more or lesse stuck at it First Arrians in one age after that the Pelagians in another after them Arminius then the Anabaptists in Luthers time then the Anabaptists in Ainsworths time and now the Anabaptists in our times Shall these men make a practise and then make of it an argument for themselves who will be swayed with such an argument as that They should make out their practise from an argument and not make an argument of their practise 2 Mr T. doth not here so much as say that Helena was a Christian at Constantines birth or that Monica was a Christian at Augustines birth which to have cleared was necessary to the argument 3 Who doth not know that histories make mention of Helena as of a very weak and wonderfull I had almost said superstitious Christian Socrat. schol Ecles hist lib. 1. chap. 13. according to the English trans in digging for the crosse of Christ at Hierusalem and finding three to wit those two also on which the theeves were crucified on and being perplexed which was Christs a miracle of curing a dying woman with that which was Christs resolved which was his and so shee locked up some of it in a silver chest and the rest was set up upon a pillar in the market place at Constantinople so called of Constantine for the preservation of that City As also that she finding the nayles that fastened Christ to the Crosse shee sent them to her sonne Constantine the Emperour whereof he caused bittes for bridles helmets and head-peece to be made which he wore in battail So Socrate Eccles You see how vaine a story here is And that all the Christianitie by this appearing in Helena relates to the time of her sonne Constantines being Emperour And therefore what Mr T. can make of it to his purpose I know not 4. At this time of Constantines birth were great persecutions risen now almost towards the highest it cost after that Constantine many a battle before he could quiet things and therefore Helena the Emperesse the wife of Constantius the Emperour Religion then daring little to peepe forth more then in notorious suffering for it might well be affraid if she were then a Christian to doe such an act as to carry her sonne to Baptisme as Ministers might be afraid to doe it Constantius the father not being a Christian though politically moderate 5. For Augustine 1. It is cleare out of Aug. Confessions The first Booke and 11. Chap. that his father was not a beleever at his birth nor when he was growne up to be a little boy of some understanding For he sayth there in the description of himselfe while he was Puer a little boy or lad Ita jam credebam et illa et omnis domus nisi pater solus c. So I and my mother and all the family did now beleeve except my father onely who notwithstanding did not controule my mothers power over me whereby I should not beleeve in Christ For shee rather endevored that thou O my God shouldest be my father rather then he so Augustine Now the want of the fathers concurrence in carrying a child to baptisme in those difficult times might be some delay of that Sacrament For secondly We say persecution was walking among Christians about that time for Augustine in his third Booke chap. 25. Contra literas Petiliani saith that after the death of the great Tyrant he went into Africa Intimating also that his mother lived a very private life his father being then dead Thirdly Augustine tell us in his first book of confessions and 11. chap. That Cum puer * One is said to begin to be a Puer from 〈◊〉 4 yeere old so upward to 14. essem et quodam die pressus stomachi dolore c. When I was a little boy or lad being a certaine day oppressed in my stomacke and sick even to death thou O God sawest because thou art my keeper with what motion of minde and with what faith I earnestly desired from the pietie of my mother and of thy Church
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
in stead of the outward signe of circumcision Christ hath instituted another signe namely baptisme that circumcision being to be done away at Christs death at least and this to be used instead thereof more significant then the other for circumcision fitly signified spirituall death to sin which is mortification but baptisme is fitted to signifie more namely your rising from under the water lively represents your spirituall life by Christ your rising to newnesse of life and both these have been effectually signed or sealed to you by baptisme And therefore you are no longer to call for circumcision but to use and injoy baptisme in the stead thereof as formerly you and your children did circumcision for the Apostle hints not the least difference about the subject thereof Even as Christ himself circumcised the eighth day was after baptised to signifie an end now about to be put to circumcision This I ingenuously think to be the naked scope and plain argumentation and method of the Apostle here in this 2 of Colos Which secondly more appears to us by these two arguments 1 From the inconveniences against the Apostles dispute if baptisme doth not so come in the roome of circumcision For first if we have not baptisme in the room of circumcision to us beleevers and our infants we are not so compleat as the Apostle affirms as the Jews by Christ Secondly if baptisme doth not come in the roome of circumcision how doth the Apostle call off the Colossians from circumcision by the consideration of their baptisme How doth he truly imply that as the first Sacrament that beleeving Abraham and his children received was circumcision so the first the beleeving Colossians and their children received was baptisme no other seal intervening How are the Colossians said to be inwardly circumcised and outwardly and inwardly baptized in the same Christ who in himself put down the one by taking up the other 2 From the analogie and agreement between both namely circumcision and baptisme which the Apostle hints in this 2. of Colos First the Apostle intimates that as putting off the body of sin which is a phrase to signifie naturall death 2 Cor. 5. and so is here an allusion to signifie spirituall death to sin is the signification of circumcision Colos 2.11 So spirituall burying which argues death is the signification of baptisme Secondly that as neither of these are assured to any but as having Christ sealed to them so as circumcision sealed an implantation into the death of Christ that he put off the body naturally in the grave so the circumcised put off the body of sin spiritually v. 11. Even so baptisme signifies and seals our implantation into the buriall of Christ v. 12. as is more fully expressed Rom. 6.3 4 5. 3 That as the way to kill sin and so to live was by circumcision into Christ in the old Testament Colos 2.11 insomuch that he that should wilfully neglect outward circumcision for himself or his child that might have it should be cut off Gen. 17. So baptizing into Christ is the way to bury sin and so to live v. 12. of this 2 Colos insomuch that he that shall wilfully neglect baptisme with water the seal of regeneration who may have it shall not enter heaven Joh. 3.5 A soul may be saved without the use of a seal in some case but in no case can be saved in the contempt of a seal I am not ignorant that some do understand this Joh. 3.5 of the spirit onely compared to water but who doth not know that as Bullinger saith Omnes penè de baptismo interpretantur all almost interpret it of the water of baptisme Bullinger himself consenting with them onely he would not have the efficacie of the Spirit to be transferred to the signe And sure whiles Christ was instructing Nicodemus of regeneration he would not be silent touching the seal of it baptisme Nor can we so well parallel this phrase with Matth. 3. Baptising with the holy Ghost and with fire where onely the Spirit must be meant because there is no other baptisme of fire But there is a baptisme with water beside baptisme with the Spirit And therefore water must signifie baptisme For it were harsh to run to a metaphor without need and to understand by water the Spirit which in relation to the efficacie of baptisme is usually called fire Thus we have shewed out of this Colos 2. from the scope of the Apostle the analogie of the two Sacraments and the inconveniencies of the contrary that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and to be used instead of circumcision now let the ingenuous Reader ponder and see whether there be not more in this text then Mr. Tombes would acknowledge To that passage of Mr. T. that Col. 2.11 doth not speak of any circumcision but of Christs circumcision meaning I suppose the circumcision of Christ in his own person for else all circumcision and baptisme too is Christs both in regard of institution signe and making effectuall we have answered already in the analysing of the place The summe whereof was that not onely Christs circumcision was imputed to them but the vertue of circumcision was inherent in their hearts by expresse words of the Apostle Colos 2.11 Circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh To that other passage that the text Colos 2.11 12. doth not say We are circumcised because we are baptized We answer and adde to our former intimations that the Apostle clearly labours to satisfi◠the Colossians from seeking to be circumcised because they were inwardly eircumcised and inwardly circumcised because inwardly baptized according to the outward sealing of baptisme or else he had not mentioned baptisme upon any just ground or pertinent cause to the point in hand that I can conceive He tels them they had no need of circumcision which was abolished and had the effect of it sealed by and conveighed through or with outward baptisme which they had received according to the order of calling men to be Saints in the New Testament In some things saith Mr. T. baptisme doth not succeed in the place of circumcision in respect of signification For first circumcision did signifie Christ to come of Isaac according to the flesh Gen. 17.10 21. But baptisme doth not signifie this but points at the incarnation death and resurrection of Christ Answ Though we have answered to this afore Animadvers on Exercitat p. 4. yet we adde First as circumcision did no more signifie Christ to come of Isaac for any thing that is in the analogie or form of institution or administration then of Abraham so baptisme hath in it as well to signifie the true Christ to come of Isaac as circumcision Secondly that ver 10. of Gen. 17. hath nothing in it but what is spoken in common to Abraham and his seed indefinitely That v. 21. is not the institution or form of administration or any thing to
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.
T. well knows subordinate things are not contrary Christ regenerates therefore doth he not do it by his Ordinances Word Baptisme c We have heard afore that though Christ be the Author of our salvation yet it is said we are born again by water and the Spirit And that for the conjunction of the signe and thing signified the thing signified is called by the name of the signe We adde Ephes 5.26.1 Pet. 1.23 where it is said that we are sanctified by the washing of water by the Word And we are born again by the Word of God and yet we know Christ by his Spirit is the Author of these 3 Others of the approved Ancients as Commentators on Irenaeus call baptisme by the name of regeneration Nazianzen cals Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the laver of regeneration or of the new-birth Nazianz. Orat. 402. in Sanct. Bapt. Augustine saith As by the first man men are born in sin and death so by Christ renascuntur they are born again in or into righteousnesse and eternall life in or through baptisme Aug. lib. de Bapt. hab Cons Ambrose saith God the omnipotent Father who hath regenerated thee of water and the holy Spirit Ambros de Sacram. Hieronimus The bloody bodies of Infants are washed as soon as they are born so the spirituall generation stands in need of the saving laver Hieron lib. 4. Ezek. ca. 16. More might be alledged but these enough to clear the businesse in hand that Irenaeus meant by being born-again or regenerated Baptisme But Mr. T. objects Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 4. p. 7. that Irenaeus saith Christ was fifty yeers old aâ— he had received it from those that conversed with John the Apostle and thereby Mr. Tombes would blemish Irenaeus his testimonie We answer Animad First men have their mistakes else they were not men but as Angels Secondly Mr. T. referred us to far worse Authors full of superstitions in Scham before And his Ludovicus Vives and his Walafridus we and Vossius too have noted before for their grosse expressions and mistakes Thirdly which is mainly to the point Irenaeus saith Infants may be born again that is baptized as from himself though he reports the whole age of Christ from others who if they wrote his age by ciphers in after-times fifty might easily be mistaken for thirty The third and last Author we will urge from this first age TERTVLLIAN or first hundred yeers or century next following the Apostles time is Tertullian Whom Helvicus puts in the latter end of the age afore said namely in the yeer after Christ 195. which was as about the 95 yeer after the death of John the Evangelist But the same Helvicus saith this of him put in that yeer out of Eusebius and Hieron That he put forth his book of Praescriptions and that he was the third Latin Writer And Bucholcerus mentions him as famous about the yeer after Christ 208 that is 108. after St. John that is but about thirteen yeers after the time set down by Helvicus For he saith that about that time Hieron in Catalogo Cyprian as Hieron testifies did ascribe so much to Tertullians writings that when he called for one of his Authors or Writers he would say Da Magistrum that is Give me my Master when he meant Tertullian Therefore he wrote divers yeers afore The words of Tertullian to the point in hand of Infant-Baptisme Lib. de Anim. cap. 39. 40. are these Hinc enim Apâ—st c. that is For hence also the Apostle affirmeth that of either sex sanctified are procreated those that are holy as by the prerogative of SEED so by the discipline or rule of institution But they were born unclean as if by this neverthelesse he would have it understood that the children of beleevers are designatos the designed ones of holinesse and thereby also of salvation that these pledges of hope might patronage those marriages which he had judged to be kept undissolved Otherwise he had minded the Lords determination Vnlesse one be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdome of God that is He shall not be holy So every soul is counted to be in Adam till he be recounted to be in Christ and so long to be impure till he be recounted Thus Tertullian Whence note first by the way how the opinion of Antiquity touching that place 1 Cor. 7.14 is contrary to Mr. Tombes his opinion Secondly directly to the point in hand of the Baptisme of the children of beleevers he holds forth these Notions First the birthright of beleevers Infants the parents and children being both under that promise I am the God of thee and thy seed They are saith Tertullian by the Sanctification of one of the Parents procreated holy partly by the praerogative of the SEED I am the God of thee beleeving Abraham and of thy seed Gen. 17.7 partly by the discipline of Institution THEREFORE thou shalt keep my Covenant to give the first seal to every male of thy seed Gen. 17.9 Or Act. 2. The promise is to you and you being called to your children also So that Tertullian meanes that the children of beleevers are reputatively and federally holy Which is the more plain by that which follows of counted in Adam and recounted in Christ Secondly The capacity of children of grace and Salvation and consequently of the seal for the deeds and their seals follow the right of the inheritance so all along the Scripture as we have shewed in part I say Tertullian shews childrens capacity of grace 1. In mentioning their being holy For it s in vain to talke of accounting holy if none may be holy yea therefore God will have beleevers children indefinitly accounted holy because he hath made some holy in their childhood Isaac Iacob Samuel Iohn Baptist those Mar. 10. c. 2. In mentioning that place Iohn 3.5 in relation to children Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit c. From all which we may perceive that Tertullian grounds Infant-Baptisme upon Scripture not upon unwritten Tradition Nor is it my opinion onely that this place of Tertullian is for Infant-baptisme but of learned Vossius too whom Mr. T. so oft quotes with respect For Vossius by this place proves that it was the mind of Tertullian in that noted place of Chap. 18. H. D. Mr T. in his 10th Argument of his book De Baptismo That Infants should be Baptized which some alleadge against Infant-baptism but is indeed for it Tertullians words are these Itaeque pro cujusque personae c. Therefore according to every persons condition disposition and age the delay of baptisme is more profitable but especially concerning little children For what necessity is there * Those words between Junius saith may be left out Mr T. in his 10th Argument leaves them out But in the best Editions of Tertullian they are in Vossius takes them in
Episcopos Papales coetum sceleratorum Ecclesiam Pontificiam coetum infernorum esse In hac propositione non multum à vero aberraverunt Matrimonia damnabant promiscuos concubitus cosquenefarios sanctos ducebant Hic est furor Satanicus Corporum resurrectionem negant Mortuos vivorum beneficiis nonâ— juvari Haec propositio non est haeretica Animas defunctorum hominum transire per diversa corpora etiam animalium serpentum si malè vixerint sin benè in Principis aut alterìus illustris personae corpus Carnem comedi prohibent Tribuitur illis à quibusdam quòd Evangelion urina conspersum de muro in hostes multis additis convitiis projecerint Christum non esse Deum nec assumpsisse carnem de Virgine sed è Coelo carnemâ— duxisse Quòd Christus non fuerit verus homo nec verè comederit quòd non verè passus sit in cruce nec resurrexerit nec in coelum ascenderit Mundum semper fuisse semper futurum Quòd Moses fuerit malus Quòd Adam non fuerit à Deo Ecclesiam non posse aliquid possidere nisi incommuni nec debere persequi malos Usuram non esse prohibitam necablata restituenda c. Hae propositiones cù partim sint absurdae impiae haereticae partim etiam in Politia tolerari non possent praesertim promiscuae libidines abolitio matrimonii cùm Albingenses admonitiones non admitterent sed in erroribus sceleribus persisterent adhortante Pontifice Romano Magistratus politicus collecto exercitu duabus vicibus aliquot millia Albin gensium trucidarunt multi etiam capitibus truncati cremati leguntur qui hinc inde sunt deprehensi fuit enim Albingensis furor Anabaptisticus qualis Anno 1534. nostro seculo Anabaptistarum Monasteriensium crat THere arose and in progresse of time gat strength the heresie of the Albingenses or Albienses or Albians in France whom some think to be so called from their Author others from a place in France That heresie is said to take begining first at Rome then it was dispersed far wide in the county of Tholouse and that among men of rank more over they write that it entred England The opinions attributed to them are these That there are two Principles or beginnings namely the good God and the Evill that is the Devill who createth all bodies The good God creates souls That the body of Christ is no otherwise in the bread then in other things They throw away Baptisme That it profits nothing to go into Churches or to pray in them That the Papall Bishops were a company of infernall spirits In this proposition they did not much erre from the truth They condemned all matrimony or mariages Promiscuous or mingled and wicked copulations they accounted holy This is a Satanicall fury They deny the Resurrection of the dead They say that the dead are not helped by any kindnesses from the living This Proposition is not hereticall The souls of the dead if they lived wickedly passe through divers bodies even of Animals Serpents If they lived well then they passe into the body of some Prince or some such noble person They forbid the eating of slesh It is attributed to them by some that they threw down the books of the Gospel sprinkled with pisse from the wall upon the enemies with addition of many reproches That Christ is not God neither took hee flesh of the Virgin but brought downe his flesh with him from heaven That Christ was not true man nor did he truly eat that hee did not truly suffer on the crosse nor ascend into heaven That the world hath been and shall be eternall That Moses was wicked That Adam was not from God That the Church can possesse nothing but in common Neither ought it to persecute the wicked That usury is not forbidden nor are things taken away to be restored c. These propositions being partly absurd wicked and hereticall partly intolerable in a Common-wealth especially promiscuous lusts and the abolishing of matrimony when the Albingenses would receive no admonition but persisted in their impieties the civill Magistrate the Bishop of Rome exhorting him thereunto having gathered an Army two severall times slew some thousands of them many also were beheaded and many burnt as we read being taken here and there For Albingensis was an Anabaptisticall fury such as was that in the yeer 1534 in our age Of the Monasterian Anabaptists Thus far out of the Chapter M. Tombes quoted out of Osiander alleaging the Albingenses against us for an instance that the same men that opposed Infant-baptisme opposed Popish superstitions How you have heard out of Master Tombes his quoted Authour To M. T. his fourth particular of those places of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Tertull. p. 120. Greg. Nazian p. 139. I have abundantly answered severall times afore Chap. 13 and 14 of our Animadversions and elswhere CHAP. XXI MAster Tombes his eleventh argument against Infant baptism is Exercit. § 22. because the assertors of Infant baptisme little agree among themselves upon what foundation they may build Infant-baptisme Cyprian and others of the Ancients draw it from the universality of grace and the necessity of baptisme to salvation Augustine Bernard c. bring the faith of the Church as the reason of baptizing infants The Catechisme in the English Liturgie puts the promise of the sureties The Lutherans the faith of infants Others the holinesse of a believing Nation Others the faith of the next parent and others the faith of the next parent in Covenant in a gathered Church We answer 1 In generall Multaloqueris pauc a dicis Animad Here is much spoken little proved We have but one quotation and that is out of the English Masse-book the Episcopall Liturgie 2 More particularly 1 By way of retort 2 By way of reply 1 We retort The Anabaptists also much differ in their foundation of their Anabaptisme some build it on bare confession of sins what ere the man be in point of manifestation of grace So some of the Arians c. See Epiphan afore quoted in the 15 Chap. And of late the Author of the book called the Marke or Character of the Beast Some on profession of farth So many of them at this day Some on signes of grace So M.T. Some on making them Disciples So M.D. and others Yet M.T. sayth in the next argument that a man is shewed to be a Disciple by baptisme and we have proved before believers children are reckoned Disciples Some build their Anabaptisme upon I know not what Master S.M. sayth that by baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is not meant baptisme with water And those Anabaptists in Germanie now mentioned in Cloppenburgius and by Spanhemius at the end of Clâ—ppenburgius where you have the history of them say John Baptist was a Minister of the Law not of the Gospel See before in our 15 Chap. 2 By
thus Exercit. Sect. 3. If baptisme be not granted to the infants of beleevers then the grace of God will be more restrained in the new Testament then in the old But this is not to be affirmed therefore baptisme is to be granted to infants of beleevers These are all the forms of argument from Gen. Animadvers 17.7 c. as Mr. T. reports but he reports not all the forms nor the all of those forms he reports For with great injurie to these three arguments some materiall thing is left out of every one of them by Mr. T. as we shall plainly declare when we come to animadvert upon his answers to them Mean while let us tell the Reader that there are other forms of argument drawn from Gen. 17.7 c. and long since in print See Mr. Ainsworths Answer to the Anabaptists and those to our apprehension very considerable and to be put in the first place in this dispute according to order of method if not of nature too Therefore let the Reader that ingenuously reads to know and not to quarrell that he may not know patiently give us leave to set them down and briefly urge the vigour of them and then we will lay aside all to give him those short notes we have to Mr. T. his Exercitation Our first form of argument from Gen. 17.7 c. is this urged by Mr. Ainsw in his book against the Anabaptists Where there is a command for a thing never remanded or contramanded there the thing is still in force But there is a command for signeing the Infants of a believer with the signe of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.7.9 never yet remanded or contramanded therefore the signing Believers children with the signe of the Covenant of grace namely Baptisme now is still in force So he For the confirmation of the Minor If any where there is any Institution of baptizing only men of ripe yeares then in Matth. 28. But not there as we shall see more after meane while the Argument hence against baptizing of Believers Infants lyes not 1 In the order of words for the order is inverted and contrary Mar. 1.4 2 Not in the affirmativenesse one affirmative without a determinating word expressed doth not take off another affirmative 3 The universal terme cannot note the subject of Baptisme viz. All Nations For then all are to be baptised And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would answer in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observe that Nations here mentioned well answer to Nations Gen. 17. explained Rom. 4. Gal. 3. That as Infants of believing Abraham were to be circumcised so the Infants of believing Gentiles to be baptised 4 Not the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if that must needs signifie make Disciples For 1 Its unlikely that so great a controversie as the Anabap make of the Subject of Baptisme should have no clearer an Institution then a Gr. criticisme of taking one sence of a word that is taken divers wayes For Significat docere in Mat. 28. Legh Crit. S. Novar in Mat. 28.20 Aliquando est verbum transit pro docere ut Mat. 28. Whitak Descript The great Arias renders it onely Docete teach So the renowned Vatablus so the Syr◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Arab. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So many others which for brevity we omit 2 As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in v. 19. so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. therfore most likely in v. 19. it signifies only a generall teaching And so the great Critick learned men in Gr. tongue That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to teach them that are strangers to Doctrine that they may become Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach them that are Disciples So that here in v. 19. is not meant an exact compleat platforme of Christs commission to the Apostles For here is no mention of the holy Supper but only the naming of the two more usuall things viz. teaching and baptizing and not the matter of subject of the administration of Baptisme 3 The holy Ghost renders this text Mar. 16.15 by plaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preach the Gospel 4 If the Greek word should be taken in that peculiar sense then the sentence would run thus therefore make all Nations disciples which for these 1600 yeers was never done in any nation 5 Nor can the gender in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the neuter gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie that the children of beleevers ought not to be baptized For if we stick so precisely to the gender then women are not to be baptized If we keep to the gender as to relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the children of beleevers are called disciples Act. 15. 10. They upon whose necks the false teachers would put the yoke of circumcision are called disciples But the yoke of circumcision was put upon children as well as men and according to their institution upon children of eight dayes old Gen. 17.12 and so to continue unlesse in some great impediment as in the wildernesse And therefore out of doubt those false teachers that urged here that the grown disciples should be circumcised urged that their children should be circumcised also Therefore children are called disciples For which two Reasons 1 The children are reckned with the parents in all ordinances communicable to both by warrant of Scripture As till the Jews were broken off Rom. 11. Till the vineyard was let out Luke 20. Circumcision went along with the parents to children when parents lost it the children lost it When Ishmael was cast out of the Church his posteritie was not circumcised that we read of By the same proportion baptisme goes along from parents to children 2 There is a double preaching and a double Sacrament A preaching to the heart and to the eare An innitiating and a corroborating Sacrament God can preach to the heart when not to the eare He a Spirit can preach to a spirit without sentences and so to children This preaching is most sutable to infants because thus man is altogether passive so the innitiating Sacrament is fit for infants because in that they can be but passive The soul of an infant is out of the body all one with an Angel And therfore one defines a soul An Angel in a body If the body cannot act yet God can act without the body As we see great revelations visions c. were given when the body was asleep and unusefull See the Patriarches c. And Paul saw a most glorious vision when he had no use of his body 2 Cor. 12. To make the inward worke of grace to depend on the body is like the Pelagians and Arminians yea worse to make a worke depend not only on reason but on sence 2 Forme of Argum. from Gen. 17. is this to whom the Covenant in force runs in the same tenor in the
10.2 All our Fathers were baptized therefore also Infants I answer first if this verse prove that Infants were baptized the verses following will prove that they received the Lords Supper 2. The sence is not they were formerly Baptized with the right of Baptisme begun by Iohn and Ordained by Christ but that by a like representation the sea and the cloud signifie Salvation to them by Christ as Baptisme doth to us and that they were in like condition as if baptized We have said a little to this Text before in Chap. 3. In reply to Mr T. his Answer to Coloss 2.11 we add Animadver In reply to Mr. T. his first Answer First That it was not so necessary nor so probable that the sucking children that lived on their mothers milk and the milk of the Heards driven along with them should eate Manna and drink water as it is infallible that they were baptized in the red Sea and in the Cloud Secondly It is said expresly They were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea but not that they all ate the Lords Supper either because the Infants did not eate the Manna and drink the water of the rock or that there might be no hint for us to carry children to the Lords Supper but hearken to the rule Let him that will eate of that worthily examine himself 1. Cor. 11. Thirdly If Mr Tombes could prove that the Jews Infants did eate the Lords Supper in the wildernesse it being then not against the rule for children that could eate flesh and bitter herbes and therefore were of some age to eate the second Sacrament the Passeover yet this makes nothing for Mr Tombes that we should be afraid to say They were baptized For we can say boldly That there is no expresse command to forbid the Baptizing of children and yet it will not follow that Infants must receive the Supper too under the New Testament because there is an expresse rule to forbid it To the second Answer of Mr T. We Reply first That they were really baptized in the cloud and red sea and with a Baptisme instituted by one greater then Iohn namely by that Rock that followed them or went along with them CHRIST 1 Cor. 10.4 And this Baptisme had the precedency in seniority and of bringing the first tydings of the New-Testament-Baptisme Yea the cloud had a capacity to resemble as wel the baptism of the fire of the Spirit of which the Jews were aware as appears in the Rabbins Commentary as of water and the Sea called the red Sea being so by weeds or other wise had an aptnesse to sound of and resemble blood and therefore no lesse fit to be the Symbols or Elements of Baptisme then river water now For the two last lines of Mr Tombes his answer Namely But by a like representation the sea and the clould signified salvation to them by Christ as Baptisme doth to us and that they were IN A LIKE CONDITION as if they had been baptized We need say no more but to thank him for them For if the Sea and the cloud signified the same salvation by Christ and that according to the mind of Christ whose Text the 1 Cor. 20. is and that they were in the like condition as if baptized with New Testament Baptisme and called baptisme by divine authority and the Jews are said in regard of it to be baptized and that it did represent the State of the New Testament I know not what materiall thing can be alleadged to enervate and weaken the Argument that as the Jews children and Infants were baptized in the cloud and the red sea so may the children of converted Gentiles be baptized with water under the New Testament Mr B. his objection that it was extraordinary Baptisme makes for us For if the Jews Infants were capable and did in the Old Testament partake of extraordinary Baptisme then sure it cannot be denyed to Beleevers Infants in the New Fourthly Exercitat § 11. The Argument from Ephes 5.26 Examined from Ephes 5.26 Mr T. represents to us our Argument thus It is said there that Christ clensed the Church with the washing of water through the word Therefore Infants either belong not to the Church and so are excluded from the benefit of Christs death or they are to be baptized Mr T. his Answer is If this Argument be of force the theef crucified with Christ and repenting on the crosse Infants Catechumeni Martyres c. dying before Baptisme are excluded out of the Church and from the benefit of Christs death We are therefore to say That either the Church is taken for the more famous part of the Church or that purification is to be understood of that which is for the most part Our Reply is First That the processe of the Argument is not of an impossibility preventing Baptisme As in the Theef the Infants of Beleevers Catechumeni that is heathens or unbeleevers children catechised for Baptisme Martyrs newly converted that were prevented by death before possibly baptism could be duly administred to them For in such cases where an Ordinance cannot be had God doth save without an Ordinance by his Royall Prerogative But the Argument proceeds of a voluntary exclusion upon mans judgement judging infants of beleevers unfit to be admitted to baptisme and so these absurdities will follow against such excluders That Infants of beleevers belong not to the Church and so nor Christ to them For these go together Ephes 2.12 Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood of the Church-policy Church-priviledges not the Common-wealths policy or else Common-wealth must be understood as including or twisted with the Church To Mr T. his distinction of the more famous part of the Church we Reply First it is a venterous speech to say that any part of the Church is infamous or to say that Christ hath no Ordinance as alove expression and care for his Lambes his lesse famous ones which is manifested in his charge to Poter Iohn 21. And Mat. 19. Mar. 10. Luke 18. expressed in his welcoming and blessing little ones and in that this speech Ephes 5.26 The relative IT REFERRS to the Church in the former verse Christ gave himselfe for the Church Now did not I pray you Christ give himselfe for the Infants of beleevers indefinitely To Mr T. his distinction for the most part we say first That if Mr T. can so easily coine that distinction here why might he not afore when he said that all the housholds or the whole housholds heard the word or rejoyced Secondly whether or no the many children that most beleevers have may not be taken in within the most part For sure Mr T. doth not mean purified for the most part for then he grants a supposition That Beleevers and their children are purified in some part Fifthly saith Mr T. They argue from 1 Pet. 2.9 Beleevers are called a chosen generation a holy nation Exercitat §. 12. The Arguments from 1
ratified their Covenant made in Baptisme and so were confirmed in their Church estate by imposition of hands which imposition of hands is therefore reckoned one of the six principles of the foundation of Christian faith Heb. 6.2 For it could not be a principle of faith it must be therefore a principle of the foundation of Church-estate and Order So Mr Cotton with much more before recited Chap. 7. Now let the world judge whether these mens readings and reasons or Mr Tombes his strained glosses give us rightlyer the meaning of Heb. 6.2 To Mr T. his second Answ We reply first That the learned men afore quoted gave us the sum of Antiquity * Tertul de Baptismo Dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem c. Cyprian Ep. 3. 70. Nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in ecclesia baptizantur per praepositos ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manus impositionem spiritum sanctum consequantur August Tract 6. in Joan. Epist Nuac quidem um loqui linguis quibus imponuntur manus post baptisnum tamenrevera accipere spiritum sanctum latenter alque invisibiliter infundi charitatem That there was an imposition of hands upon beleevers children to confirm that Baptisme they had received being Infants upon the confession of faith when grown up and to testifie the Churches receiving them now unto full membership and compleat fruition of all Church priviledges as to partake of the Lords Supper c. And that this the Text here calls The Doctrine of imposition of hands whereas the recitall of the Articles of faith by those that were past Infancy being children of Heathens fitting them for Baptism is by the Apostle precisely and distinctly from the other called The Doctrine of Baptismes And is not this a proof sufficient that the common and ordinary imposition of hands was used after the Baptisme of Infants onely 2. If Mr T. could prove out of Antiquity for this Text of Heb. 6.2 hath it not for him that a ceremony of imposing hands upon the riper aged children of unbeleeving parents when the said children made confession of their faith for Baptisine crept into the Church this doth not overthrow other Antiquity much lesse the Text of Scripture That the Doctrine of imposition of hands that is that imposing of hands belonged to beleevers children after they had been baptized But thirdly to answer Mr Tombes his Quotation of Tertullian about this De coronâ Militis c. 3. By the leave of Mr Tombes that doth if not scorn so score with the nail in his examen those Antiquities of the Fathers we usually alleadge we must tell the world first what a peece and place of Tertullian Mr T. hath here alleadged viz. such a one as wherein Tertullian disputes for receiving unwritten Traditions Quaeramus an traditio non scripta debeat recipi c. saith he Let us enquire Whether unwritten tradition be not to be received We shall deny it to be received if it were not prejudged or fore determined by the examples of other observations which without the instrument of any Scripture or Writing by the title of tradition onely we from thence defend under the patronage of custome Moreover to begin with Baptisme when we are about to enter into the water even there but also too a little afore in the Church under the hand of a Bishop or Prelate we bear witnesse or make serious protestation that we renounce the Devill Pomp and his Angels After this we are plunged or drencht or dipt three times answering something more then the Lord hath determined in the Gospell Then being * Suscepti which alludes to God-fathers Office Jun. Note on the place undertaken for we take a tast of the compound of milke and honey And from that day we abstain from washing in the common laver or place of washing for a whole weeke Thus far Mr Tombes his place of Tertullian Now let the Reader weigh all the circumstances of the place and judge whether Turtullian here alludes to any Scripture Authority or to any approved Antiquity 2. Such a place of Tertullian that doth not prove the thing Mr Tombes intends For he well knows that sub manu is a phrase that hath so many sences as it is no wayes certain that here sub manu under the hand signifies imposition of hands Haply it may rather signifie the Ministers lifting up of his hand in prayer As Pacianus hath it we obtain saith he in prayer pardon and the holy Spirit in Baptisme by the mouth and hand of the Antistes Touching Mr T. his quotation of Chamier Pans Cathol tom 4. l. 4. c. 11. Sect. 14. We give the world this account that we have run over and that twice that 14th Section with as many more following to the end of the Chapter as make up that 14th to be 59. And we finde but foure Quotations touching imposition of hands All which serve little to Mr T. his purpose The first is in Sect. 23. quoted out of Areopag and is this After questioning and profession he puts his hand upon his head and commands him being consigned to be enrolled or numbred among the Priests after other ceremonies puts him into a certain garment and annoints him with oyl were this suppositions Areopagite * Mitto Arcopagiram Hier. Eccles Clementem Rom. Constitut Apostol Nee libri isti corum sunt quibus tribuuntur vulgo Jo. Voss Thes Theol. Hist See also Perkins prepar to dem of the problem an author of credit and free from the ceremonious fooleries here mentioned yet the Baptisme here mentìoned is of one of ripe years at which time unbeleevers children had the first seal to whom this imposition of hands was applyed rather to make him a Priest as we conceive by the words then to accompany Baptisme The second is of the same hogge-sty Leo the first and rather against Mr Tombes If any saith he shall be baptized by an Heretick he is not to iterate that Sacrament but onely that to be conferred which was wanting that by Episcopall imposition of hands he may obtain the vertue of the holy Ghost Here imposition of hands follows baptisme at distance which is for us The third is out of Cyprian viz. It were to small purpose to impose hands on Hereticks to receive the holy Spirit unlesse they receive the Churches Baptisme Here imposition of hands presupposeth precedent Baptisme though in men of ripe years The fourth is out of a false-named * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a forged Eusebius as Chamier calls him in his first Decretall Know yee that those that have been baptized in the faith of the sacred Trinity we receive or undertake for by imposition of hands If this fellow be of any credit he is for us not against us Thus few doth Chamier quote touching imposition of hands because his design was chiefly to pursue the dispute of the other part of confirmation as he calls it
T. 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
necessity of Infant-Baptisme EXAMEN in that he held such a certaintie of obtaining regâ—nâ—ration thereby We reply 1 This is no good argument Animadver Augustine held Infant baptisme too rigidly therefore he held it not at all This must be the argument or else it is to little purpose For Mr. M. quotation to which Mr T. gives the present objection as part of his answer is that also in Augustines time as formerly Infants-Baptisme was the Tenent and practise of the Christian Churches 2. Mr. T. might haue excused Augustine and answered himselfe touching this out of Grotius whom he hath so often quoted for his own turne which Grotius tels him * The words of Grotius on Matt. 19.14 are caeterum illa sententia infantes non baptizatos certo supplâ—ciis aeternis quanquam levioribus addici tam rigide defensa ab Augustino ne ipsi quidem Augustino placueraâ— ante quam cum Pelagio collideretur Voss de necess bap Thes 21. that Augustines rigidnesse about the necessitie of Infant baptisme Ne ipsi placuerat Augustino was not pleasing to Augustine himselfe before that he disputed with Pelagius Likely he might Confesse or Retract somewhere in his workes somewhat of that rigidnesse but we have not leasure as that Emperour to hunt after every fly 3. Let Vossius answer They object sayth he that Augustine Fulgentius Gregorie and the Author of Hypognosticon adjudged those Infants to Hell torments that dyed without Baptisme And this was Socinus his objection as well as Mr T. his here in the margin of his 8 Section of his EXAMEN p. 15. But sayth Vossius 1 The later ancients that also held infant baptisme did justly disapprove of their judgement as Bernard disputeth against it in his 77. Ep. And of the same judgement was his fellow Petrus Blesensis of the same time with Bernard Serm. 22. de S. Trinitate saying Sufficit c. The spirit and water suffice the spirit and bloud suffice if not the CONTEMPT OF RELIGION but the point of necessitie excludeth the water The spirit if selfe will suffice because the testimonie thereof hath weight So again the same man Serm. 24. In festo Iacobi By this you may see how farre Mr T. his former assertion is true that Augustines authority carried others without controll in the point of Infant baptisme 2 Vossius answers we oppose saith he Augustine to Augustine For nothing is more cleere and manifest then those words of Aug. lib. 5. de Baptismo contra Donatistas I againe and again considering sayth Aug. there do find that not only suffering for the name of Christ may supply that which was wanting of baptisme but also faith and the change of the heart if perhaps by reason of the distresses of the time recourse cannot be had to baptisme By this you may perceive whether we gave a just reason why Augustines and his son Adeodatus his baptisme was deferred if Adeodatus his was deferred But how doth Mr T. prove his last allegation of Aug. rigid opinion of the necessity of Infants baptisme EXAMEN §. 8. First thus Augustine usually puts Regeneration for Baptisme Animadver Wee Retort Yet before * cap. 13. in our answ to EXAMEN §. 4. EXAMEN §. 8. Mr T. did much doubt whether Ireneus might mean baptisme by the word Renascuntur that is are regenerated Secondly Mr T. proves it out of 23. Epistle of Augustine to Boniface That though people brought children to baptisme out of their by-intention to procure the childrens health or c. yet those children might be regenerated We demand in answer to this Animadver What great thing is inferred hence we say not to the qu. of Infant-baptisme in Augustines time for it is nothing to that but what is it to Mr T. his design of disgracing Augustine upon the by as Civilians do witnesses that all judgement may lie in their own breasts For what if Augustine went to hear Ambrose meerly to be tickled in the eare with his eloquence as he confesseth and at that time God converted him by Ambrose his Ministry And whiles another went to a Sermon of purpose for bodily sleep was converted out of the spirituall sleep in sinne Doth this advance the Ministry of the word too high to say hereupon and in the like instances that the word converts men to the true end whiles they come to it for a false end The same may be said of Baptisme and in charity that hopeth all things of Augustines meaning For it is clear out of severall places of Augustine so common that we need not quote more then those quoted afore that Augustine did think that baptisme did not profit all that received it But Augustine saith Mr T. was so corrupt in this matter EXAMEN so as to excuse it if not to justifie this fact of so bringing Infants with a sinister end to baptism The bare râ—citall say we of Augustines words will be a sufficient confutation of this objection Animadver Nec illud te move at and let not that move thee saith Augustine to Boniface Epistle 23. that some bring their little ones to receive baptisme not with that faith that they may by spirituall grace be regenerated to eternall life but because they think by this remedy they may retaine or receive temporall health For not therefore are those children not regenerated because they are not offered by them with this intention For by them the necessary ministry or service is Celebrated By all which words I should thinke that Augustine doth no way justifie or excuse their bad intention but magnifieth Gods powerfull operation that he can bestow the right end of an ordinance whiles by men the wrong is intended Let us interpret others with that candor we our selves would be interpreted as farre as words and Grammer will permit Vpon this quotation of Aug. 23. Ep. Mr T. Concludes his period thus EXAMEN No marvile then if it be true which is related of the approbation that was given of the baptisme used by Athanasius in play among boyes And upon this Objection we make these animadversions Animadver 1. That it was not Augustine that approved it but Alexander the chiefe Minister of Alexandria 60. yeeres afore Augustine 2. That this story is in Mr T. his esteemed Walafridus Chap. 26. de reb eccles by him before quoted yet here he mistrusts him 3. By this it seemes Athanasius upon whom Mr T. before called to speake in the point of childrens baptisme knew that in his time little children at least as soone as they could well speake EXAMEN were baptized But Mr T. objects that Augustine absurdly answers to Boniface about excusing Gossips from a lye when they say the child to be baptized doth beleive We answer Seing Mr T. doth not here question but a child may have faith Animadver the rest is so light a thing he speakes of and so impertinent to the Qu. Of the Tenet and practise of
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
Iewish passeover 1 Cor. 5. and of the Iewish Manna and water out of the rock 1 Cor. 10.1 c is therefore all Baptism and is therefore the Lords Supper deservedly doubtfull whether they may be used Yea why doth Mr T. without any limitation call circumcision Iewish as if it had been meerly so when the Apostle calls it Rom. 4.11 The signes and seal of the righteousnesse of faith Note It had been too much for Mr T. to have called it meer Old Testament or ceremonious circumcision seeing it is the first seal of the covenant with Abraham which was Gospell being the main hinge upon which the New Testament moves in the main point of salvation by faith in Christ Act. 2. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. where the Apostles in sending us to Christ by faith urges Gods Covenant with Abraham Circumcision therefore annexed to the covenant must be in diverse respects of the same nature as under the notion of the first seal in regard of the spirituall signification inward sanctification and too in respect of application to teach that still the first Seal as now baptism is to be applyed as to the beleeving parents so to their Infant seed unlesse Mr T. could have all this while shewd us an exception And what if according to Mr T. his third particular of Not universall practise Moses neglected the circumcision of his child at the due time and circumcision was not exercised upon the Jews born in the wildernesse for 40 years and many parts of worship could not be used in the times of the Churches persecution but Churches and their worship were hid in corners as Revel 12. And we have not records to tell us what they did for many hundred of yeeres but intimations how they were abridged of their liberties Now doth this make any of these things doubtfull See Vossius Thes Theolet Histor De Paedobapt And our quotation after Ambros following No more doth the want of universall practise detract from the authority of administring baptism to beleevers Infants especially seeing the Pelagian faction and other Heresies before that so ancient and so over spreading the Christian world being also opposite to the baptism of Infants might be a great cause that it was not universally practized And it is no handsome Argument in the mouth of an Anabaptist to urge the Non-universall practise of Infant Baptism when many of their fellows have been the cause of it Nor is it enough to wave that we have said to these two particulars viz. the second and third by telling us there was an institution of Circumcision in scripture an institution of Baptisme of men and of the Lords Supper in the Scripture for so we have proved there is of Infant Baptisme and we may as well assert this in this our Answer as for the Anabaptists to begge the Question in the objection as if Infant-baptisme were not instituted in Scripture For the fourth particular with its great caetera namely That together with the baptisme of Infants some errour and many humane traditions have gone along in the company as giving Infants the Lords Supper c. It needs no long nor carefull answer For first we know that all the Ordinances of Christ have been for many hundreds of years for the generall daubed with many traditions and darkned with many errours by the Papists doctrines mixt with Legends Note Baptisme be-spitled greased with oyl brined with salt the wine of the Lords Supper mixt with water c. yet this doth not infer that therefore the Ordinances themselves are doubtfull 2. That though you Mr T. Vltrò nos provocasti have voluntarily provoked us here to rip up all the abhominable opinions and dangerous errours and practises that have in all ages accompanied the opinion of Anabaptisme and antipaedobaptisme out of Mr Bullinger Sleidens Commentaries in his 5. and 10. book Lambertus Hortensius of the Anabaptiss of the Low Countries Iohn Gastius of the Anabaptists of Zuitzerland Melancthon Ch. de Nielles Pontanus Osiander c. * All which will more then furnish the Reader with a full answer to the 2 part of Mr T. his EXAMEN the title or sum whereof is set down by Mr T. That Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth which Authors aforesaid have too many sad instances of both we forbear to name them as having no delight in Catalogues of sins Yet if we should do so you would not take that for a proof of the doubtfulnesse of Anabaptisme or Antipaedobaptisme you would say we did rather endeavour to disgrace it then to confute it as it is your complaint against Mr M. in your first Section of the second part of your EXAMEN why then do you here labour to dazle the eyes of men against the Lawfulnesse of baptizing beleevers children with an aspersion that some odde opinions and traditions have attended it 2. To Mr T. his minor we answer according to the particulars he recites But in some ages saith he after the first from the Apostles the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme was in use first as a tradition not written But why doth Mr T. we wonder speak of some ages after the first 100 years from the Apostles For unlesse he could proove Infant-baptisme to be an unwritten tradition in the first age next after the Apostles all is to no purpose If it were not an unwritten tradition in that age it is not an unwritten one though all the ages following to the worlds end say so and swear it Nor do the words was in use help him For if it be not proved it was an unwritten tradition in the first age after the Apostles though it was not then in use this is nothing to make it then an unwritten tradition Now to the first particular wherein Mr T. saith Infant-Baptism was in use as an unwritten tradition in some ages after the first from the Apostles witnesse Origen First we will bring our proofes of antiquity to the contrary and then secondly answer to Mr T. his quotation of Origen 1 For proof out of Antiquity that Infant-Baptisme was not in use after the first age from the Apostles upon meer unwritten tradition we will take our Authours according to order of time 1 ORIGEN ORIGEN Flourished about the very beginning of the second Century or age after the first from the Apostles times For he was borne * So Butholcer out of Hieron in the first Age or 100 years after that of the Apostles about the yeare of Christ 186. And he being the Disciple of Clement in the 18 year of his age and about the year after Christ 204. opens his schoole ** Helvic ou◠of Euseb Therefore he could not be ignorant of the customes of the Apostles about Infant-Baptisme c. First his words in his fifth booke upon the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans are The Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give Baptisme also to
Infants For they to whom the secrets of divine mysteries were committed did know that there was in all the very filth of sinne which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit c. In which words we have no mention of an unwritten Tradition But of a tradition from the Apostles that is the Doctrine of the Apostles in the Scriptures Tradition being taken in the Scriptures and Fathers not * So our orthodox schools distinguish passively for an unwritten doctrine of tradition but actively for the act of tradition or delivering the holy Scriptures from hand to hand in succession of ages to our fathers and so down to us in these instances 2 Thess 2.15 Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS which wee have been taught whether by word or our Epistle So in Epiphanius * Contra Haeres l. 3. T. 2. Contra Haerâ—s â—0 cumpendiarver doct But saith he other mysteries as concerning the laver of baptisme and internall mysteries are so performed as the TRADITION of the Gospel and the Acts hath them So Augustin as we shall see after in the Quotations of him And that Origen takes Tradition in this sence appeares by the ground he layes upon the Scriptures which tell us a sinner must be born again of water and the holy spirit That sinne is taken away by the blood and spirit of Christ and that this is sealed to us by Baptisme in respect whereof we are said to be baptized into Christ Rom. 6. Now that cannot be called an unwritten tradition that hath footing upon the Scripture as baptisme hath and baptisme of beleevers infants as wee have proved and are still upon the proofe 2 ORIGENS words on Levit. Hom. 8. are speaking of the spirituall uncleannesse of man by sinne It may be asked what cause is there of giving Baptisme also to little children according to the observation of the Church seeing if there were nothing in little children the which remission did concern and indulgence of pardon did belong unto the grace of Baptisme would seem superfluous Here againe Origen layes the ground worke of the washing by Baptisme upon the spirituall pollution of children held forth to us in the Scriptures Thus Origen 3 ORIGENS words in his 14. Hom. on Luke are Little children were baptized into remission of sinnes Of what sinnes Or when did they sin Or how can any Consideration of the Laver of washing be in little children but as we said a little afore no man is pure from uncleannesse though he lives but one day on earth And because by the Sacrament of Baptisme the filth of birth is put away therefore little children are baptized All this he speaks of Baptisme as putting it in the room of Mosaicall purifications And first saith for spirituall cleansing Parvuli baptizabantur that is Little children WERE baptized as relating to the practise of the Churches in former ages And then secondly saith in the present tense Baptizantur parvuli that is little children ARE baptized as noting the continuance of that practise and that upon Scripture grounds viz. for remission and sanctification from sinne Sacramentally and Instrumentally instead of Ceremoniall washings and purifications which had their Gospel meaning as the Apostle expounds in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Thus Origen But Mr T. hath some objections against Origen in his EXAMEN of Mr M. Sermon which we must answer to keep things clear as we go Animadvers upon Mr T. his EXAMEN §. 7. so much as concernes the Common cause Object Perkins and Vsher EXAMEN saith Mr T put Origen in the year 230. Wee answer indeed Origen then abouts succeeded at Alexandria his Master Clem. Animadver Alexandrinus in the Chair of catechising and composed his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Bucholc But for his birth and first opening his schoole we set the reckoning right according to divers learned Chronologers and Ecclesiasticall Writers to which we now adde the words of Bucholcerus in Anno 186. About this year saith he was born Origen the Ecclesiasticall Writer at Alexandria which depends on the year after Christ 203. in which Hieronymus writeth Origen was about 17 years old Object The Works of Origen EXAMEN saith Mr T. as of old were counted full of errours and dangerous to be read so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens what not For the Originall being lost we have onely the Latin Translation which being performed in many of his Works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romans by Ruffinus it appears by his own confession that he added many things of his owne in so much that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith That a man cannot be certain whether he read Ruffinus or Origen And Perkins puts among Origens counterfeit works his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus 1 As we confesse there are some Errours in Origen and in whom not so there are many learned Animadver pious and most spirituall things precious Gospel truthes such as I have admired when I read them considering those darke times in so much as many now called Preachers of the Gospel may go to Origen if they have but the spirit of discerning to learn to be Gospel-preachers 2 If Mr T. makes these exceptions against Origen why I say why doth Mr T. urge Origen for himselfe in his fifth Argument in his Exercitation as we heard afore Truly a man can hardly with patience enough look upon Mr T. his dealing in this When wee urge three places out of Origen which you had before quoted and translated and formerly urged by Mr M. for the ancient practise of the Church in baptizing Infants then M. T. bespatters Origen as you heare and Origen is not Origen with him But if Mr T. urge but one only place of Origen to blast Infant-baptisme with the scar of tradition and to contradict all approved Antiquity afore then Origen must be received Or else to what purpose did M. T. alleadge him urging no other by which to pretend Infant-baptism to be a tradition 3 Mr T. hath nothing to say against Origen on Luke and therefore he intimates an acknowledgement of one place urged by us from Origen to stand good 4 Wee gave you all the places out of Origen as translated into Latin by Hieronimus as the best Editions promise us 5 Perkins his noting Origens Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as not faithfully translated by Ruffinus doth not conclude it to be a counterfeit worke 6. If Ruffinus did say he added many things of his owne in the translation of Origen on the Romans and Leviticus for there is nothing said of Luke sure he would not confesse he had destroyed the sence of Origen or made him speake that he never meant This were to suppose Ruffinus would disgrace himselfe under his owne hand But Mr T.