overlashing herein is not so much as you would have the world believe though my testimonies had pleaded for no higher time then 150 after Christ Neither have I overlashed so farre in this as God willing hereafter shall appeare as you have done more then once I said the Church was so long in possession of it and if you bee pleased to subtract 150 from 1645. I hope the remaining number will shew the mistake was not great as appeares in the margent If the Church was not all the while in possession of it it had been your part to have informed your Reader of the time wherein the Churches quiet possession was disturbed and by whom It is true I named Baltazzar Pacommitanus with his associates who to their own ruine started up to disturbe this possession but the claim of an unjust intruder to justle out the true owner will not carry the Title in any Court where equity takes place In pleading the Churches possession of this truth for so long time I said not so much as others have affirmed before me Learned Augustine though his judgement bee slighted by you affirmed as much in his time and yet I read not of any then that excepted against him for it The Church saith he ever had it ever held it they received this from the faith of their Ancestors and this will it with perseverance keep unto the end If he might say that the Church before his time ever had maintained it and if after his time it was more clearely hâ—ld out then I hope I did not overlash in saying the Church had bin 1500 years possessed of it And it were an easie task to produce abundance of testimonies giving evidence not onely for their own age but that it was the received custome in all ages even from the Apostles time that this evidence was true we may hence know saith Learned Vossius because the Pelagians never durst deny it when the Orthodox Divines used to presse it who certainly wanted neither Learning nor will to have gainsayed them if they could have found them abusing Antiquity nay they not onely not denyed this but concurred in it so saith Augustine lib. 2. contra Caelist Pelag. Caelistus saith he in a book which hee set forth at Rome grants That Infants were baptized for the remission os sins according to the rule of the universall Church and according to the sentence of the Gospell In the next place you tell me I know that booke from whence this testimony was taken was questioned whether it was Justine Martyrs or no. Truly I was not ignorant thereof therefore I said in a Treatise that goes under his name I did not confidently averre that he was the Author of it yet you plainly call it a bastard Treatise and never prove it but whosesoever it was it is well known to be ancient and both Protestants and Papists asserting Paedobaptisme cite it Thirdly I take notice that you answer nothing against the truth of the testimony it selfe onely you say that by it I may see that the reason of baptizing Infants was not the Covenant of grace made to beleevers and their seed which you make the ground of baptizing Infants at this day You cannot be ignorant that this testimony was not alledged by me to prove the ground why it was administred I onely made use of it to beare witnesse to the matter of fact that Infants were baptized in that age in which that booke was written which is plainely held out in the answer to the question you may also remember what I said of all the testimonies quoted by me that I did not relate them to prove the truth of the thing but onely the practice of it and so much it doth notwithstanding the answer which yet you have brought unto it what ground the Covenant of Grace made to beleevers and their seed gives to Baptisme shall bee manifested hereafter and whether the Ancients used not at least some of the Arguments which we doe Come we now to consider what you answer to Irenaeus his testimony here you speake 1. Of his Countrey 2. Of the age he lived in 3. You question his translation 4. And in the last place you speake a little against the testimony it self Before you fall upon the examination of the testimony you say Hee was a Greeke and wrote in Greeke but wee have his Works in Latine except some fragments this you conceive to be a reason why we cannot be so certain of his meaning as we should be if wee had his owne words in the language in which he wrote and may not this Objection lie against any Translation whatsoever and upon that ground you may slight it I cannot guesse why you adde this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hee was a Greeke c. unlesse it were to intimate to your Reader that I could not discern whether he were to be numbred in the Catalogue of Greek or Latine Fathers yet you know that I mentioned him in the first rank of those Renowned Lights of the Church which wrote in the Greek tongue to which afterwards I added two other and when I came to speake of any of the Latine Fathers Cyprian was the first in whom this question did occurre But whether his words in the testimony alledged bee truly translated into Latine shall by and by be considered As for his age you acknowledge with me that hee lived in the same Century with Just Martyr the yeare in which he flourished is variously related by the Authors named by your selfe one sayes 180 the other 183 I may adde iâ— third who varies from them both and sayes 175 and may not others point at other times also For ought I know you needlesly trouble your selfe and your Reader in naming particular yearâ— in which these famous Lights of the Church lived which I thinke can hardly with exactnesse be done it is safe to say about such a time or in such a Century such and such lived which cannot bee prejudiciall to the Reader when wee know a Century includes many years neither can any man warrantably restrain it to any one year alone wherein such a man flourished as if he had flourished one year and no more But I proceed to what you say of the testimony it selfe it is extant Iren. 2. 39. Christus venit salvare 〈◊〉 c. Your exceptions against it are many First you question whether reâ—asuatur there signifies baptisme or no as Feuardemiur his glosse takeâ— it Secondly You say that neither Christ nor his Apostles call Baptisme a new birth Thirdly possibly this was not the word used by Irenaeus in his own Writing Fourthly that the Latine alters Irenaeus his minde as learned Rivet sayes Lastly that Irenaeus meant not Baptisme in this place you goe about to prove by his scope therein These are your exceptions which now wee come to examine To begin with the first of them when Irenaeus saith Christus
the weaknesse thereof this is a sure truth That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be received So it is here divers Arguments are brought to prove that children are to bee baptized and amongst many this is one They conceived the want of it might bee prejudiciall to the salvation of Infants which I will not justifie yet I dare not reject the truth made out by other media reasons or arguments And it is to bee remembred that this Argument was most frequently used by the Ancients in the heate of disputation when they had to do with them that denyed the traduction of originall sin from Adam to Infants howsoever at some other times they confesse with Augustine that some doe receive rem Baptismi absque Sacramento a man may have the grace given in Baptisme and not be baptized As for the third inference made by you from his words that not onely Infants of beleevers but all Infants are to bee baptized though he layes it down in generall termes that none are to be hindered from comming to Christ yet what he says ought to bee understood of the Church because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified who were common You construe some passages of the Epistle as answers to some objections which doe no wayes weaken but strengthen what I have said from thence Onely in the closure of this Section you would find fault with my gathering up of Cyprians mind as if hee had meant that Infants are to bee baptized because they are under Originall sinne and need pardon You say the Argument is rather that they have lesser sinnes then others and therefore there is lesser hinderance to them to come to this Grace remission of sinne and Baptisme Cyprian indeed sayes if Baptisme be not denied to men of yeares who hath committed more hainous sins then Infants why should Baptism be denyed to Infants who are onely guilty of Originall sin derived to them from Adam doth hee not there mention Originall sinne which he sayes is remitted to Children when they are baptized which in his judgement is lesse then the grievous actuall sins of men of years added to their Originall sin In the farewell of your censure of Cyprians judgement you call it naked and say you would have covered the nakednesse thereof but that the truth suffered so much thereby and so can at your pleasure put upon it the title of an absurd Epistle Sir for one man to slight the judgement of 66. men eminent in their generation doth not well become a modest disposition taught in the Gospel to thinke better of others then himself I am afraid that when Cyprians Epistle and your answer shall bee compared together the nakednesse of your answer will rather appeare yea remember what the Philosopher trampling upon Plato his neat Carpet said calco Platonis superbiam yet hee spying a hole in his slovenly cloake answered ego per rimam pallii tuam video superbiam c. I cannot but account it your nakednesse that if it be naked you have not in your answer laid open the nakednesse of it but though it be absurd in your eye yet in the judgment of men renowned for learning and piety it hath ever been accepted in the Church notwithstanding some mistakes in it Next to Cyprian comes Augustine under your Examen Whose authority was it as you say that carryed on Baptism of Infants in the following ages almost without controule For which you bring forth Walfridus Strabo and Petrus Cluniacensis testimonies which I here mean to passe over and take notice of them in another place I confesse learned Augustine his authority was great in the Church both whilst he lived and since and that worthily not onely for his defence of the truth which you now oppose but of other greater and more necessary truths also which hee solidly maintained against the adversaries who laboured either to suppresse or corrupt the same albeit you seeme not much to stand upon his judgement which with you is of no more value then his proofes and reasons can adde weight thereunto Thus you slight him though what he said is approved by divers Fathers and Councels named by your selfe and how far your bare single judgement and censure will out-weigh Augustine Prosper Fulgentius and the Councells which you mention in this Question let the Reader judge It hath been an ancient justifiable course in the Church in examining of controversies in Religion to look back upon the writings of famous men who flourished in the Church before was not Sisinnius his counsell to good purpose which he presented to Theodosius then studying how to put an end to the unhappy differences which troubled the Church in his time when hee perswaded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to demand of them who petitioned him whether they would not stand to the judgement of such as were Teachers in the Church before it was divided especially when their judgement dissented not from the Scriptures his counsell no doubt was good and wholsome yet I desire that herein I may not bee mistaken This I speake not as if I attributed more to Antiquity then to Verity I have long since resolved by Gods assistance with Hierom Antiqua legere probare singula â—etinere quae bona sunt a fide Catholicae Ecclesiae non recedere it were happy for the Church among us if in this unruly age many who not content with former truth are carryed on with an itching disposition after novelties would doe the like I return to judicious Augustine Here I expected your accurate Examen would have canvast the severall testimonies in the places quoted by me but I am deceived Whereby it seems you have nothing to say against them but that they evidence what was that Churches practice in his time about our question which was the true and onely end why I named any testimonies from Antiquity for if they did not I doubt not you would have said so much onely here you tell us what your account is of his proofes and reasons of his judgement in this controversie all which to you seeme to bee but light this you labour to prove in 6 following Sections which I will now view and see whether your weighty answers wil satisfie his light reasons in the judgement of any indifferent Reader Your first exception against his judgement is because he makes it an universall Tradition a shrewd fault or a dangerous position which wil not down with an Anti-paedo-baptisme And first you reason against it to this purpose If the Church had thought it necessary that all children of Christians by profession should bee baptized in their Infancy then none born within the pale of the Church should have miss't of it But so it is that many did Ergo c. Your Minor you prove Augustine himselfe Adeodatus his son and Alipius his friend were not so baptized and thus you labour
Infant-Baptisme hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church for there is no ancient Doctor that doth not acknowledge that Infant-Baptisme was constantly administred by the Apostles 4. That notwithstanding all this evidence I have brought from Antiquity yet I build as little upon Antiquitie as any other man I acknowledge what learned Rivet saith to be very true that Tradition is in most points uncertaine and therefore he that will build sure must build upon the Scripture Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis quae si rem non evincant frustra traditionem advocabimus Animadv in Annot. Grotii in Cassandrum Art 9. Pag. 71. And I would have you and every Reader to remember that I doe not build my faith upon humane Traditions in this Argument nor did the ancients build upon humane traditions in this thing the very Pelagians themselves acknowledge it upon this ground Parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt saith Augustine of the Pelagians qui contra authoritatem universae Ecclesiae procul-dubio per Dominum et Apostolos traditam venire non possunt lib. 1. de peccat merit et Remiss cap. 26. Nay they were forced to their owne prejudice to acknowledge that Infants were baptized secundum regulam universalis Ecclesiae Evangelii sententiam lib. cont Caelest Pelag Now that which was pressed from the scope of the Gospell was not pressed as a Tradition and that which was acknowledged by the Pelagians to be the practise of the universall Church according to the rule of the Gospell was not built upon tradition I will therefore close up my testimonies produced out of the ancient writers with that savoury passage of learned Calvin in his Instructions against the Anabaptists Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitâ—s â—â—llo modo juvet c. I doe not desire saith hee to borrow any helpe from Antiquity for the proofe of this point any whit farther then the judgement of the Ancients shall be found to bee grounded on the Word of God for I know full well that as the custome of men doth not give authority to the Sacraments so the use of the Sacrament cannot hee said to be right and regular because regulated by custome PART II. HAving made good the practise of Antiquity for the Baptizing of Infants I follow you in that which you are pleased to make the second part of my Sermon which you call prejudices against Antipaedo-baptists from their noveltie and miscarriages Where first you blame me for seeking by prefacing and setting downe a briefe touch of the Anabaptists carriage in Germany to create prejudice in my Auditors To which I answer that I yet never learned that a briefe setting downe the Originall History and State of a Controversie or the weight and consequence of it thereby the more to ingage the Readers attention was against any Rule or Law of Art either divine or humane but in case it were a fault Quis tulerit Gracchos You who begin your booke with telling how nine moneths since you sent thus many Arguments in Latine drawne up in a Scholastique way c. and never yet received any Answer and in the end of your booke intimated that though you allowed me but a moneth yet I have kept your booke a whole yeere unanswered and throughout your whole Treatise strive to make an ostentation of reading and put abundance of scoffes and jeeres upon them who are of a contrary mind to you and seeke to loade the opinion you write against as if it carried all kind of mischiefes in the wombe of it All which things you know well enough are apt to take the people but have no weight with them who use onely to weigh Proofe with Proofe and Argument with Argument you I say of all other should pardon such a peccadillo and might very well have passed over what either my selfe or Dr. Featlies Frontispice or Mr. Edwards his expressions might seeme to bee lyable to of exception in this kind In your second Section you blame mee for two things first that I gave you no more light out of Augustine to know who they were that questioned Paedo-Baptisme in his dayes you have searched and cannot finde any the Pelagians you acknowledge opposed it not the custome was so universall and esteemed so sacred that they durst not oppose it All the further light I shall now give in a matter of no greater consequence is that if you cannot finde any in Augustines dayes who questioned it I am contented you shall beleeve there were none Secondly you blame me for making such a leape from Augustines time to Baltazzar Pacommitanus as if be were the first who opposed it where as you alledge many who opposed it 400. yeeres before his time To which I answer I sayd not hee was the first whose judgement was against it but the first that made an head against it or a division or Schisme in the Church about it It is possible men may hold a private opinion differing from the received doctrine and yet never make a rent or divide the Church into factions about it But let us examine your instances you alledge the famous Berengarius as one 2. The Albingenses 3. Out of Bernard you mention another namelesse Sect. 4. Petrus Cluniacensis charges the same upon the Petro-Brusians To all which I answer first in generall That these instances of yours having occasioned mee to make a more dilligent search into the doctrine and practise of those middletimes between the Fathers and the beginning of Reformation in Lâ—â—bers time I dare confidently think that you will have an hard taske to prove out of any impartiall Authors that there were any company of men before the Anabaptists in Germany who rejected the baptizing of Infants out of the confession of their faith possibly some private man might doe it but I shall desire you to shew that any company or Sect if you will so call them have ever denied the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants produce if you can any of their confessions alledge any Acts of any Councells where this doctrine was charged upon any and condemned in that Councell you know the generalitie of the visible Christian world was in those dayes divided into the followers of the Beast and the small number of those who followed the Lambe who bare witnesse to the truth of the Gospel in the times of that Antichristian Apostasie these were called by severall names Berengarians Waldenses poore men of Lyons Albingenses Catharists Petr-Brusians and severall other names as may bee seene in Bishop Vshers book of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches Now all grant that the Church of Rome even in those dayes owned the baptizing of Infants and so did all those persecuted Companies or Churches of the Christians for any thing I can find to the contrary Severall Catalogues of their confessions and opinions I finde in severall Authors and more
children of Women as come out from among Infidells being then converted when they are with childe for Balsamon sayes Such Women as were with childe and come from the Church or company of unbeleevers and what is this to our Question which is about children born in the Church of beleeving Parents Secondly Balsamon distinguishes of children some are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet in the wombe and not brought forth into the world others are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 young but borne into the world for the first of these he sayes no man can undertake he meanes in Baptisme but as for children that are borne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they affirme by such as undertake for them and they being actually Baptized are accounted worthy of divine illumination your inference by Balsamons testimony is directly contrary to Balsamons words for hee rotundis verbis affirmeth that children born do in Baptisme answer by such as undertake for them which words are mentioned neither by Grotius nor your selfe herein you wrong the truth and labour to deceive the Reader in the beginning you charged me with overlashing which yet was your haste and not my errour but here I may safely put you in mind of docking or Curtalling the Author cited by you Lastly in this Paragraph you tell us that Grotius addes that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day doe keepe the custome of deferring the Baptisme of little ones till they could themselves make confession of their saith you bragge much of the Greeke Church but I will not deale with the Greeke Churches as you deale with the Fathers I will not put the Latine Church Augustine and those Fathers and Councells which accord with him in one scale and the Greeke Church in the other such comparisons are odious But this I can and must say that when you have searched into the Greek Church to the utmost that you and all the Anabaptists in England cannot prove that the Greeke Church did for many hundred yeers reject the Baptisme of Infants which is the assertion which I said might well put the Anabaptists to the blush and now I adde your self also for justifying them in so saying To returne to Grotius his Annotations who sayes that many of the Greeks c. What some of the Greeks may doe at this day I know not but against his testimony of the Greeks in every age I will produce some testimonies gathered by a learned Grecian to whom the customes of the Greek Church were better knowne then to Grotius or the Anabaptists who relye on Grotius his relation whereby it is evident that baptizing Infants was held eeven necessary to be observed in the Greek Church Photius that learned Grecian gathering together the Greek Councells and laws for ordering of Church affaires and reconciling them one with another hath many things for Infant-Baptisme as first hee brings in an Imperiall Constitution wherein it was provided that all baptized Samaritans and Grecians should be punished who brought not their wives and children in their families to holy baptisme Here was a Law which required Grecians that were baptized to procure baptisme for their children otherwise they should be punished Again Tit. 4. ca. â— he brings forth another Imperiall Constitution concerning Samaritans such among them as are of age must not rashly bee baptized but requires they should bee trained up in good Doctrine and then admitted to Baptisme but their children though they know not the Doctrine are to bee baptized So for Grecians it 's required that all their little ones without delay be baptized Conc. in Trullo Can. 84. Whereupon it was appointed in that Councell when there were no sure Witnesses to be produced who were able to testifie little Children whose baptisme was doubted of were baptized neither for their tender age could testifie it themselves without any offence such should be baptized Balsamon in his glosse upon that Canon relates a story how Children comming from a Christian Countrey were taken by the Scythians and Agarens and bought by the Romans the question was whether the Children should bee baptized or no though some pleaded they came from a Countrey where Christians dwelt and therefore it is to be presumed that they were baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their Infancy Some pleaded it was the care of their Mothers to procure baptisme to them and others pleaded other Arguments for their Baptisme yet if they could produce no witnesse to make it good they were to bee baptized All which clearely testifies that Infant baptisme was then generally in use among Christians seeing they were so carefull to have it testified that they were baptized and did presume where Christians dwelt it was in use Now see what from these testimonies may bee held out for Paedo-baptisme among the Greeks if such among them as brought not their Children to Baptisme were punished if Imperiall Laws as well as Synodicall Canons required Infant-baptisme which they held so fit that if there were any Children of whose Baptisme it was doubted they required they should be baptized may not I from all this wonder why Grotius or you from him do affirme That in every age they deferr'd the baptisme of their children till they could make themselves a confession of their faith Whereas the former Constitutions about Infants Baptisme testifie that among them in those ages it was held an undoubted truth I might also adde to these one of the eight Canons concluded in Carthage against the Pelaegians wherein was affirmed That whosoever denyed Baptisme for the remission of sinne to a new borne Infant c. should be anathematized All which being duely weighed it will easily appeare Whether the Anabaptists need to blush in saying that the Ancients especially the Greeke Church rejected the Baptisme of Infants for many hundred yeares Let the severall testimonies of the Ancients in the Greeke Church alledged by mee speake whether the Greeks rejected that ordinance or no And so wee passe from the Greek Church here though afterwards you give me occasion to search further into the Grecians Come we now to examine whether the Writers of the Latine Church will be more propitions to you in opposing Paedo-baptisme then the Greeks have been here Cyprian is the first that comes under your Examen and calculating his age you tell us Vsher places him in anno 240 Perkins 250 I might tell you that others take notice of him in other yeares as Trithemius 249 Henr. Ocâ—us 245 so hard a thing it is to set down precâ—sely the particular year yet all as I said before agree in the Century in which he lived You acknowledge with me that he was one of the anciencest Writers among the Latine Fathers onely Tertullian you say was before him and who denies that here upon your Semi-Socinian Grotius his credit you say That nothing was determined in Tertull. his time concerning the age in which children were consecrated by their Parents to Christian Discipline
you thinke great darkenesse was upon their spirits would not have relyed on that which hath no weight in it they were well able to ponder the weight of words before they would relye upon them or applaud them And what saith Augustine of that Epistle That Cyprian was not devising any new decree but followed the most sure faith of the Church doth he not therein testifie that Cyprian maintaining that Infants might bee baptized before the eighth day did devise no new decree but observed faithfully what the Church did before him whereby it seems though Augustine approved Cyprians judgement yet he relyed not upon his reasons to make good Infant-baptisme this to him is no new doctrine he had another eye upon the constant and sure faith of the Church which in that point hee followed faithfully You tell me I said Fidus denyed not Infants Baptisme but thought they ought not to be baptized before the eighth day to this you give no answer and may I not thereby thinke that it appeareth evidently to your selfe as well as to mee that Paedo-baptisme in that age was in use for this you deny not and indeed that this was the question wherein Fidus craved resolution of Cyprian sâ—il whether Infants were to be baptized before the eighth day it appears by the words of the Epistle Quantum ad causam pertines quos dixisti intra sâ—cundum vel tertium diem qu◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constitutâ—s baptizari non opertere considerandam esse legem circumcisioniâ— antiquae ut intra oct avâ—m diem eum qui natus est baptizandum sanctifieandum non putares c. Fidus question therefore was as I said before this appeares also by August his testimony who ad Bonisacium lib. 4. contr â— Ep. Pelag. c. 18. sayes the same So farre then we agree but you say I might have gone further and observed Fidus his reasons one whereof was drawn from Circumcision which was done upon the eighth day after the birth of the childe The other is drawn from the childes uncleannesse in the first dayes of its birth which makes men abhorre to kisse it c. both which are related by Cyprian not as his owne judgement but as reasons of Fidus his scruples whereof hee sought resolution from him to both which he gives the judgment of the Councell assuring him that none of them agreed with him herein If Fidus did Judaize in both these or either of them what 's that to mee who say he denyed not Baptisme to bee administred to Infants if the ground hee went upon to tye it to the eighth day was unsound I seek not to justifie him in it Yet let me tel you that Fidus was not the onely man that reasoned from Circumcision to Baptisme though they doe not tye Baptisme to the eighth day as Fidus did Besides the testimonies brought out of Athanasius before take notice that hee calls Circumcision a type of Baptisme Greg. Nazianz. proves that Children are now to be baptized as under the law they were circumcised August also saith the same lib. 1. contra Grescon Grammaticum c. 30. de Bapt. contr Donatist lib. 4. c. 23. Where he sayes Baptisme is as profitable to children now as Circumcision was to children of old Chrysost also Hom. 40. in Genes calls our Circumcision Baptisme But none of all these holy men tyed Baptisme to a certain day as Circumcision was as Chrysostome speaketh in the same place How far these worthy men Judaized in that age in saying Baptism now comes in stead of Circumcision is not now to be considered by us therefore I leave it In the next place you say The resolution of this Councell is not to bee slighted because upon your search you finde it the spring-head of Infant-Baptisme It seemes when you cast your lead into the sea of Antiquity to finde out the depth of this ordinance your line was too short and your plummet too light that it could not reach beyond this Epistle are there not divers instances among the Ancients which make it manifest that before that time Infant-baptisme was in use as hath been manifested to you already therefore that was not the first time in which it sprung up in the world You say further I am mistaken about the proofes of their opinion which you call not reasons or proofes but answers to objections I will not wrangle with you about words call them what you please Arguments or Answers this is enough to me what I have produced is recorded in the Epistle and all of them doe justifie the lawfulnesse of baptizing Infants which was the thing which I went about to cleare neither doth any of them enforce Baptisme to be tyed up to the eighth day as Fidus thought From the words of that Epistle you alledge 3 things 1. They thought baptizing giving Gods grace denying it denying Gods grace 2. They thought the soules to bee lost which were not baptized 3. That all Infants not beleevers onely were to bee baptized The 2 first I grant are rightly collected from the words of the Epistle you might if you pleased have collected divers other things as that Baptisme comes in stead of Circumcision c. But suppose all their grounds which they plead be not to be justified yet they doe not darken the light which the place gives to our question If a man were to make good any assertion of a necessary truth and use severall arguments to make it out if one of these arguments be not good or be weake that may bee rejected and yet the truth stand firme seeing the other arguments are good and strong to evidence the truth It is true when the Ancients said that Children were to be baptized sometimes they stood peremptorily for the necessity of Baptisme as if without it no salvation were to be excepted yet they made it out by other Arguments then that why should then the truth justified and cleared up by them be rejected for this When they were to prove that men of yeares instructed in the truth should receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper they made that good by several Reasons as sometimes from the necessity of the command which Jesus Christ laid upon all the Disciples of the Gospel that they might remember his death till his coming again At other times they urged it lest men should brand themselves with unthankfulnesse in not comming to the feast when they are invited Sometimes again they prest the same duty upon the people to come to that ordinance that they might have the inward Grace signified and exhibted in the Sacrament to bee sealed up and confirmed to them These three wayes did they use to presse their Hearers to the frequent receiving of the Sacrament yet at some other times also they pleaded the necessity of that Sacrament as if no man without the use thereof could be saved No man can deny the first three Arguments to be good though the last is not and notwithstanding
Baptizing of Infants but none for the observation of the â—ords day although herein I humbly conceive they are mistaken I doubt not but it doth and will appeare to impartiall and unprejudiced Readers that there is sufficient evidence of an Institution for both of them though not in such expresse Texts of Scripture in the New-Testament as the Anabaptists require and I shall now examine whether you bring any better evidence for the one then is to be found for the other First you say they meane it of positive worship consisting in outward rites and not of worship which is naturall or morall Answ But this but a blind morall and naturall are not to be confounded whatever worship is naturall may bee indeed acknowledged to be morall but not whatever is morall is to be esteemed naturall I know you cannot bee ignorant of the received distinction of Morale Naturale and Morale positivum and I beseech you though a Sabbath be grantâ—d to be Naturall yea if I should adde that one day in the revolution of seaven should bee so yet that this or that seventh day in the revolution of a weeke should bee observed all grant this depends upon an Institution and hath no more moralitie in it then what can bee made out from an Institution and consequently that the first day of the weeke should be the Christian Sabbath or that this one day of seven which God hath separated to himself and had once expresly fixed upon the seventh or last day of the week should be translated from the last day to the first day of the weeke must depend wholly upon an Institution and consequently they who reject that which depends upon positive Institution unlesse its Institution can bee expresly found in the New-Testament are as much at a losse for the Lords day as for the baptizing of Infants Nay give me leave to adde that in this point in question the advantage lies more on this hand I meane for Infant-Baptisme because there is more necessitie of clearing the Institution for the Lords day then for baptizing of Infants because in the one the ordinance it selfe and its institution is questioned but in this of Infant-Baptisme the question is not of the Institution of the Ordinance it selfe but onely of the subject to whom the Ordinance is to be applyed If the question bee betwixt Baptisme and the Lords day all grant that we have clearer Institution for the Sacrament of Baptisme then for the Lords day Baptisme is clearly instituted in the New-Testament to bee the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of grace and to succeed in the roome of Circumcision as your selfe grant Now the onely question is whether taking this for granted that baptism succeeds in the roome of Circumcicision and to bee applyed unto all persons by the will of God who are in Covenant with him whether the same persons may partake of this Sacrament as might partake of the other unlesse those persons bee expresly set downe in the New-Tement I hope in the judgement of all indifferent men a question about the persons to whom an ordinance is to bee applyed is a question of a farre inferiour nature to that question whether such a thing pretended to be an Ordinance have any Institution at all or not It 's one thing to invent a new Ordinance of worship another and that of inferiour rank to mistake in some of the persons to whom an Ordinance is to be applyed In some of the ancient times the Lords Supper was given to Infants and carried to sick persons when absent to testifie their communion with the Church I take them both for errours but yet not for errors of the like nature with inventing a new Sacrament I say againe there is a great difference betweene bringing in a new Ordinance and applying it to these or these persons especially when the question is not of the persons in generall who are the subject matter as whether men or Angels men or beasts but whether men of such an age or of such a Sex Sir to my best understanding these two questions are not parallell a just parallell question to this of Infant-Baptisme would be such a one as was once disputed betwixt Mr. Bifield and Mr. Brerewood viz. Taking it for granted that by a cleare Institution the Lords day succeeds in the roome of the old Sabbath whether yet the same persons are tied to keepe the Lords day who of old were tied to keepe the Sabbath unlesse those parties were mentioned in the New-Testament as whether servants as well as their masters the same holds here All this I speake not as any whit doubting that there is as cleare evidence for Baptizing of Infants as there is for the religious observation of the Christian Sabbath notwithstanding the latter seemes to require fuller evidence then this doth Your second explication gives you as little advantage you say that Apostolicall example which hath not a meâ—re temporary reason is enough to prove an Institution from God to which that practise doth relate especially when such examples come to bee backed with the constant practise of all Churches in all ages And then you bring in Pauls preaching at Troaâ— the collections upon the first day of the weeks in the first of the Corinthians and the sixteenth the mentioning of the Lords day Revel 1. Sir I except against none of all this to bee a part of that good evidence which wee have for the religious observation of the Lords day but I dare confidently speake it that out of these you can never evince more laying all things together to prove the Institution of the Lords day then I have done for the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants and I appeale to all learned Readers whether the many bookes written of late against the Institution of the Lords day give not as specious and plausible answers to these places alledged by you concerning the Christian Sabbath as yours are against Infant-baptisme although they have received sufficient cleare and solid answers yea and tread under their feet all arguments taken from these examples with as much confidence and scorne as your selfe doe that which I and others have named for Paedo-Baptisme And as for the supplement which you bring out of the constant practise of the Churches for the religious observation of the Lords day in stead of the old Sabbath I earnestly desire you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to beare witnesse to that truth as I have done in this point for Paedo-Baptisme and I promise you you shall receive my hearty thanks among the rest of your Readers in the meane time the Reader shall judge whether I have not brought a moity of that for the Baptizing of Infants which you have done for the Lords day Further whether you have not abused your reader in so confident averring that there are no footsteps in Antiquity for Paedo-Baptisme till the erroneous conceit of giving Gods grace by it the
disputation should bee carried as yours is altogether in the way of making exceptions against arguments but not positively affirming any thing But notwithstanding by the helpe of God I hope clearely to vindicate my arguments from your exceptions My first Argument was the Infants of beleeving parents are faederati therefore they must be signati they are within the Covenant of Grace therefore are to partake of the Seale of the Covenant This Argument because I knew the tearmes of the propositions and the reasons of the consequents would not be cleare at the first propounding I therefore made no further prosecution of untill first I had cleared five conclusions from which it receives not onely its light but strength and from which it ought not to bee separated because in them I both prove a Covenant and signe initiall this first you assault singly and denying both the propositions you try your strength in this Section against the consequence and affirme that they who deny the consequence doe it justly because say you if they who are faederati must be signati it must bee so either by reason of some necessary connexion betweene the tearmes or by reason of Gods will declared concerning the Covenant of Grace but for neither of these causes first there is no necessary consequence that God gives a promise ergo he must give a seale or a speciall signe Joshuah had none for his promise of bringing Israel into Canaan Phinehas none for his for the Priesthood to continue in his family nor secondly by any declaration of Gods will Adam and all the rest to Abraham had none yea and in Abrahams time Melchisedeck Lot Job and for Abrahams family there was no such universall order or declaration of Gods will for children under eight dayes old and all the females had no such command and therefore to have sealed them would have beene will-worship and so you conclude here and in many other places of your booke that it is not being foederati in Covenant which gives title to the seale but onely the declaration of Gods will to have it so To which I answer clearely and first in generall That concerning the truth of this consequence the difference betweene you and me is not so much as you would make the world beleeve wee differ indeed in the interpretation of the word faederati about what is meant by being in Covenant I assert that many are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant of grace and in some sense to bee Covenanters though they be not partakers inwardly of the saving graces of the Covenant for the Covenant of grace containes not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward Ordinances and Church priviledges and that according to Gods owne word many are Covenanters with him or in some sense under the Covenant of grace who are partakers onely of the outward administrations and Church priviledges you allow none to be under the Covenant of grace in any true Gospel sense but onely such as are inwardly beleevers justified sanctified and partakers of the saving graces of the Covenant Whether of us are in the right shall God willing be tryed out in this dispute but as to the truth of the consequence That all who are in the Covenant of grace ought therefore to be partakers of thâ— seale you acknowledge more then once or twice or ten times for though you every where dispute that God hath made no declaration of his will concerning baptizing of Infants yet rotundis verbis you professe that if you knew an Infant to bee regenerate you would baptize it And when I said Such as have the inward grace ought not to bee denyed the outward signe You answer There is none of the Antipaedobaptists but will grant that proposition to bee true pag. 142. And the present state of a person is that which gives right to baptisme pag. 158. It 's granted that such Infants such as are inwardly sanctified are disciples and may not be debarred from baptisme mark Infants disciples and is not this in plain English That such as are Covenanters ought not to be denyed the initiall seale of the covenant Now then if I can prove that not onely such as are inwardly regenerate but others also whether Infants or grown men are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant and that an externall visible right in facie visibilis Ecclesiae may be made out for any person or persons to be by us owned received as Covenanters with God you your selfe grant that the seale may be applyed to them and whether this bee so or not shall God willing afterwards fully appeare Secondly I answer more particularly 1. I grant with you that there is no necessary dependance between a promise and a seale the addition of a seale to a promise is of free grace as well as the promise it self if God had never given any Sacrament or seal of his Covenant wee should have had no cause to complaine of him he well deserves to be believed upon his bare word Nor 2. did I ever think that by Gods revealed will this Proposition was true in all ages of the Church All Covenanters must bee sealed I carryed it no higher then Abrahams time when God first added this new mercy to his Church vouchsafing a seal to the Covenant And 3. from Abrahams time and so forward I say it was Gods will that such as are in Covenant should bee sealed with the initiall seale of the Covenant supposing them onely capable of the seale and no speciall barre put in against them by God himselfe which is apparent in the very first institution of an initiall seale Gen. 17. 7 9 10 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and thy seed after thee thou shalt keepe my Covenant therefore and this is my Covenant which yee shall keep every man childe among you shall bee circumcised and afterward in the 14. the seale is by a Metonymia called the Covenant for that it 's apparent not onely that God commanded them who were in Covenant to be circumcised but that they should therefore be circumcised because of the Covenant or in token of the Covenant betweene God and them and he that rejected or neglected the seale is said not onely to breake Gods commandement but his covenant so that because the initiall Seale was added to the Covenant and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant or because they were in Covenant I therefore concluded that by Gods own will such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal supposing still that they were capable of it So that to lay Circumcifion upon Gods command and the Covenant of grace too are well consistent together for the command is the cause of the
you see there are already two or three other bookes extant already against you and I am informed two peeces at least come out of New-England upon the same subject your selfe being therein concerned for even thither have some sent your writings and sufficiently in them shewed your scorne of Mr. Thomas Goodwin Mr. Vines and my selfe as our friends doe from thence write unto us you may take us all together and then wee may goe for a pretty Army and when you have done all you can I doubt not but some will be found who will have leasure as well as ability to cope with you I onely desire you in your next not to goe on in this way of making wrangling exceptions and seeking to slurre and blind what is written by your Antagonist but by solid and cleare arguments see if you can refute that which is asserted and let your Reader also know as well what you would have as what you would not have and open your judgement to the full in this controversie and shew whether you take Infant-baptism to be valid or a nullity and if you think it not a nullity shew your grounds for it why all this should be true which you have thus far contended for That Infants are no more to be accounted belonging to the Church of Christ then Pagans and yet their baptisme should be valid whether if any man should baptize a Turk or a Iew when he should be asleep or by violence or any wayes against his own consent this baptisme were not a nullity and I know not what difference you make between the one and the other If on the other side you doe thinke it a nullity then manifest how any at all can now be baptized unlesse you will thinke that they may baptize others who are unbaptized themselves for my own part I seriously professe that supposing Infant-baptisme a nullity I cannot understand how any in the world should this day be lawfully baptized unlesse it can be made good that a person unbaptized himselfe may be a lawfull Minister of baptisme to others for certainly untill the Anabaptists arose in Germany all the baptized world were baptized while they were Infants and consequently the first Anabaptist was baptized by an unbaptized person and so in conclusion we must all turn Seekers and be content without baptisme till Christ give some extraordinary Commission from Heaven unto some men to be Apostles in this businesse Fifthly you expresse the straights you are like to be brought into by the losse of your small stipend as a consequent of this your Opinion Sir I am perswaded this is made up abundantly in that Honourable Society where now you exercise your Ministery and I beseech the Lord so to informe you in his truth in this particular and to guide your Spirit that you may no longer be a stumbling-block to others nor others prove stumbling-blocks to you that those good parts which God hath bestowed upon you may for the time to come be employed in the most serviceable way that both your worke and wages may bee with and from the Lord. Sixthly and lastly you declare your willingnesse either to have conference with me to consult about a way of a brotherly debating of this point or to receive other answer within the space of a month What past betwixt your selfe and me in Conference I have given the Reader an account of in the beginning of my Booke and in truth I verily thought you would quietly have kept your Opinion as private to your self which was the true reason why I medled with your Book no sooner as soon as it was published I took my self bound in conscience to take it into Examination and give this publike account of it since which time God hath been pleased to visit mee with sicknesse and infirmity of body so that for a moneth or six weeks I could very little attend upon this task and many other employments have compelled me to go through it horis successivis not being able to attend it many whole days without much interruption Such as it is you now have it with you and I make bold to say again I am verily perswaded it is Gods truth which I maintain against you and I fear not my account of this Work in the great day save onely I must ever acknowledge and bewaile those frailties and infirmities which cleave to whatever I put my hand unto A Brief EXAMINATION OF Mr. TOMBES his Exercitation about INFANT-BAPTISM YOur Exercitation might very well have been spared in this place for any great advantage it is like to bring to your cause but I am very glad it is extant because all Learned men will by it plainly discern how mean and poor your Arguments are when you come positively to assert they will now finde that true which I said in the beginning that your faculty is farre better in darkening slurring and plundering the Arguments of your Adversary then in making good your owne You have here impanelled a whole Jury and would faine perswade a verdict of twelve men to stand upon record on your side as having found Infant-Baptisme guilty of the crimes which you have laid to its charge I shall very briefly examine what every one of them have said and only run them over partly because there are lately extant two learned Treatises against it written by Doctor Homes and Master Geree the first of them was published when my Book was almost half Printed the other since but chiefly because almost every sentence in this your Exercitation which hath any strength is by yourselfe brought into your other Treatise which you call the Examen of my Sermon and there is already fully answered Of your twelve Arguments the first is not properly to be called an Argument against Infant-Baptisme but is rather an answer to severall Arguments pretended to bee brought for Infant-Baptisme and upon this you bestow at least two third parts of your Exercitation twice as much I nke and Paper upon the foreman of the Jury as you doe upon the other eleven Vnder the head of this first Argument you have brought in no lesse then fourteen Arguments as you call them for the lawfulnesse of Infant-Baptisme and then you undertake to answer them your self say truly of many of them they make a number without strength and therefore as you have made a conquest of them doe with your prisoners what you please for I count them not worth the redeeming onely this I say we have six or seven of your twelve which I think all the world and your selfe also will grant to be taken Prisoners by us if you please we will exchange them for the other and then in the exchange we shall lose nothing being assured yours are as weake and simple as it is possible for those to be which you have taken and for the rest of the arguments brought for Paedo-Baptisme you have propounded them for your owne advantage so set them downe as to make