Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants, Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII.
THe fourth Argument (ſaith Mr. T.) is taken from the next Age after the Apoſtles.Exercit. Sect. 17. The 4. Argument againſt Infant Baptiſme from the practiſe in the next age after the Apoſtles. That tenet and practiſe is doubtfull, of which it cannot be proved, that it was in force or uſe, in the next age after the Apoſtles: But it cannot be proved, that the tenet or practiſe of Infant-Baptiſme was in force, or uſe, in the Age next after the Apoſtles. Ergo.
The major is of it ſelf manifeſt. The minor is proved by the teſtimony of Lodovicus Vives above-recited, to which Voſſius in the ſibus Hiſtorico-Theologicis of Infant-baptiſme joyns the teſtimony of Walafridus Strabo, and by the examining of places brought to that purpoſe, and by the continuation of queſtions propounded to the baptized in Ages following, and others tokens from Councils and Eccleſiaſticall Writers, which in hiſtoricall buſineſſe are wont to beget credit.
The words of Walafridus Strabo, who lived about the yeer, 840. in his book Derebus Eccleſiaſticis, Chap. 26. are theſe; We are alſo to note, that in the firſt times the grace of Baptiſme was wont onelyonly to be given to them, who by integritie both of body, and minde, were already come to this, that they could know, and underſtand what profit is to be obteined in Baptiſme, what is to be confeſſed, and believed, what laſtly is to be obſerved of them that are born again in Chriſt. Thus farre Mr. T. and his quotation of Walafridus.
1. To Mr. T. his major we ſay,Animadverſ. that it is not of it ſelf manifeſt. For what if we cannot produce any Records of Antiquitie for the uſe and practiſe of many things in the Age next to the Apoſtles; are they therefore doubtfull, when as we have the Word of God for them? Therefore the meer failing of the Votes of humane Writers do not make a thing doubtfull: though the Papiſts urge us with the like Argument, that the Proteſtant Churches are not true, becauſe we cannot produce Hiſtories, &c. to ſhew their ſucceſſion in all Ages. If we fail in Records of Antiquitie, we may thank the Papiſts chiefly, who, as we may ſay, martyred by fire, and otherwiſe, as well good books, as godly men: and yet the Truth according to Scripture ſtands where it did.
To Mr. T. his minor we ſay, In generall.
1. That Mr. T. tels us beſide of Lodovicus Vives, and Wal. Strabo, of places brought to that purpoſe, of the continuation of queſtions propounded to the baptized in ages following, of other tokens from Councils, and of Eccleſiaſticall Writers, but quotes them not; which is not the way to beget credit in the judicious Reader. It were too much to believe every Author upon his bare word, without other circumſtances; and therefore by much more too much to believe Authors not produced but onelyonly intimated by Mr. T.
2. Mr. Tombes gives us in, two late-men in compariſon of the ſtream of ancient Antiquitie, which is contrary to thoſe two.
3. If thoſe two had been a conſiderable number, or had produced to us any conſiderable Reaſons, or quotations of Antiquitie higher then themſelves, or any fair probabilities, or circumſtances how they gather it, they would ſooner have begot credit, then as they are now propoſed.
In particular, firſt, to Ludovicus Vives, we anſwered afore in our Reply to Mr. T. his 13. Sect. touching the Argument of the failing of the Churches ſucceſſion; in the 9. Chap. of our Animadverſions. And we adde now, that both he and Walaf. Strabo ſpeak as if they had not been acquainted with Antiquitie in this point, as will appear by and by from that we ſhall be able to quote.
2 To Walafridus Strabo, who is but of yeſterday in compariſon (by Mr. T. his confeſſion) to barely aſſert againſt higher approved Antiquitie, We anſwer; that if Mr. T. would but have gone on in the place he quoted out of the 26. Chap. of that Wal. Strabo, de Rebus Eccleſiaſticis, and tranſlated a line or two further, the world might have better ſeen what an acurat Antiquarie that Strabo was. We will therefore tranſlate onward immediately where Mr. T. left.
For the venerable Father Auguſtine (ſaith W. Strabo) reports of himſelf in his books of his Confeſſions, that he continued Catechumenus, a catechiſed perſon almoſt to the twenty fift yeer of his age, namely, to that intent, that by this delay of time, he being well learned in every particular, he might be led by his own free accord to chooſe that which he liked. Thus Walaf. Strabo.
Upon which, Ger. Joh. Voſſius his obſervation is this. Thus far Walafridus (ſaith Voſſius) in whoſe words, inſtead of the twenty fift yeer (as he is in printed copies. Bibl. p. p. T. 6. Ed. 2. and cited of learned men, Joſeph vice com. obſerv. Eccleſ. lib. 2. cap. 1. &c.) we ought to read the thirty fift yeer. For Auguſtine as appears by his books of his Confeſſions was converted in the thirty firſt yeer of his age. For the two yeers following he continued under catechiſing, in which time he wrote againſt the Academici, and wrote his Soliloquies. At thirty foure yeers old he was baptized by Ambroſe at Midain; which declare with how weak an argument Walafridus doth contend. Thus far Ger. J. Voſſius.
3 To Mr. T. his manner of quoting Voſſius, as if Voſſius added another teſtimonie to that of L. Vives, out of Walaf. Strabo againſt Infant-baptiſme. We anſwer, Mr. T. doth but hereby neatly occaſion, if not cauſe the unlearned to fall into a miſtake; as if Voſſius were againſt Infant-Baptiſme, when as he is altogether for it, with many Arguments, wherein is ſhewed much divine learning. He that hath but Latine may read them at large. Ger. Joh. Voſſ. Theſ. Theolog. & Hiſtor. Diſput. de Paedobapt. Theſ. 3. &c.
4 Mr. T. intimating a referring himſelf in this cauſe of the ancientneſſe of Infant-baptiſme, to Antiquitie, Councils, Eccleſiaſticall Writers, &c. doth but reach down a rod for his own opinion, and a confutation of his minor Propoſition he pretended to prove by Antiquitie. For the beſt antiquitie of the Fathers, &c. are for us againſt Mr. T. that Infant-baptiſme was in the next Age to the Apoſtles, and ſo downwards: which (to follow Mr. T. in his own we are forced to produce, and to refell Mr. T. and Mr. D. exceptions againſt ſome of them (as alledged by ſome of us) that we may leave things clear as we go.
1 Juſtin Martyr *Juſtin Maryr, ſaith Bucholcerus, apologized for the Chriſtians, in the yeer 141 after Chriſts birth. And was converted to Chriſtianity before that, in the yeer after Chriſts birth, 130. ſaith Helvious. He was a profeſſor of Philoſophy, before his converſion, and therefore in all likelihood was at leaſt 20. yeers old, if not 30, at his converſion, and ſo lived very neer the time of John the Apoſtle, who dyed not till about Ann. 200 after the birth of Chriſt. And therefore Juſtin Martyr mu… needs know the cuſtomes in the Apoſtles dayes.in his books unqueſtionably his, in ſome things we caſt our eye upon (for we had not time now to read over Pamphlets of this queſtion, much leſſe volumnes) ſeems to hint ſomething towards Infant-baptiſme, in his Dialogue, Cum Tryph. Jud: Have ye not read that, that ſoul ſhould be cut off from his genoration which ſhall not be circumciſed the eighth day. And this is equally eſtabliſhed concerning ſtrangers, or thoſe bought with money. This Covenant therefore or Teſtament you deſpiſing, you neither have any regard of the Commandments following; and then adjoynes. There is now need of another circumciſion, &c. And in his 2 Apol. foreign, After waſhing in that manner, we bring him that hath believed, and is joyned to us, unto the biethren as they are called, where they are gathered together, and make prayers and ſupplications in common, both for them ſelves, and for him that hath been eluminated (that is baptized) &c.
Again in his Dialog. cum Tryphone, he oppoſeth baptiſme with water to baptizing with ſin; but we are baptized with ſin when children. foreign.
Again one in a Treatiſe which goes under the name of Juſtin Martyr, namely, in the Queſtions to the orthodox. Queſtion and Anſwer 56. diſputes the different condition of children dying baptized,EXAMEN. Perk. prepara. to the Demonſtrat. of the Problem. Rivet. Crit. Sacer. R. Cook of Leeds, Cenſur. patrum. Exercit. & unbaptized. Therefore children were baptized in his time.
Mr. T. in his Examen. objecteth, that it is proved by Mr. Perkins, by Rivet, and by Cook, that the Queſt. ad orthodox were not Juſtin Martyrs, for as much as they mention not onelyonly Irenaeus, but alſo Origen, and the Manichees.
We anſwer. Although we will not peremptorily pronounce that thoſe Queſtions and Anſwers ad Orthodoxos were Juſtin Martyrs, nevertheleſſe it doth not yet appear to us as infallibly proved by Mr. T. his Arguments, that thoſe Queſt. ad Orthodox. were none of his. 1. For the mention of the Manichees there is a miſtake. The place where the Manichees are mentioned; is not affirmed by divers learned men*Cook. cenſ. patr. Rivet. Crit. Sacer. Poſſevin. App. to be in the Queſtions to the orthodox, but in Quaeſtiouib. & Reſponſionib. ad Graecos, there we find them often mentioned**Reſp. ad Qu. primam, &c. often. Perk.. For mention of the Manichees in the Queſtions ad Orthodoxos, once, in ſome copies, in Quaeſt. 127. Mr. T. hath it but out of one Author. And very likely it was thruſt in to the Queſt. ad orthod. in latter times by the Scribes. For the ſence is perfect without it. And the inſerting is but in manner of a quotation, to explain how in thoſe times Juſtin Martyr met with ſome opinions then ariſing, which in after-times grew infamouſly famous, got an head, and a Name of Manicheiſme: which being known to the Scribes of latter times, they might put in the name Maniche, as anſwerable to the thing diſputed, and for the information of the Reader. Who that is a Scholar doth not know that Marginall notes on books at laſt have crept into the Text? Many inſtances might be given of books of many ſorts. So then this reaſon is not a certain evincing Argument; that the Qu. ad. orthod. are not Juſtin Martyrs.
2. To the mention of Irenaeus we ſay,Reſp. ad Qu. 115. ad orthod. that this Argument is weak alſo. For, firſt, Juſtin Martyr is put in Anno 130. after Chriſt. And they ſay he was martyred not till Anno 165*Helvic.. yea ſome ſay not till 169*Buchol.. And Irenaeus was a Biſhop Anno 170; and therefore muſt needs be famous many yeers before Juſtin Martyrs death; and therefore well might they quote one another in their books. But to allow more then Mr. T. objects, namely, as ſome object, that Juſtin Martyr in the ſaid place cals Irenaeus martyr, when as he was martyred long after Juſtin Martyrs death. We anſwer, that if that word Martyr were not put in by ſome late Scribe ſince, for the honour and diſtinction of the man, however in the Engliſh the word martyr be taken, yet uſually in Latin, and more conſtantly in the Greek, it ſignifies onelyonly a witneſſe. And Irenaeus was a famous witneſſe to the truth by pen and profeſſion in Juſtin Martyrs time, though not by blood. Again, if Martyr be taken for a ſufferer, yet not alwayes for a ſufferer by death: Iſaac is ſaid to be perſecuted by Iſhmael onelyonly mocking him. Gal. 4.29. Gen. 21.9. Which kind of oppoſitions, and worſe, Irenaeus no doubt met with in thoſe perſecuting times of his, and of Juſtins, as fore-runners of the effuſion of their blood.
3. To the mention of Origen, in his Qu. ad orthodox. Reſp. ad qu. 82. & 86. we ſay, that Chronologers and Hiſtorians (thoſe few we could caſt a look upon) are ſo uncertain about the life and death of theſe two Fathers as is wonderfull.Bucholcer. It is confeſſed by ſome, that Origen and Juſtin Martyr were within ſome 14 or 15 yeers one of another. And we heard afore that ſome made Juſtin Martyr far longer lived then others did; now if indeed (as who knows to the contrary) either Origen was born ſooner, or Juſtin Martyr lived longer, but a few yeers; Juſtin Martyr might well hear of Origen; who was a great Scholar, very young, even before he was 18 yeers old: and wrote ſoon, and much, in all 7000 books, as Hieroni reports.
I confeſſe for my part (I ſpeak my conſcience) if that be all the objection, I ſhould ſooner believe mens writings quoting one another, as ſufficient teſtimonies that they lived ſome yeers at the ſame time when it is neer confeſt by Authors, then to doubt of ſuch becauſe ſome Chronologers or Hiſtorians cipher or ſay them to be 14 or 15 yeers after one another. But where doth theſe Queſtions ad orthodoxos quote Origen? we can find but two. One in the Anſwer to the 82. Queſt. on which let any ingenuous man look and obſerve how he is named (if he,) in the laſt cloſe of all, and the fulneſſe of the Anſwer, without mention of the ſuppoſed Origen, and he will ſay, verily this was but ſome marginall Note ſince Juſtin Martyr, thruſt into the Text. The other place is in the beginning of the Anſwer to the 86. Queſtion, and therefore very likely to be thruſted too into the text. For let a man put out the firſt words, foreign, It is expounded by Origen, and yet the ſence will be full thus: That to a man that is skilfull in the Hebrew tongue, there is an interpretation of all the Hebrew names in the Scripture. Which is further ſtrengthened, becauſe in the cloſe it is ſaid, foreign not foreign that is, if you conſult that interpretation, not that Origen (if he). Beſides, a man that is critically skilled in the Greek, which I profeſſe not, he would haply examine, if Origen be here quoted, firſt, why foreign man is needleſly put in. And whether it be ſo proper to conſtrue the verb paſſive foreign is interpreted by Origen, there being no praepoſition, according to the uſuall rule. And laſtly, whether foreign be not ſome other word ſignifying ſome other thing then a proper name to fignifie Origen. We could give inſtance but for haſte.
But to give Mr. T. an Objection which he doth not make: to wit, that the Qu. ad orthodox. are not thought to be Juſtin Martyrs, becauſe in them there is ſuch contradictions contrary to what is ſaid in Juſtin Martyrs works (as Mr. T. his R. Cook obſerveth) as that in the 52. Qu. ad orthodox. it is ſaid the Witch, 1 Sam. 28. did delude the eyes of all the beholders that they might think it was Samuel. But in his Dialog-cum Tryphone, the contrary is affirmed. Qu. 142. ad Orthodox. it is ſaid, that it was a created Angel, that talked with Jacob; but in his Dialogue cum Tryphone, he proves him to be an uncreated Angel.
To which we anſwer. That ſo learned Toſſanus obſerves upon Auguſtine, that he ſometimes contradicts himſelf in thoſe books which he accounts the very book of Augustus. M. T. knew learned Mr. P. who would ſay, Can any meer man write much, and not in any thing contradict himſelf? And for the inſtances they are not of moment. As one Angel talked with Jacob, ſo he ſaw many more. There might be a materiall body patcht up by the devil, according to the ſphere of angelicall power, and yet he muſt delude the eyes of the beholders too, to make them think it was Samuels reall body.
Mr. T. goes on againſt thoſe Qu. ad orthodox. Now (ſaith he) what doth this Bastard Treatiſe ſay?
Anſw. Theſe are ſeſquipedalia verba, high words. For, firſt, by this we have ſaid; it may appear that it is not yet ſo out of doubt that the Qu. ad Orthodoxos are not Justin Martyrs. Secondly, there are failings enough in the other Treatiſes of Juſtin Martyrs, by which theſe Questions are judged. Thirdly, that there are not wanting men of great learning that think the ſaid Questions may be accounted of like Authoritie with the reſt of the Treatiſes, though they were not truly Juſtin Martyrs. And Scultetus ſaith, that though this Treatiſe be not Justin Martyrs, yet not to be rejected, there being many Gemmes, though mixt with ſome chaffe. And H. Grotius on Matth. 19.14. quotes them with as great reſpect, as other Fathers, yea ſo quotes this 56. qu.
Well, and what doth Mr. T. ſay to this Treatiſe which he ſo cals Bastard? This: He tranſlated all the whole 56t. Queſtion and Anſwer, named Justin Martyrs ad Orthodox. *The Qu. and Anſwer, of the named Juſtin Martyr, in full as Mr. T. tranſlates it, is this. Qu. If Infants dying have neither praiſe nor blame by works, what is the difference in the reſurrection of thoſe that have been baptized by others, and have done nothing, and of thoſe that have not been baptized, and in like manner have done nothing? Anſw. This is the difference of the baptized from the not baptized, that the baptized obtien good things (meaning at the reſurrection) by baptiſme: but the unbaptized obtein not good things. And they are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their Baptiſme, by that faith of thoſe that bring them to Baptiſme, So Mr. T. …is tranſlat.and then Mr. T. makes theſe obſervations upon it.
1 That In thoſe times they did not baptize Infants upon Mr. Marſhals ground, namely, upon the Covenant of Grace, made to them and their Infants.
2 But they baptized them, becauſe they thought the not-baptized ſhould not obtein good things at the reſurrection, but the baptized ſhould.
3 That thoſe baptized Infants obteined thoſe good things by reaſon of the faith of the bringers, what ever the parents were.
4 That therefore they baptized the children of unbeleevers, as well as of beleevers if they were brought. Mr. T. hoping by this tranſlation, and theſe Notes, to bring the Author, and his words into diſgrace, as he himſelf hints it to us.
But we anſwer in generall, that Mr. T. hath likewiſe quoted Authors, and among them even his much eſteemed Ludovicus Vives that have had their harſh expreſſions and worſe, as before we have noted. 2. The intent and manner of quoting the Quest. to the orthodox, was onelyonly to teſtifie that the baptiſme of Infants was a known cuſtome in thoſe times.
In particular, we anſwer, firſt to his firſt obſervation, that the ſaid 56. Queſtion, was not urged by my ſelf, or Mr. T. to prove baptiſme of Infants upon the ground of the Covenant. But the queſtion being whether in point of Fact, the Churches uſed anciently to baptize Infants? to that the quotation of thoſe Queſtions named. Justin Martyrs was alledged, and to that it ſerveth fitly and fully. For he was a very ancient Author, in the judgement of divers learned men. Sylburgius thinks that he was a Juſtin that might write about the time of Theodoret. But Photius thinks that it might be Iustin Martyr, interlined by ſome other Iustin or other after; as Ruffinus dealt by Origen, as Mr. T. confeſſeth.
To Mr. T. ſecond obſervation we anſwer. That as we that are believers (as it is in the Anſwer to that 56. Queſtion) cannot applaud, nor comfort our ſelves in a willing neglect of baptizing our children according to the Goſpel inſtitution (as we now ſtand to maintain) ſo doubtleſſe we are to expect good things on Gods part to our children according to the intent of Baptiſme. We find it ſo on earth in their comfortable application of baptiſme at ripe yeers; and why not then to beleeve the fruit of it in heaven, if they dye in childhood? Why may not Baptiſme as well comfort the ſuppoſed Iustin Martyr, and us, as Circumciſion did the Patriarks concerning their childrens receiving the firſt ſeal. This expreſſion in this 56. Queſtion and Anſwer is eſteemed by Grotius on Matth. 19.14. (whom Mr. T. ſo oft quotes) foreign, &c.
To his third obſervation we anſwer. That there is no ſuch clauſe or intimation in the ſaid place of the 56. Quest. ad orthodox. as Mr. T. here inſerts, namely, [what ever the parents be]. The contrary is more probable; the Author calling the bringers of the Infants [beleevers]. And who ſo likely to bring the children, as the parents. And therefore the parents here moſt probably are thoſe believers. And whereas Mr. T. renders foreign [worthy] worthy of good things, he might by warrant from the Goſpel*As Matth. 10.11. enquire foreign, who is fit, or meet, that is to receive you, as it is expounded in v. 14. have rendred it by a more orthodox and fit terme, viz. [meet] or [fit]. And laſtly, it being more probable then any thing Mr. T. can bring to the contrary, that the children were brought to baptiſme by their beleeving parents, and ſo made meet for good things as the fruit of it, let the Reader judge whether all this doth not imply that reſpect here might be had to the Covenant of grace as the ground of baptizing children; which Mr. T. but now ſo peremptorily denyed, as if it were infallibly contrary to the Text of the Author.
To his fourth obſervation we need ſay no more but that Mr. T. ſpeaks it without all warrant, or ſuch probability from the text of the Author, as there is in it to the contrary.
Now let the world judge whether the words of the Author, conſidering his time, are ſo vain, or ſo impertinent, as Mr. T. would meke them, had they been alledged in full, and beyond that the quotation extended to.
Thus for Justin Martyr. Next we come to Irenaeus, IRENAEVS.who lived in the ſame century, namely, in the next age to the Apoſtles, and not at the laſt end of that age neither. For Bucholcerus (one of the moſt approved Chronologers by Vſher) puts him in the yeer after Chriſt, 178. And Helvicus puts him higher, namely, in the yeer,Testis. D. H. ſecum enutritus. 170. And both of them put him down as Biſhop at that time (of Lyons, ſaith Bucholcerus) and therefore was famous no doubt divers yeers afore, and an obſerver of the cuſtomes of the Churches. Having this advantage for that purpoſe, that he was the Scholar of Polycarp, as Polycarp was Scholar or diſciple to ſome of the Apoſtles, as divers Chronologers tell us.
That which Irenaeus hath to our purpoſe in the point in hand, is in his 2 Book, 39. Chap. about the middle. His words are theſe. Magiſter ergo exiſtens, &c. that is, Therefore being a teaching Maſter, he had alſo the age of ſuch a Maſter, not refuſing, or going beyond a man, nor diſſolving the law of humane kind in himſelf, but ſanctifying every age by that ſimilitude that was in him to it. For he came to ſave all men by himſelf; All I ſay, who by him are BORN-AGAIN unto, or, into God, INFANTS and LITTLE-ONES, boyes, and young men, and elder men. Therefore he went through every age, and was made an Infant, to Infants, ſanctifying Infants. Among little ones, a little one, ſanctifying them that have this age: being alſo made an example to them of pietie, and juſtice or righteouſneſſe, and ſubjection. Among young men being made a young man, and ſanctifying them to the Lord; ſo alſo an elder, to the elder, that he might be a perfect teaching maſter, not onelyonly according to the expoſition of truth, but alſo according to age, ſanctifying the elder, being made alſo an example to them. And then he went alſo unto death, that he might be the firſt-born from the dead, holding the primacy in all things, &c. So Irenaeus. Whom we have tranſlated above and beneath the place we are to uſe, that there might be the leſſe exception by any, that they could not ſee the coherence and ſcope of the place. The words we ſtand upon in which Irenaeus intimates the baptiſme of Infants in that his time, next after the Apoſtles, are, [All I ſay, who by him are BORN AGAIN unto, or into God, or according to God INFANTS, and LITTLE ONES, &c.] The word Renaſcuntur, that is, regenerated, or new-born, or born again, 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 foreign 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 onelyonly 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 foreign, 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, a… 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 & Ap…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 its 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 onelyonly, 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 and alleadgeth them. If it be not ſo much a neceſſity] as to have witneſſes alſo in the danger? The Lord ſaith indeed, forbid them not to come unto me; let them come therefore, when they grow up to youth, &c. So Tertullian in the aforeſaid book concerning baptiſme. Upon which place Voſſius *Theſ. Theolog. & Hiſt. de Paedob.ſaith thus; We think that nothing is here denyed but onelyonly the neceſſity of baptiſme, when there is no danger of death; for that's the meaning of thoſe words [What neceſſity, if there be not ſo much neceſſity as, &c.] but in no caſe did he deny that Infants might be baptized; yea and if there be danger leaſt afterwards they be not baptized, its plain they ought to be baptized, which we do not obſcurely diſcern by that which Tertullian writeth in his booke of the ſoul, and the 39. and 40. chapter, and then recited the words, which before we quoted and tranſlated to you. Thus Voſſius.
Give us but leave to give you learned and pious Iunius his note too on this place of Tertullian, and we ſhall have done with Tertullian. The words of Iunius are theſe: Tria hic diſtinctè proponit Auctor, Notae Franc. Junii, ad Tertul. de Baptiſ.&c. that is, The Author propunds here three things diſtinctly, which being rightly underſtood, the place is moſt holy.
1. The CONDITION of perſons to be baptized is that they be in Covenant, whether they be of age, or little children.
2. DISPOSITION is when they beleeve, and obey the Goſpell, and make profeſſion.
3. They are not accounted to be OF AGE which are in covenant (for the little children of Godly men are in Covenant) but who ſo profeſſe the faith.
Therefore when he ſaith ESPECIALLY CONCERNING LITTLE CHILDREN, that muſt needs be underſtood of the children of ſtrangers or Forraigners, not of the children of thoſe that are in Covenant, and ſo domeſtick or of the family of the Church; as is confirmed by the following Aetiologie or GIVING THE CAVSE, namely what neceſſity is there, if there be not ſo much neceſſity as for witneſſes or God-fathers and God-mothers &c. For we know that the firſt invention of witneſſes was for the children whoſe parents could not be accounted members of the Church.Mr T. his objections after againſt Tertul are prevented here, and further anſwered in the 14 chap. of our Animadverſions at the word CYPRIAN in the Margin.
That this was the mind of theſe Authours, Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian in this age next after the Apoſtles, will further appear by the conſent of the moſt approved Ancients that followed them in the next ſucceeding ages, which we have thought moſt proper to defer to the next chapter of our Animadverſions upon Mr T. his fifth Argument.