Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants, Chapter 14 (1 of 2)

Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants · Chapter 14 (1 of 2)

p. 123CHAP. XIIII.

THE fifth Argument:

That which in ſucceeding Ages, in which it was in uſe,Exercitat. Argu. 4. § 17. The Argument from the wrong originall of Infant-Baptiſm, confirmed againſt it. was in force,

1 as a Tradition not written;

2 Out of imitation of Jewiſh Circumciſion;

3 Without univerſall practiſe;

4 Together with the error of giving Infants the Lords ſupper, and many other humane inventions, under the name of Apoſtolicall traditions;

That is deſervedly doubtfull.

But in ſome ages after the firſt from the Apoſtles, the tenet and practiſe of Infant-Baptiſme was in uſe, 1 as a tradition not written, as appears from Origen, Hom. on Rom. 6. Of which book nevertheleſſe let me add the cenſure of Eraſmus on the Homilies of Origen upon Leviticus, But he that reads this work, and the enarration of the Epiſtle to the Romans, is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus. And the teſtimony fetched from theſe books for Infant-Baptiſme, is ſo much the more to be ſuſpected, becauſe Augustine, Hierom, &c. rely (ſo far as yet is manifeſt to me) on no other teſtimony, then of Cyprian and his fellow-Biſhops in the Councell, of which mention is made Epiſt. 59. ad Fidum.

Secondly, out of imitation of Jewiſh Circumciſion, as the doubt of Fidus, in the 59. Epiſtle of Cyprian to Fidus, intimates, though there were alſo other reaſons of Infant-baptiſme; as the opinion of the neceſſity of Baptiſme to ſalvation, and the greedineſſe to increaſe the number of Chriſtians, and p. 124perhaps the imitation of heatheniſh luſtration of little ones; and ſome other.

Thirdly, without univerſall practiſe: for it is manifeſt that Conſtantine, although borne of Helena his mother, a Chriſtian, was not baptized till aged, as Euſebius in the life of Conſtantine written by him. The ſame is manifeſt from the booke of Confeſſions of Auguſtine, concerning Auguſtine himſelfe, whoſe mother Monica was a Chriſtian. The things which may be drawne out of Theodoret, Auguſtine, and others, concerning Theodoſius, Alipius, Adeodatus, and many others (although my bookes and notes out of them are wanting to me, by reaſon of the injury of the times) unleſſe I be deceived, will evince that (though in the Churches of thoſe times, little ones were baptized, yet) many were not baptized, whoſe baptiſme its likely the Church would ſooner have diſpatched, if the opinion of Baptiſme that now obtains, had then obtained.

Fourthly, together with the error of giving the Lords ſupper to Infants, as is manifeſt out of the booke of Cyprian de lapſis, and others. And that many other Inventions of men, under the name of Apoſtolicall tradition, out of a wrong likeing of Judaiſm did then prevail, as the Paſchall ſolemnity &c. is ſo obvious to him that reades Fathers, and Eccleſiaſticall Writers, that no man will need proof. Ergo.

And in very deed, as of old, becauſe the right of Infant-Baptiſme ſeemed to be of ſo great moment againſt the Pelagian hereſie, and for the authority of the Councell under Cyprian, the Councell of Milevis, Auguſtine, Hierom, and others, rather then for any ſolid argument out of Scripture in former ages, Infant-baptiſme prevailed; ſo in this laſt age, ſome moderne men ſeeme to imbrace this tenet of Infant-Baptiſme out of horror of mind, leaſt they ſhould go headlong into the pernicious errours of former Anabaptiſts, and their madde furies, or leaſt they ſhould ſeeme to deſert the leading-men of the reformed Churches, or move troubles in the Church; rather then from perſpicuous foundation in the Scriptures; which they will thinke that I have not ſaid as one that dreames, who ſhall read what Robert Lord, Brooke hath in the end of his Treatiſe concerning Epiſcopacy; Daniel Rogers in his Treatiſe of Baptiſme, and others elſewhere.

We Anſwer.Animadver. 1. To the major; Take away the captain or leading p. 125particular to wit [A tradition not written] and all the ſouldiary of the other particulars with the great Rear [to wit, Many other humane inventions] are not ſtrong enough to make a true major propoſition. For what if according to Mr T. his ad particular of [Iewiſh] that Baptiſme be an imitation of the Iewish paſſing through the red ſea, 1 Cor. 10.1. &c. And the Lords Supper an imitation of the Iewiſh paſſeover, 1 Cor. 5. and of the Iewiſh Manna, and water out of the rock, 1 Cor. 10.1. &c is therefore all Baptiſm, and is therefore the Lords Supper deſervedly doubtfull, whether they may be uſed? Yea, why doth Mr T. without any limitation call circumciſion Iewish; as if it had been meerly ſo, when the Apoſtle calls it, Rom. 4.11. The ſignes and ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of faith. Note.It had been too much for Mr T. to have called it meer Old Teſtament or ceremonious circumciſion, ſeeing it is the firſt ſeal of the covenant with Abraham which was Goſpell being the main hinge upon which the New Teſtament moves, in the main point of ſalvation by faith in Chriſt. Act. 2. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. where the Apoſtles in ſending us to Chriſt by faith, urges Gods Covenant with Abraham. Circumciſion therefore annexed to the covenant, muſt be in diverſe reſpects of the ſame nature; as under the notion of the firſt ſeal; in regard of the ſpirituall ſignification, inward ſanctification; and too in reſpect of application, to teach that ſtill the firſt Seal, as now baptiſm, is to be applyed as to the beleeving parents, ſo to their Infant ſeed; unleſſe Mr T. could have all this while ſhewd us an exception.

And what if, according to Mr T. his third particular of [Not univerſall practiſe] Moſes neglected the circumciſion of his child at the due time, and circumciſion was not exerciſed upon the Jews born in the wilderneſſe for 40 years; and many parts of worſhip could not be uſed in the times of the Churches perſecution; but Churches and their worſhip were hid in corners as Revel. 12. And we have not records to tell us what they did for many hundred of yeeres, but intimations how they were abridged of their liberties. Now doth this make any of theſe things doubtfull?See Voſſius. Theſ. Theolet Hiſtor. De Paedobapt. And our quotation after Ambroſ. following. No more doth the want of univerſall practiſe detract from the authority of adminiſtring baptiſm to beleevers Infants; eſpecially ſeeing the Pelagian faction and other Hereſies, before that ſo ancient, and ſo over ſpreading the Chriſtian world, being alſo oppoſite to the baptiſm of Infants, might be a great cauſe that, it was not univerſally practized. And it is no handſome Argument in the mouth of an p. 126Anabaptiſt to urge the Non-univerſall practiſe of Infant Baptiſm, when many of their fellows have been the cauſe of it. Nor is it enough to wave that we have ſaid to theſe two particulars, viz. the ſecond and third; by telling us there was an inſtitution of Circumciſion in ſcripture, an inſtitution of Baptiſme of men, and of the Lords Supper in the Scripture; for ſo we have proved there is of Infant Baptiſme; and we may as well aſſert this, in this our Anſwer, as for the Anabaptiſts to begge the Queſtion in the objection; as if Infant-baptiſme were not inſtituted in Scripture.

For the fourth particular with its great & caetera; namely, That together with the baptiſme of Infants ſome errour, and many humane traditions have gone along in the company, as giving Infants the Lords Supper, &c. It needs no long nor carefull anſwer.

For firſt we know that all the Ordinances of Chriſt have been for many hundreds of years for the generall, daubed with many traditions, and darkned with many errours, by the Papiſts; doctrines mixt with Legends,Note. Baptiſme be-ſpitled, greaſed with oyl, brined with ſalt, the wine of the Lords Supper mixt with water, &c. yet this doth not infer that therefore the Ordinances themſelves are doubtfull.

2. That though you Mr T. Vltrò nos provocaſti have voluntarily provoked us here to rip up all the abhominable opinions, and dangerous errours and practiſes that have in all ages accompanied the opinion of Anabaptiſme, and antipaedobaptiſme out of Mr Bullinger; Sleidens Commentaries in his 5. and 10. book: Lambertus Hortenſius of the Anabaptiſs of the Low Countries, Iohn Gaſtius of the Anabaptiſts of Zuitzerland, Melancthon, Ch. de Nielles, Pontanus, Oſiander, &c.

**All which will more then furniſh the Reader with a full anſwer to the 2 part of Mr T. his EXAMEN, the title or ſum whereof is ſet down by Mr T. That Antipaedobaptiſme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth, which Authors aforeſaid have too many ſad inſtances of both; we forbear to name them as having no delight in Catalogues of ſins.Yet if we ſhould do ſo, you would not take that for a proof of the doubtfulneſſe of Anabaptiſme, or Antipaedobaptiſme; you would ſay we did rather endeavour to diſgrace it, then to confute it; as it is your complaint againſt Mr M. in your firſt Section of the ſecond part of your EXAMEN; why then do you here labour to dazle the eyes of men againſt the Lawfulneſſe of baptizing beleevers children, with an aſperſion that ſome odde opinions and traditions have attended it?

2. To Mr T. his minor, we anſwer according to the particulars he recites, But in ſome ages (ſaith he) after the firſt from the Apoſtles the tenet and practiſe of Infant-Baptiſme was in uſe, firſt as a tradition not written. But why doth Mr T. (we wonder) ſpeak of ſome ages after the firſt (100 years) from the Apoſtles? For unleſſe he p. 127could proove Infant-baptiſme to be an unwritten tradition, in the firſt age next after the Apoſtles, all is to no purpoſe. If it were not an unwritten tradition in that age; it is not an unwritten one, though all the ages following to the worlds end ſay ſo, and ſwear it. Nor do the words [was in uſe] help him.

For if it be not proved it was an unwritten tradition in the firſt age after the Apoſtles, though it was not then in uſe, this is nothing to make it then an unwritten tradition.

Now to the firſt particular wherein Mr T. ſaith Infant-Baptiſm was in uſe as an unwritten tradition in ſome ages after the firſt from the Apoſtles, witneſſe Origen.

Firſt we will bring our proofes of antiquity to the contrary; and then ſecondly anſwer to Mr T. his quotation of Origen.

1 For proof out of Antiquity, that Infant-Baptiſme was not in uſe after the firſt age from the Apoſtles upon meer unwritten tradition; we will take our Authours according to order of time.

1 ORIGEN, ORIGEN.Flouriſhed about the very beginning of the ſecond Century, or age after the firſt from the Apoſtles times: For he was borne**So Butholcer out of Hieron. in the firſt Age or 100 years after that of the Apoſtles, about the yeare of Chriſt 186. And he being the Diſciple of Clement, in the 18 year of his age, and about the year after Chriſt 204. opens his ſchoole****Helvic. ou… of Euſeb.. Therefore he could not be ignorant of the cuſtomes of the Apoſtles about Infant-Baptiſme, &c. Firſt his words in his fifth booke upon the ſixth chapter of the Epiſtle to the Romans are: The Church hath received a tradition from the Apoſtles to give Baptiſme alſo to Infants: For they to whom the ſecrets of divine myſteries were committed, did know that there was in all, the very filth of ſinne, which ought to be waſhed away by water and the ſpirit, &c. In which words we have no mention of an unwritten Tradition; But of a tradition from the Apoſtles: that is the Doctrine of the Apoſtles in the Scriptures: Tradition being taken in the Scriptures, and Fathers [not**So our orthodox ſchools diſtinguiſh. paſſively for an unwritten doctrine of tradition, but actively for the act of tradition, or delivering the holy Scriptures from hand to hand in ſucceſſion of ages, to our fathers and ſo down to us] in theſe inſtances: 2 Theſſ. 2.15. Therefore brethren ſtand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which wee have been taught whether by word or our Epiſtle. So in Epiphanius **Contra Haereſ. l. 3. T. 2. Contra Haer…ſ …0. cumpendiarver. doct.. But (ſaith he) other myſteries as concerning the laver (of baptiſme) and internall myſteries are ſo performed as the TRADITION of the p. 128Goſpel, and the Acts hath them. So Auguſtin, as we ſhall ſee after in the Quotations of him. And that Origen takes Tradition in this ſence, appeares by the ground he layes upon the Scriptures, which tell us a ſinner muſt be born again of water and the holy ſpirit. That ſinne is taken away by the blood and ſpirit of Chriſt, and that this is ſealed to us by Baptiſme in reſpect whereof we are ſaid to be baptized into Chriſt. Rom. 6. Now that cannot be called an unwritten tradition that hath footing upon the Scripture, as baptiſme hath; and baptiſme of beleevers infants, as wee have proved and are ſtill upon the proofe.

2 ORIGENS words on Levit. Hom. 8. are (ſpeaking of the ſpirituall uncleanneſſe of man by ſinne) It may be asked what cauſe is there of giving Baptiſme alſo to little children according to the obſervation of the Church, ſeeing if there were nothing in little children the which remiſſion did concern, and indulgence (of pardon) did belong unto, the grace of Baptiſme would ſeem ſuperfluous? Here againe Origen layes the ground worke of the waſhing by Baptiſme upon the ſpirituall pollution of children held forth to us in the Scriptures. Thus Origen.

3 ORIGENS words in his 14. Hom. on Luke are; Little children were baptized into remiſſion of ſinnes. Of what ſinnes? Or when did they ſin? Or how can any Conſideration of the Laver of waſhing be in little children, but as we ſaid a little afore? no man is pure from uncleanneſſe, though he lives but one day on earth. And becauſe by the Sacrament of Baptiſme the filth of birth is put away, therefore little children are baptized. All this he ſpeaks of Baptiſme as putting it in the room of Moſaicall purifications; And firſt ſaith, for ſpirituall cleanſing; Parvuli baptizabantur, that is Little children WERE baptized, as relating to the practiſe of the Churches in former ages. And then ſecondly ſaith in the preſent tenſe Baptizantur parvuli, that is little children ARE baptized, as noting the continuance of that practiſe, and that upon Scripture grounds, viz. for remiſſion and ſanctification from ſinne (Sacramentally and Inſtrumentally) inſtead of Ceremoniall waſhings and purifications, which had their Goſpel meaning, as the Apoſtle expounds in the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes. Thus Origen.

But Mr T. hath ſome objections againſt Origen in his EXAMEN of Mr M. Sermon which we muſt anſwer to keep things clear as we go,Animadverſ upon Mr T. his EXAMEN §. 7. ſo much as concernes the Common cauſe.

p. 129Object. Perkins and Ʋſher, EXAMEN.ſaith Mr T▪ put Origen in the year 230.

Wee anſwer indeed Origen then abouts ſucceeded at Alexandria his Maſter Clem. Animadver.Alexandrinus in the Chair of catechiſing and compoſed his foreign **Bucholc:. But for his birth and firſt opening his ſchoole, we ſet the reckoning right according to divers learned Chronologers and Eccleſiaſticall Writers; to which we now adde the words of Bucholcerus, in Anno 186. About this year (ſaith he) was born Origen the Eccleſiaſticall Writer, at Alexandria; which depends on the year after Christ 203. in which, Hieronymus writeth Origen was about 17 years old.

Object. The Works of Origen, EXAMEN.ſaith Mr T. as of old were counted full of errours, and dangerous to be read, ſo, as now they are, we can hardly tell in ſome of them what is Origens, what not. For the Originall being loſt, we have onelyonly the Latin Tranſlation, which being performed in many of his Works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus, and the Epiſtle to the Romans, by Ruffinus, it appears by his own confeſſion, that he added many things of his owne, in ſo much that Eraſmus in his cenſure of the Homilies on Leviticus, ſaith, That a man cannot be certain whether he read Ruffinus or Origen: And Perkins puts among Origens counterfeit works his Commentary on the Epiſtle to the Romans, as being not faithfully tranſlated by Ruffinus.

1 As we confeſſe there are ſome Errours in Origen (and in whom not?) ſo there are many learned,Animadver. pious and moſt ſpirituall things, precious Goſpel truthes, ſuch as I have admired, when I read, them conſidering thoſe darke times; in ſo much as many now called Preachers of the Goſpel, may go to Origen (if they have but the ſpirit of diſcerning) to learn to be Goſpel-preachers.

2 If Mr T. makes theſe exceptions againſt Origen, why, I ſay, why doth Mr T. urge Origen for himſelfe in his fifth Argument, in his Exercitation, as we heard afore? Truly a man can hardly with patience enough, look upon Mr T. his dealing in this: When wee urge three places out of Origen (which you had before quoted and tranſlated, and formerly urged by Mr M.) for the ancient practiſe of the Church in baptizing Infants, then M. T. beſpatters Origen as you heare, and Origen is not Origen with him. But if Mr T. urge but one only place of Origen, to blaſt Infant-baptiſme with the ſcar of tradition, and to contradict all approved Antiquity afore: p. 130then Origen muſt be received. Or elſe to what purpoſe did M. T. alleadge him, urging no other, by which to pretend Infant-baptiſm to be a tradition?

3 Mr T. hath nothing to ſay againſt Origen on Luke, and therefore he intimates an acknowledgement of one place urged by us from Origen, to ſtand good.

4 Wee gave you all the places out of Origen as tranſlated into Latin by Hieronimus, as the beſt Editions promiſe us.

5 Perkins his noting Origens Commentary on the Epiſtle to the Romans as not faithfully tranſlated by Ruffinus, doth not conclude it to be a counterfeit worke.

6. If Ruffinus did ſay, he added many things of his owne in the tranſlation of Origen on the Romans and Leviticus (for there is nothing ſaid of Luke) ſure he would not confeſſe he had deſtroyed the ſence of Origen, or made him ſpeake that he never meant. This were to ſuppoſe Ruffinus would diſgrace himſelfe under his owne hand.

But Mr T. objects that if we read the paſſages themſelves we cite,EXAMEN and conſider how they are brought in, and how plain the expreſſions are againſt the Pelagians, we would quickly conceive, that thoſe paſſages were put in after the Pelagian hereſie was confuted by Hieronimus and Augustin, who often tells us, that the fathers afore that controverſie aroſe, did not ſpeak plainly againſt the Pelagians. And of all others Origen is moſt taxed as Pelagianizing.

We anſwer:Animadver. Firſt for our parts, we have read the places wee quote out of Origen, with the coherence of the preceding and ſucceeding words, as Mr T. may perceive by our touches of obſervations on the places: Some hints there are (wee confeſſe) againſt ſome peice of Pelagianiſme, which might be conceived by ſome few in his time; which others in after ages might confute plainly, when borne, named, and grown up to a ſturdy fellow. Secondly, for Origen to hint in ſome places againſt Pelagianiſm, & in others to Pelagianize a little, is not ſuch a contradiction as is not found in divers fathers that wrote much, and ſtruggled with contrary Errours, as Auguſtin &c. we thinke Mr T. himſelf claſheth ſometimes againſt himſelfe. Thirdly, however Origen in all the places conſtat ſibi, is the ſame man for Baptiſme of Infants.

But Mr T. objects further that Voſſius ſaith;EXAMEN For Origen wee p. 131will the leſſe contend, becauſe what we cited out of him, is not extant in Greek.

Wee anſwer,Animadver.

1 Then we were beſt caſt away almoſt all worthy Irenaeus, becauſe wee have but a little peice of him in Greek.

2 That Mr T. quoted out of Origen for his turn is not extant in greek.

3 Voſſius ſhall heal the wound Mr T. gives by the hand of Voſſius.

Firſt ſaith Voſſius [Although ſome thinke Origens Commentaries on Levit. to be Cyrills, yet they ſavour of Origens phraſe, and miſtakes.] Secondly, ſaith Voſſ. [You may read (gemina) this, and his 14. Homilies on Luke as Twinnes] that is, they both ſpeake alike to the ſame purpoſe of Infant-Baptiſme: which place on Luke Mr T. excepts not againſt.

Laſtly,EXAMEN Mr T, objects that if Origens teſtimony be accepted, yet he calls Infant-baptiſme a Tradition, and an Obſervation of the Church.

To this we have ſufficiently anſwered a little afore in our quotations of thoſe three places out of Origen; Animadver.that ORIGEN cannot mean unwritten Tradition or meer Cuſtome. See more after at our quotation of Auguſtin, in which you have a full anſwer to Mr T. his note out of Aug. l. 10. c. 23. De Geneſi.

The next witneſſe is CYPRIAN, CYPRIAN.who flouriſhed about the 248. yeare after Chriſt**Helvic., and ſo alſo was in the ſecond century, 100 years or age after the firſt from the Apoſtles (according to Mr T. his language) others****Bucholc. put him higher, to wit, about 222. after Chriſt. His teſtimony (as Voſſius notes) for Infant-Baptiſme in his time, and higher, is beyond all exception. His words in his Epiſtle to Fidus in his third book and eighth Epiſtle**Alias, Ep. 59. are theſe. As concerning the cauſe of Infants, which thou ſaideſt ought not to be baptized being within the ſecond or third day of their birth, and that the law of ancient Circumciſion ought to be regarded, ſo that thou ſhouldeſt not think that one born ſhould be baptized and ſanctified within the eighth day; it ſeemed far otherwiſe to all in our councell. We all of us (that is, in a Councell of 66 Biſhops) have judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to no ſon of man, or to none born of men. And by and by after he ſaith; There is among all, whether Infants or thoſe that are elder, one equality of the divine gift. And a little after that he addes. For as God is no excepter of perſons, ſo nor of Ages, ſeeing that he holds forth himſelfe with an equall poyſed evenneſſe p. 132[Parem as ſome read] a like, [patrem as others read) a father to all, for the attaining celeſtiall grace. And a few lines after he hath theſe words: If remiſſion of ſins be given to them that have more greivouſly ſinned againſt God, when afterward they have beleeved, and ſo none of them is kept back from Baptiſme, and grace; how much rather ought not an Infant to be prohibited and kept from baptiſme, who being lately born hath not ſinned at all, but as born of Adam according to the fleſh, he contracted the contagion of ancient death in his firſt nativity? And therefore, my dear brother, this was our judgement in the Councell, That from baptiſme and the grace of God who is mercifull, and bountifull, and pittifull to all, no man ought to be debarred. So with much more, Cyprian (repeated by him again, tom. 2. l. de lapſis) This Epiſt. of Cypr. to Fidus is a Famous place (ſaith Goulartius) concerning the Baptiſme of Infants, againſt the Anabaptiſts. And ſo we finde it accounted among the pious and Learned Ancients, by their frequent and reſpective quotation of it.**Cyril or Johannes Hieroſolymit. Catechiſ Myſtag. 1. Greg. Naz. Orat. 3. in ſanctum lavacrum. Chryſ. Hom. ad Ne… phyt. Hom. in Gen. & in Pſ. Ambroſ. in Luc. Hierom. ſub …inem l. 3. Dialog. contra Pelagian. August Epiſt. 28 ad Hi…n. & lib. 3. de pec. merit. & remiſſic. 7, 8, 9. Ubi totam fere hane Epiſtol. citat. lib. 2. contra Julian, cap. 3. & lib. 4 contra duas Epiſt. Pelag. c. 8. And (ſaith Voſſius) the judgement here given in, about Infant Baptiſme, is ſo much the more to be eſteemed, in that it was the Decree of ſo famous a Councell, and that the adverſaries durst not deny it, but onelyonly doubted, whether Baptiſme ſhould be given the eighth day?

And now give us leave to adde our obſervation; namely, That the learned Ancients did look to the Covenant made with Abraham (whoſe ſeal was circumciſion) as to a ground of Infant Baptime; as appears by Fidus his Argument from Circumciſion (onelyonly he looked then too much at the circumſtance of ſuch a time of childhood, as the Anabaptiſts now do at ſuch a time of ripe years.) So that it appears by this, and the Argument of Cyprian, and of that Councell (according to their light) that, that age held not Infant-Baptiſm from unwritten tradition, as Mr T. aſſerts.

Now we muſt turn to Mr T. his EXAMEN, EXAMEM Sect. 7.where he hath ſomewhat to ſay againſt moſt of the Fathers uſually alleadged for Infant-Baptiſm, and ſo againſt Cyprian. 1. He Objects that though Cyprian …e placed at 250 by Vſher, or at 240 by Perkins, (and conſequently though at 248 by us) yet Tertullian was before him, and counted his maſter. Now in Tertullians time, It appears (ſaith Grotius in Mat. 19.14.) there was nothing defined concerning the age in which they were to be baptized, that were conſecrated by their Parents to Chriſtian Diſcipline, becauſe he diſſwader by ſo many reaſons p. 133(in his book of baptiſme chap. 18.) the baptizing of Infants. And i… he did allow it (as Mr T. adds) it was onelyonly in caſe of neceſſity, as may appear by his words in his book De Animâ. Chap. 39.

We Reply to this. 1. That both theſe places of Tertullian are before alleadged, tranſlated, and diſc…ſſed,Animadver. to be for Infant-baptiſme, chap. 13. of our Animadverſ. at the word TERTUL. in the Margin, which we deſire the Reader to peruſe over again: where you may ſee, that Tertullian hath nothing of allowance of Infant-baptiſme onelyonly in caſe of Neceſſity; but (if the places be well weighed) he ſaith, that which he ſaith, for Infant-baptiſme, without any ſuch limitation: which Infant-baptiſme among other paſſages is aſſerted by Tertullian, in thoſe words, That the children of either Parent-ſex ſanctified, are holy, partly by the prerogative of the SEED, partly by the RVLE OF DISCIPLINE: Which, what can it be but Baptiſme? And in thoſe words, Thoſe children are Deſignati ſanctitatis, the deſignedones of holineſſe, or, the marked ones of holineſſe. It is more like that Mr T. meant, that Tertullian reſtrained Infant-baptiſme to neceſſity. lib. de Bapt. cap. 18. But we have abundantly cleered this alſo afore, in the 13. Chap. of our Animadverſ. at the word TERTUL in the Margin: and that not out of our own thoughts onelyonly, but out of learned Ju…ius and Voſſius. Let the Reader have patience to peruſe that we have there ſaid. We adde now, That the moſt of Tertullians diſpute againſt haſtning baptiſme (chap. 18. of his book concerning Baptiſme) is againſt ſuddain baptizing men of ripe yeers; For his words are, Give not Baptiſme raſhly, Give not holy things to dogs, (he counts not Infants of beleevers ſuch as you heard out of his book De anima, and here by and by calls them, The INNOCENT age) If the Eunuch were ſuddenly Baptiſed, yet the Spirit commanded Philip to go to his Chariot, If Paul were ſuddenly baptized, yes he was ſoon known to Jude his Host, that he was a choſen …eſſell: So Tertul &c. It is true that after Tertullian ſpeaks of Infants, but what ſaith he? Quid feſtina… innocen…a… a… ad remiſſionem peccatorum? [Why doth innocent age haſten to forgiveneſſe of ſinnes] (meaning Baptiſme.) Is this a good reaſon, a Scripture ground to defer the Baptiſme of Infants? He ſaith himſelfe in his ſaid book and 8 chap. De animâ, That children are not holy, till they be counted ſo in Chriſt. And how in Chriſt? When they be by means of one of the holy Parents, under the promiſe, of being a p. 134holy ſeed, and by the rule of Diſcipline, which for children, while ſuch, was onelyonly Baptiſme. And whereas Mr T. brings in learned Grotius as countenancing him, in relying upon Tertullian againſt Infant-Baptiſme, we have largely and plainly layd open, after, in our Animadverſions in this Chap. upon the ſixth Section of Mr T. his EXAMEN (ſee the margin there:)

1. That Grotius rejects Tertullians opinion, as nothing ſwaying him, againſt Infant-Baptiſme.

2. That Grotius by many Arguments is for Infant-Baptiſm.

3. We now adde, that it is true Grotius doth ſay, Tertullianus de aetate quâ baptizandi eſſent qui Chriſtianae diſciplinae a parentibus conſ…crabantur nihil definitum fuiſſe ſuis temporibus, hoc ipſo docet, &c.

That Tertullian ſheweth that in his time, The ſet time of Baptizing them that were CONSECRATED BY THEIR PARENTS to Chriſtian Diſcipline, was not determined. But what is this to prove that in thoſe times beleevers children muſt not be baptized, till they are out of their Parents guardianſhip, and of ripe years?

2. Mr T. Objects againſt Cyprian, EXAMEN. Sect. 7.that indeed he handles Infant-Baptiſme at large in his 59 Epiſtle ad Fidum, and ſaith in that Epiſtle enough for it, and more then enough, unleſſe he had ſpoken to better purpoſe. The truth is, the very reading of the Epiſtle, upon which Hierom and eſpecially Auguſtine rely, for the proving of Infant-baptiſme, is ſufficient to diſcover how great darkneſſe there was then upon the Spirits of thoſe that were counted the greateſt Lights in the Church. You ſay, * upon this occaſion Fidus denyed not the baptiſme of Infants, Mr T. ſpeaks to Mr M.but denyed that they ought to be Baptized before the eighth day. But you might have obſerved that Fidus alleadged, That the Law of ancient circumciſion was to be conſidered. And That the footſtep of an Infant being in the firſt dayes of birth, is not clean. Whence it plainly appears, that there was a relique of Judaiſme in him, and that he did not well underſtand the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law. And the truth is, the contentions about Easter, neer that age, do plainly ſhew that Judaiſme was not quite weeded out of the minds of the chief teachers among Chriſtians: Thus Mr T.

We anſwer.

1 That however Mr T. deſpiſeth here Cyprians teſtimony:Animadver. yet the renownedſt, pious, learned, eſteemed it; as Cyrill, or John of Hieruſalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Chryſoſtome, Ambroſe, Hierom, Auguſtine. The places where, in their works, p. 135we quoted a little afore in the margin, over againſt the end of the teſtimony of Cyprian. Nor do ancienter writers onelyonly eſteeme it (on whoſe ſpirits Mr T. ſaith there was ſuch darkeneſſe, and on whoſe ſpirit is there not ſome at this time of great light?) but alſo later learned pious writers; even Mr T. his beloved Voſſius & Grotius ſo oft quoted by him. Voſſius ſaith,Voſſius Theſ. Theolog. & Hiſt. de paedo bapt. Theſ. 9. Grotius in Mat. 19.14.Matt 19:14 that this teſtimony of Cyprian is above or beyond all exceptions. Grotius ſaith, That the Epiſtle of Cyprian to Fidus makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of baptizing Infants &c.

2 When Mr T. urgeth the fathers in the leaſt, as one place out of one Origen, or &c. in a point of great doubt, we muſt entertain it (by Mr T. his intendment,) but when we urge many places out of many; then ſaith he they are this and that.

3 Better men then theſe fathers may have ſome darkneſſe: John Baptiſt was greater then the prophets; and he that is leaſt in the Kingdome of the Church now, is greater than he.

4 Many men may in theſe dayes hold a ſolid truth, yet not upon the beſt grounds of it, for want of knowledge of them.

5 That Fidus thus far expreſly held the ceremoniall law to be abrogated, that Baptiſme was come in the room of Circumciſion, and might be adminiſtred at leaſt as ſoon as Circumciſion was to children.Act. 21.20. Gal. 2.Acts 21:20Gal 2

6 We know that many Chriſtian Jewes in the time of the Apoſtles, and Peter himſelf did too much Judaize; ſhall not we therefore receive that true light that was in them?

7 For that of Eſter, wee know the controverſie too farr and too long about that time invaded Chriſtian England, ſhall not we therefore be regarded in any truth?Mr Fox book of Martyrs. Yea did not the obſervation of Eſter reach down to Mr T. yet he would be beleeved in his Exercitation.

8 What is all this that Mr T. hath ſaid, to the point in hand? For we alleadge not Fidus his Epiſtle to Cyprian, but Cyprians to Fidus, relating their judgement and reaſons for Infant-baptiſme of which afore largely and fully. And now obſerve, that Cyprian ſaith, in the name of the reſt, in that his Epiſtle to Fidus, that concerning that opinion That the footſtep of an Infant in the firſt dayes of his birth is unclean, and ſo not to be then baptized. It ſeemed far otherwiſe to all of us in the Councell; and then reaſons againſt it.

9 Hierom and Auguſtine did not ſo rely on Cyprian, but that they had many reaſons of their own out of ſcripture, to prove Infant-baptiſme, of which after.

3. Mr T. objects againſt Cyprians Epiſtle to Fidus, EXAMEN. Sect. 7.you (ſaith Mr T. to Mr M.) ſay Cyprian aſſures Fidus that by the unanimous p. 136conſent of 66. BPP. in a Councell, baptiſme was to be adminiſtred to Infants &c. and not to be reſtrained to any time; (which is true ſaith Mr T.) but you add (ſaith he to Mr M.) and proves it by ſuch arguments as theſe; They are under originall ſinne; they need pardon, are capable of grace and mercy, God regards not age. But (ſaith Mr T.) the reſolution of Cyprian with his colleagues is not ſo lightly to be paſſed over, ſeeing the determination of this Councell, as far as I can finde by ſearch, is the very ſpring head of Infant-baptiſme. To conceive it aright, it is to be conſidered that you are miſtaken about the proofe of their opinion; the things you mention are not the proofe, but are produced in anſwer to objections. The proofe is but one, unleſſe you will make a proofe of that which is in the cloſe of the Epiſtle, which is; That whereas none is to be kept from Baptiſme and the grace of God, much leſſe new-borne Infants who in this respect do deſerve **…he words …erentur de, …ight have …in tranſlated …ore favoura…ly by Mr T. …or 1. Mercor …gnifies ſome…mes onelyonly to …et, attain, or … receive. 2. …n oppoſition …o merit, Cypri…n ſaith, nihil…liud faciunt, …ot agunt. 3. …e ſaith, de …pe noſtra. Now what can …n Infant me…it of a man. 4. There is a …ifference be…ween mereri …liquid, and mereri de aliquo which latter oft ſignifies to owe to one. As Infants owe more to Gods mercy. 5. It is ſaid Gods MERCY.more of our ayd, and of Gods mercy, becauſe in the beginning of their birth they preſently crying and weeping do nothing but pray. The onelyonly proof is this, the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to none that are borne of man, for the Lord ſaith in the Gospel, that the ſon of man came not to deſtroy mens ſoules, but to ſave them, and therefore as much as in us lies, if it may be, no ſoul is to be lost, and therefore all Infants at all times to be baptized.

Animad. We anſw. That in much of all this, Mr T. rather ſeems to purſue a man then the matter. I ſhall rather purſue the matter then Mr T. for ſo doing. Therefore I animadvert; Firſt, the Matter is not of conſequence whether there be one or two or three proofes. Doubtleſſe the ingenuous reader may ſee in that Epiſtle, that Infant-baptiſm is argued for, out of Scripture firſt and laſt, & in the middle, & according to the light of the times. And let us bleſſe God for that of their records we have, to ſhew us the practiſe of ancient Churches, in many materiall points. Had we lived in their times, it is a queſtion whether we ſhould have ſeen as much as they did. If we now ſee more its becauſe we dwarfes are ſet upon the ſhoulders of thoſe Gyants. Secondly, that Cyprians Epiſtle is not the ſpring-head of Infant-Baptiſme. Firſt, Becauſe that Councell, of which Cyprian ſpeakes in that Epiſtle, did not firſt coyne that opinion as meerly their opinion, depending upon their Votes, but as arguing it (according to their Light) out of the Scriptures.

1. That it is a part of Gods favour that ſent his Son to ſave; and p. 137that is by Ordinances.

2. The equalitie of Gods divine gift to all Infants, and men, as in Eliſha his fetching the child to life.

3 God is no exceptor of perſons, and ſo not of ages.

4 That by that law which is now eſtabliſhed ſpirituall circumciſion is not to be hindred by the carnall circumciſion, (that is as he had ſaid afore in that Epiſtle, by reſtraining baptiſme to the eighth day, and not under) but to admit all (that is of all ages) and to count none unclean as Peter ſpeaks, Act. 10. with other Reaſons there urged.

Secondly, becauſe that Fidus afore the adviſe of this Councell (as it ſeems come) was for baptiſme of Infants no doubt, from the ground of circumciſion, onelyonly he ſtuck too much on the ceremonie of the eighth day. Thirdly, before Cyprian or that Councell, were Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clem. Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Origen; all for Infant-baptiſme, in many paſſages; all which we have before tranſlated, alledged, and diſcuſſed, excepting Clem. Alexandrinus; See in the margin after CLEM. ALEXAND.whom we alledge by and by after this. Therefore Mr. T. how ever it ſeem to you, it cannot ſeem to us that the reſolution of Cyprian with his Collegues was the ſpring-head of Infant-baptiſme. To the laſt clauſe [therefore all Infants at all times to be baptized] we ſhall ſpeak to in our Anſwer to the next objection.

Secondly,EXAMEN. Sect. 7. Mr. T. objects againſt Cyprian out of that we have tranſlated, that his teſtimony conteins ſome groſſe things, as, firſt, that they thought baptizing, giving Gods grace; and the denying it, the denying of grace. Secondly, they thought that the ſouls were loſt, that were not baptized. Thirdly, that therefore not onelyonly Infants of believers, but all Infants were to be baptized. Whence Toſſanus in his Synopſis notes this for Cyprians error, that he taught, that Infants were ſtraight wayes to be baptized, leſt they periſh, becauſe that the mercy of God is not to be denied them.

We anſwer. 1. In generall. If we ſhould grant all this to be true,Animadverſ. yet this doth not overthrow, but that in Cyprians time the Churches held Infant-Baptiſme, and that is the main point in hand.

Secondly, in particular we anſwer. To the firſt particular we ſay, that what error or hurt is it to ſay, that baptiſme gives grace inſtrumentally; and that without warrant wittingly to deny baptiſme, is to deny Gods grace. Even as it is ſaid in the Scripture, The word of life, The waſhing of regeneration, The bread we break is the communion of the body of Chriſt. So on the contrary, Where there is no viſion the people periſh. Ʋnleſſe we are born again of water and the Spirit, p. 136duplicate page p. 137duplicate page p. 136duplicate page p. 137duplicate page p. 138we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. All which are meant inſtrumentally, and according to Gods o…inary diſpenſation (allowing him his prerogative roy all to ſave without means.) And therefore Cyprian and his Collegues cannot be juſtly blamed for ſpeaking no more then that the Scripture ſpeaks, and in the like phraſe.

To the ſecond particular the ſame anſwer will ſerve; where alſo we have ſomewhat out of Cyprian to juſtifie that to be his meaning, viz. instrumentally not abſolutely. For he ſaith [ſeeing Chriſt came not to deſtroy mens ſouls, but to ſave them] therefore quantum in nobis eſt ſi fieri potest nulla anima perdends eſt, & idcirco … baptiſmo, & gratiâ Dei, qui omnibus miſericors, & benignus, & pius eſt, neminem per nos debere prohiberi. That is, [As much as in us lies if it may be] no ſoul is to be lost; and therefore from baptiſme, and the grace of God who is mercifull, bountifull, and pitifull to all, no man is to be prohibited [by us.] So that as the Scripture ſaith, 1 Pet. 3.21, 22. that eight ſouls were ſaved in the Ark; by water; that is, instrumentally, the like figure or antitype whereunto baptiſme now ſaveth, meaning too instrumentally, for otherwiſe there is no name under heaven whereby we muſt be ſaved, but Jeſus Chriſt; Act. 4.12. Juſt ſo Cyprian ſpeaks.

To the third particular, [that not onelyonly Infants of believers, but all Infants were to be baptized.] I find no ſuch paſſage in all Cyprians Epiſtle, that All Infants are put as the oppoſite member of the diſtinction, to believers Infants. This onelyonly I find, firſt, that all Infants are put into oppoſition to Infants above eight dayes old: that is, that not onelyonly Infants above eight dayes old, but thoſe under eight dayes old may as well be baptized. As we heard afore in the quotation of Cyprian in anſwer to Fidus, whileſt Fidus thought that before the eight day Infants might not be baptized. Secondly, that all Infants are put in oppoſition to believers of ripe yeers (and therefore moſt likely all believers Infants are meant) For ſaith Cyprian [if greater ſins cannot hinder men of ripe yeers from baptiſme, after they believe, much leſſe may originall ſin onelyonly, hinder an Infant from baptiſme.] So Cyprian, which Mr. T. after quotes in this his 7. Sect. of his Examen. God himſelf he would have all men to be ſaved, yet commands not all ordinances, no nor baptiſme to be given to all men. So Cyprian may ſpeak generally in the premiſſes, yet intend onelyonly a particular concluſion, p. 139that onelyonly ſome Infants are to be baptized, ſutable to the caſe he had in hand.

Laſtly, we anſwer to that of Toſſanus, firſt, that there is no ſuch ſentence in all that Mr. T. hath tranſlated, out of this Epiſtle of Cyprian. And therefore Mr. T. needed not to annex Toſſanus his words to that he had tranſlated with a WHENCE, ſaying, whence Toſſanus notes this for Cyprians errour, that Infants muſt be preſently baptized leſt they periſh, &c. Secondly, that there is no ſuch ſentence in all Cyprians Epiſtle, as Toſſanus reports; nor to that effect; But onelyonly this, as we tranſlated afore upon another occaſion: That Cyprian ſpeaking of baptizing Infants though they were not eight dayes old, becauſe the mercy and grace of God is not to be denyed to any born of men, argueth thus. Seeing the Lord ſaith in his Goſpel, the Son of man came not to destroy the ſouls of men, but to ſave them, as much as in us is, if it may be, no ſoul is to be deſtroyed. See here candid Reader, Cyprian doth not ſay Infants periſh if they be not baptized. But we ſhould not by wilfull neglect of baptiſme, as much as in us is cauſe them to periſh.

The reſt that is in Mr. T. his Analyſis of Cyprians Epiſtle, is onelyonly againſt Mr. M. about querks, and nothing to the point in hand; and therefore needs no anſwer from us.

Yet thus much we ſay; that wheras Mr. Tombes would not have it, that Cyprian doth at all put in originall ſin among his Arguments for the baptizing of Infants; This is clearly intimated by Cyprian, That as men of ripe yeers beleeving, are baptized to put away their many greater actuall ſins; ſo Infants are baptized to put away their leſſer, originall ſins.

And for Mr. T. his calling this Epiſtle of Cyprian, an abſurd Epistle; it is ſomewhat boldly ſpoken, and with too much diſreſpect of ſo famous a man and Martyr in thoſe times; we might have more juſtly have ſaid ſo of divers of the Authors Mr. T. hath quoted; but have forborn it, knowing that ſuch words are not confutations, but revilings. I am confident that the intelligent Reader hath ſeen that the allegation of Cyprian hath not been abſurd to the main point now in queſtion; to wit, whether Infant-baptiſme was in uſe and practiſe in the Churches in Cyprians time; which ſo to have been, Cyprian hath fully held out unto us; and ſo Mr. T. his abſurd is nothing to the purpoſe.GREG. NAZIAN.

The next witneſſe for the ſame is Greg. Nazianzen, who lived p. 140about the yeer after Chriſt, 375.**Helvic. His words are****Orat. 40. quae eſt in ſanctum baptiſma. Baptiſme is a ſeal for them that enter into the courſe of this life. foreign, &c. And therefore (ſaith he, ſpeaking of baptiſme) we muſt with all care and diligence provide that we want not this common grace or favour. Some man may ſay, let theſe things be ſo as concerning them which require baptiſme, but what will you ſay concerning them which yet are of a tender age, and perceive not …urt, or grace, ſhall we baptize them alſo? Yea by all means, if any danger preſſeth thereunto. For it is better to be ſanctified without ſence or feele, then to depart this life without the ſeal and innitiation. And of this thing, circumciſion is a reaſon to us, which was wont to be done upon the eighth day, which after a ſort did repreſent a figure of baptiſme, and was offered or given to them, which yet had not the uſe of reaſon. After the ſame manner alſo that anointing or ſprinkling given to the doore-poſts **Exod. 12.7.13.Exod 12:7Exod 12:13, which were things void of ſence, did bring ſalvation to the firſt-born. Concerning others, I thus judge, after expectation or waiting three yeers, or ſomewhat leſſe, or a longer ſpace of time (for then they are able to hear ſome mysticall, or ſpirituall thing, and give anſwer, and if they underſtand not ſo fully, and exactly, yet they are inſtructed, and informed) at length they may ſanctifie their ſouls and bodies by means of the great Sacrament or myſterie of Baptiſme **Gr. foreign. But Voſſius, Bill. Prun. Mich. in Erem. render it Baptiſme. And they that are acquainted with the uſe of the words, foreign, among Eccleſiaſticall Writers, Fathers, and the Septuagints, do well know that commonly by foreign is meant Baptiſme. And ſo here without all peradventure it being the buſineſſe in hand diſcuſſed by Nazian or elſe h…s concluſion had not anſwered to the premiſſes, who before expreſly named baptiſme: and ioyns foreign together.Conſecration, or ſanctification. Thus, Greg. Naz. on whoſe words learned Voſſius ſpeaks my ſence. Non igitur, &c. Therefore (ſaith Voſſius) Nazianzen doth not deny the baptiſme of little children, whom, if there be any danger of death, he commands alſo to be baptized; but onelyonly judgeth that otherwiſe, it may not unprofitably be deferred to the third or fourth yeer. Which is onelyonly one Doctors opinion, and not the common judgement of the ancient Church. Thus Voſſius. Take we in alſo the Note of Vincent. Lirinenſ. cap. 39. Quicquid unus vel alter Patrum quam…is ille ſanctus, &c. that is, Whatſoever one or other of the Fathers, albeit he be holy, and learned, &c. ſhall think, beſides or contrary to all the reſt, let that go among his own proper, hidden and private opiniol's or conceits, as different and ſevered from the Authoritie of that common judgement, &c.

And laſtly, give us leave to adde our obſervation. 1 That (according to the deſigne in hand) Nazianzen holds the baptiſme of p. 141little children that have not yet the uſe of reaſon, not as an unwritten tradition, but according to his judgement (as well as others) rightly grounded on the Scriptures in the inſtitution and adminiſtration of circumciſion; and that of the ſprinkling of the Paſchal blood on the doore-poſts, Exod. 12. Had baptiſme of Infants been held in his time onelyonly as a Tradition, he had not argued it from Scripture. 2 That for deferring of baptiſme of ſome till three yeers old, or leſſe, (as he ſaith) what did this conduce more to that which ſome of the Anabaptiſts require at Baptiſme, as manifeſtations of true grace; then to baptize them at eight or ten dayes old, upon Gods Covenant with the believing parent.

Here to clear things as we go, we muſt anſwer ſome objections made againſt what we alledge out of Nazianzen.

Firſt, Mr. D. in his Antichriſt unmasked. Objections of H. D. againſt Nazianzen cleared.1. Obj. Nazianzen (ſaith he) reſtrains baptiſme of Infants to danger; but there is no danger if they be not baptized. Ergo, Nazianzens mind is not that Infants ſhould be baptized.

Anſw. This Argument playes with an equivocation of the word danger. H. D. means there is no ſpirituall danger, if an Infant dies before it be baptized: But Nazianzen means danger of bodily death; and therefore gives it as a precept or command, that in caſe there be danger that the Infant may dye before it be ſealed with baptiſme, let it be baptized; according to the figure thereof circumciſion, &c. See before.

Obj. 2. Nazianzen (ſaith H. D.) was not baptized till he was 30. yeers old; as it is ſaid, In his life.

Anſw. If that in Nazianzens life ſay this truly, yet this might be by reaſon of the perſecutions of thoſe times, or indiſpoſition of his parents, or other preſſing neceſſities; and therefore doth infer no more, then that circumciſion ought not after the Iſraelites came into Canaan to be adminiſtred till men were fourty yeers old, becauſe ſo long it was deferred in the wilderneſſe. Chriſt himſelf was not baptized till thirty yeers old, yet the Anabaptiſts will not make a rule of this, that onelyonly thoſe of juſt that age muſt be baptized. Sure enough if Nazianzen his baptiſme was deferred paſt childhood, it was not intended by him for a regulating example, but oft in that Oration fore-quoted in ſeverall places exhorts to haſten Baptiſme**foreign, &c. Haſt an Infant? leſt improbity ſnatch away the opportunity let him be ſanctified from his infancie, meaning baptiſme, having ſpoken in the very next preceding words againſt delay of bap…iſme. Naz. Orat. …0. p. 648. See alſo p. 646 Think all time to be certain & determined for baptiſme., and not to defer it after the example p. 142of Chriſt not baptized till thirtie yeers old**Ibid. p. 658. Edit. Pariſ. Graec. & Lat.. And you heard in the place quoted, that he mentions deferring in any caſe but till 3 or 4 yeers old, or leſſe ſometimes; which is all one in effect with baptizing beleevers Infants at three moneths or three weeks; unleſſe the mathematicall conſideration of words, ſpoken without knowledge (as Perſius his Parrat ſpake Greek)**One of the Anabaptiſts in a book called, The character of the Beaſt, ſaith, If one confeſſe his ſins, though there be no ſigne of grace, he ought to be baptized. prevails with ſome.

Secondly, Mr. Tombes objects in his EXAMEN againſt Nazianzen. EXAMEN. Sect. 6.

1. He objects, (with an interrogation) but doth Greg. Nazianzen (ſaith Mr. T.) ſeem onelyonly to reſtrain it to the caſe of neceſſitie? The words (ſaith he) are plain, that Nazianzen gives the reaſon why Infants in danger of death ſhould be baptized, foreign, that they might not miſſe of the common grace. But foreign, He gives his opinion of others, that they ſhould ſtay longer, that they might be inſtructed, and ſo their minds and bodies might be ſanctified. Thus Mr. T.

Animadverſ.We anſwer. Firſt, if Greg. Nazianzen doth give reaſon why Infants ſhould be baptized, in caſe they are not likely to live to be of riper yeers, it is ſo much the better for us. Secondly, he doth give another reaſon, beſide that of partaking of common grace, namely, 1 foreign, For it is better they ſhould be ſanctified, without a feeling of it, then to depart without the ſeal. So he thinks they are ſanctified too in infancie, as well as at riper yeers. 2 foreign, A reaſon alſo of this to us is circumſion, that was wont to be done on the eight day, &c. Thirdly, we anſwer, that all three Reaſons ſtand in force as well for all believers Infants (God putting them under the promiſe, Gen. 17.) as for thoſe Infants that are in danger of death. Fourthly, that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine Reaſons (to him evincing) for the baptiſme of Infants not in danger of death: but for the delaying of others not in danger of death, he ſaith, foreign, I give my opinion. He cals it his opinion. And what is it? that foreign, ſuch children ſhould ſtay till three or foure yeers old, more, or leſſe? And what is to be expected from children of that age? more then from Infants, towards baptiſme? For Nazianzen himſelf confeſſeth, that though they may then hear and anſwer ſome ſpirituall things, yet they underſtand imperfectly. But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing? None. Doth he give any p. 143Reaſon? Even in effect the ſame as for baptizing of Infants in danger of death, to wit, that they may be ſanctified in mind and body.

Secondly,EXAMEN. Sect. 6. Mr. T. objects (upon our alledging Nazianzen) againſt all the Greek Fathers, in effect that we have alledged, and the cuſtome of the Greek Churches touching Infant-baptiſme, firſt thus; It is wonder to me, (ſaith Mr. T.) that if it were ſo manifeſt as you ſpeak, you ſhould find nothing in Euſebius for Infant-baptiſme, nor in Ignatius, nor in Clemen. Alexandrinus, nor in Athanaſius, nor in Epiphanius.

Animadverſ.We anſwer.

1. Mr. T. brings but one place out of one Origen, to prove (as he pretends) that Infant-baptiſme is but a tradition. We bring foure for the contrary, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, and Nazianzen, and yet theſe are not ſufficient with him, unleſſe we hear Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, &c. ſay ſo too?

2 A non dicto and non factum, not valet conſequentia. Many things have been done in the Church, which thoſe Authors may not mention.

3 They may ſpeak of Infant-baptiſme in ſome of their works which long ſince were loſt.

4 Mr. T. ſaith, that YOV ſhould find nothing in Euſebius, Ignatius, &c. for Infant-baptiſme. And we ſay, it is wonder Mr. T. did find nothing in them to the contrary, in his 7 or 8 moneths time to write his EXAMEN, which we not having much above 8 weeks for our Anſwer, and ſo have not time to ranſack every book. But fiftly,CLEM. ALEXAN. li. 3. Str…m. p. 461. He flouriſhed about the yeer of Chriſt, 193. Buchol. Helvic. this we caſt our eye upon in Clem. Alexand: (which makes me think ſomewhat might be found in him towards Infant-baptiſm if we had time) foreign, &c. Neither doth Gods divine providence now likewiſe command, … of old, that he that hath riſen from the conjugall bed ſhould be waſhed. For the Lord doth not neceſſarily take off from procreation of children thoſe that are believers, whom he hath by one Baptiſme waſhed in all reſpects according to his wont; who by one baptiſme comprehends all the Baptiſmes of Moſes. Therefore the Law of God by carnall generation foretelling our regeneration, did for the ſeminall facultie of generation hold forth baptiſme, Vide Graecum textum.not loathing humane generation. Thus Clem. Alex. with much more, which for haſte we cannot ſtand to tranſlate.

Give us leave to adde a note or two. 1. Let me obſerve with Hervet. Aurelianus, that this place relates to Levit. 15, 16, 17, 18. If any mans ſeed of copulation ſhall go out from him, then he ſhall waſh all his fleſh in water, and be unclean untill the evening. And every garment, p. 144and every skin whereon is the ſeed of copulation ſhall be waſhed with water, and be unclean untill the Even. The woman alſo with whom the man ſhall lye with ſeed of copulation, they ſhall both bathe themſelves in water, and be unclean untill the even. This is the LAW, and theſe are the BAPTISMES of MOSES, of which Clem. Alexandrinus ſpeaks here.

HESYCHIVS2. Take the note of ancient and learned Heſychius **He flouriſhed about 402d. yeer after Chriſt. Helvic.on this place, which is this. The Lord himſelf (ſaith he) ſheweth that mankinde muſt have the neceſſary regeneration of baptiſme, ſaying, Ʋnleſſe a man be born again, of water, and the holy Spirit, he ſhall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Joh. 3.) The untowardnaſſe of which filth in us, was transfuſed from Adam. Whence David ſaith he was born in iniquity, and conceived in ſin. (Pſal. 51.) not accuſing his mother, but intimating his ſinfulneſſe, which ran down from his progenitors. And now the Lawmaker commanded him, out of whom proceedeth the ſeed of copulation, that is, …e that hath effuſed his ſeed for procreation of children, yea alſo the woman that hath received it, to waſh the body, becauſe ſhe hath received it; by which is deſcribed this whole temple of ours, that is the whole man conſiſting of ſoul and body. In that Adam was made filthy by diſobedience, he made his ſeed to be filthy, and ſo neceſſarily the body to be filthy which is of the ſeed, in which he is unclean untill the Even, that is the end of the time wherein Christ coming ſhews the water whereby our generation ſhould be cleanſed; And that till then we remained unclean, is proved from thence, that they alſo that had not yet ſinned (actually), that is, were in their tender age, have neceſſarily the ſeal of baptiſme, leſt by death preventing, they dye unclean, &c. Thus Heſychius with much more.

Thirdly, If it pleaſeth Mr. T. he may read Gentinus Hervet… Aurelianus his note on the place of Clem. Alexandrinus (who is carefull to ſet forth the ſence of Clemens, though we heed not all his owne excurſions.) Therefore Clem. Alexandrinus (ſaith, Gent. Hervet. Anrel.) intimateth that many were the Baptiſmes of Moſes anciently, which were figures of our regeneration by Baptiſme, by which originall ſin is waſhed; which one onelyonly Baptiſme indeed is neceſſary, for by it, it is that the ſeed is no more uncleane, though after to be further cleanſed. So Gent. Herv. with much more.

Thus you have a touch out of one of Mr. T. his five Gr. Authors, which he ſaith have nothing of Infant-Baptiſme. Wee will give you another touch out of another of his ſilent Authors (as Mr. T. intimates) and ſo diſmiſſe the reſt, as not having all the Authors, p. 145nor time to go looke after them.EPIPHANIƲS. contra Haereſ. 30. p. 52. Epiphanius in his ſecond Booke 2. Tom. contr. Haereſ. ſpeaking before of the Circumciſion of Chriſt, that he was circumciſed, to diſſolve or abrogate that Circumciſion to bring in a greater. And that the Circumciſion injoyned Abraham was not perfect, but a ſigne of grace given, and for the inſtruction of them in future times, and thence wiſheth Ebion not to imitate Chriſt in Circumciſion of himſelf or others, at laſt he ſpeaks in theſe very words, For the Lord (ſaith Epiphanius) hath removed the time of this (Circumciſion.) For he came, and fulfilled it having given the perfect Circumciſion of his myſteries, and that not in one member onelyonly, but in the whole body ſealed and circumciſed from ſinnes; and ſaving not one onelyonly part of the people, that is men only, but alſo all the people of Chriſtians indeed, ſigning or ſealing men and women, and liberally for the inheritance of the Kingdome of Heaven; and not in exhibiting the ſeale defectively to one ranck or ſtate (virorum) of men, in the time of their imbecility, but to all the people &c.

Thus far Epiphanius writes there of Infant-Baptiſme, and I am confident more might bee found in other places touching it (had we time to ſeek,) though Epiphanius ſayes nothing of it (as Mr. T. weakly objects) in lib. 2. Haereſ. 46. vel 47. in his diſputation for Infants inheriting Heaven, againſt the Hieracites. We are not to teach other learned men what to ſpeake; nor when to ſpeak, nor to ſay they ſpeake not at all of ſuch a point, if they do not ſpeak where and when we expect.

2. Mr. T. objects againſt the Greek Fathers alleadged by us,EXAMEN. Sect. 6. and in them againſt the cuſtome of the Greek Churches touching Infant-Baptiſme; thus. But beſides, the continuance of the queſtions to baptized perſons, and anſwered by them, in many Authors mentioned, this is to mee and it ſeemed to Hugo Grotius Annot. in Matth. 19.14. no ſmall evidence, that Baptiſme of Infants many hundred yeares was not ordinary in the Greek Church. Grotius adds that the Canon of the Synod of Neo-Caeſarea in the yeare 313. determines that a woman with child might be baptized, becauſe the Baptiſme reached not to the fruit of her womb, becauſe in the confeſſion made in Baptiſme each ones free choyce is ſhewed.

We anſwer. Firſt, that this ſeemes no otherwiſe to mee, but, as the confeſſions of ſinne,Animadverſ. and profeſſion of Faith in the New Teſtament by them, that at the firſt Inſtitution of Baptiſme were baptized p. 146at ripe yeeres; doth not imply but that Baptiſme deſcended to their children whiles children; yea ſo much the rather becauſe the Parents were baptized, the Promiſe then being actually inſtated on them,Acts 2.Acts 2 the Promiſe to you, and to your children; even juſt ſo may we ſay of thoſe queſtions put to the baptized, and anſwered by them, in the Greek Church. For though, being Gentiles the Parents at firſt were to make confeſſion, as a token of their converſion from Hetheniſme, before their Baptiſme; yet this doth not in the leaſt argue that their children muſt be able to make confeſſion before they were baptized. No more then the Circumciſion of Abraham, and the ſtrangers are bought with money when they were believers of riper yeeres, did inferre that all Chriſts children from age to age ſhould not be circumciſed till they were ſo too.

2. Touching Grotius, we anſwer foure things.

1. That he in diſcuſſing the point (on Matth. 19.14.) touching Infant-baptiſme, alleadgeth diverſe things to ſhew that ſome in the Greek Church, in ſeverall ages did not baptize their Infants; but hath no ſuch paſſage, as that Infant-baptiſme was not ordinary; in the Greek Church.

2. In all he alleadgeth touching this, he ſaith not to the contraty, but that the Non-baptizing of ſome Infants might bee, becauſe their Greek Parents were not converted from Gentiliſme.

3. For that Neocaeſarian Synod **Of which there are many Editions varying one from another.the cauſe and intent of it, in part at leaſt might bee as was intimated afore out of Clem. Alexand. (a Greek, who flouriſhed long before the Neocaeſarian Synod, and therefore likely this Synod would have reſpect to him,****And to Tertullian, of the ſame time with CLEM. who hath to the ſame effect as CLEM. Tertulli. Lib. de Anima. chap. 39. 40. of which afore chap. 13. of Animad. vid. in marg. TERTVL.) to wit, that though by the Baptiſmall waſhing of the Parent (by vertue of the Promiſe, I am the God of thee and thy ſeed, and the Promiſe is to you and to your children) the ſeed of that Parent was accounted holy, yet ſo, as not to anticipate and prevent the baptizing of that ſeed when it was borne.

4. Grotius himſelfe intimatedly confeſſeth, that Interpreters doe take the words of that Synod otherwiſe then to intend againſt Infant-Baptiſme.

5. For Grotius his owne opinion, it is cleere and full for Infant-baptiſme upon that 19. of Matth. ver. 14. who alleadgeth and aſſerts theſe particulars.

1. That it was gratefull to Chriſt that little Children ſhould p. 147be brought to him, as the deſigned ones of holineſſe, and ſo of ſalvation, according to Tertullians expreſſion.

2. That (according to Irenaeus) Chriſt paſſed through every age, hee became an Infant to ſanctifie Infants, a little childe to ſanctifie them of that age, &c.

3. That upon this text of Chriſt receiving little ones, &c. among other grounds, doth (ſaith Grotius,) leane the practice of baptizing little one, and Infants.

4. That in Auguſtines time (ſaith he) it was a common neceived practice to baptize Infants as is cleere by this, that when the Pelagians (holding ſome how againſt Infant-Baptiſme) were preſſed with this Argument of the practice of all Churches in baptizing Infants, they durſt not deny it to be true.

5. That by Hieroms and Auguſtines quotation of Cyprians Epiſtle to Fidus it is cleere, (ſaith Grotius) that it was not doubted in Cyprians time whether Infants might be baptized, but onelyonly ſome ſtuck at this, whether they might bee baptized afore they were eight dayes old. And it was determined in a Councel then, whereof Cyprian was one, that Baptiſme ſhould not bee denyed to Infants newly borne, if they were offered thereunto.

6. Grotius ſaith; that in an ancient book entituled the Conſtitutions of Clement, it is foreign, &c. Baptize your Infants alſo, then trayne them up in the inſtruction and nurture of the Lord.

7. Grotius having quoted ſomethings out of that Synod, of Balſamo and Zonanas, Walafridus Strabo, &c. that in many ages, all Infants had not been baptized; he concludes, but (ſaith he) as thoſe things hold forth a liberty, antiquity, and difference of cuſtome; ſo they bring nothing to prove why Infant-baptiſme ſhould be rejected, when their Parents &c. offer them to be conſecrated, with the prayers of the Saints, and vowes of pious education of them, which among other things, is not unfitly ſignified in Baptiſme. Neither ought that to bee any hindrance to the Baptiſme of Infants, that all things which in like manner are ſignified by Baptiſme, cannot agree properly to that age. For Repentance alſo, which we know is ſignified in Baptiſme, and indeed had a greater place in them that having long lived a moſt impure life, teſtified their purpoſe of changeing their whole converſation then in others, had no place at all in Chriſt p. 148when John baptized him; who as Tertullian ſaith was not baptized as any debtor to repentance.

8. Grotius quotes the Author of the Qu. ad Orthodox (whom Mr. T. hath ſo be-baſtarded afore) I ſay Grotius quotes him as a worthy Author; citing theſe words foreign, &c. Infants are counted meet for good things by Baptiſme, by meanes of the Faith of them that brought them.

9. In that Chriſt ſaith of Infants, Of ſuch is the kingdom of God, that Chriſt did in that ſay thus much (ſaith Grotius), by ſo much the leſſe is that age to be deſpiſed as prophane, by how much men of ripe yeers that yeeld themſelves up to my government muſt become children again.

Laſtly, to Mr. T. his objecting that Constantine the great, and Greg. Nazianzen were not baptized til they were of age. I anſwer

1. That Mr. T. hath ill urged Constantine a Latin, for an inſtance that baptiſme of Infants was not ordinary in the Greek Church.

2. To Constantines and Greg. Nazianzens baptiſme we have anſwered afore.

The next teſtimonie is of Ambroſe, AMBROSE.who flouriſhed about the yeer 381**Helvic.. He in his 2. book of Abraham, Chap. 11. ſaith: Neither the old Proſelyte, nor the Infant Native is excepted, becauſe every age is obnoxious to ſin, and therefore every age is meet for the Sacrament. For unleſſe one be born again of water and the holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, for he excepts none, nor Infant, nor, &c. **So Baſil long afore. Ann. 372. In his exhortat. to Baptiſme.To Ambroſe, Mr. T. anſwers nothing in his EXAMEN, but onelyonly takes notice that Mr. M. quoted him. But makes no exception againſt him. All theſe Ancients that we have tranſlated, were before the riſe of Pelagianiſme aaPelagius was about An. 104 Helvic. or 413. El. Reuſner., whoſe abettors were for the generall, great ſticklers againſt the baptiſme of Infants. And before them the Arrians oppoſed the ſamebbArius was about the yeer 315. Helvic. or 319 El Reuſner & Bucholc.. Of theſe ſee ſomewhat before, in our Animadverſions on Mr. T. his 2 Argument in his 15. Sect.

Next let us touch thoſe Ancients, who after the riſe of Anabaptiſticall-Pelagianiſme, or Peleganian-Anabaptiſme wrote for Infant-baptiſme, none of them urging it as onelyonly the cuſtome of the Churches; others of them arguing it from the Scriptures, and therefore took it not up as an unwritten tradition.

Chryſostome (who flouriſhed about the yeer after Chriſt,CHRYSOSTOME. 382. as Helvicus reckons, was Biſhop of Conſtantinople about 389. as p. 149El. Reuſner computes) upon thoſe words, 1 Tim. 3. Not a Novice, that is, a new tender plant, ſaith, the Apoſtle means not one ſo in regard of age, for many ſuch of the Gentiles or Nations came to the Church, and were baptized. There are other paſſages in Chryſoſtome, but I promiſed but to touch theſe laſt Authors.

Hierom who flouriſhed about the yeer after Chriſt,HIERONIMƲS. 384. (ſo Helvicus) about the yeer 392. wrote his Catalogue of famous writers (ſo Bucholcerus) ſaith thus of Infant-baptiſme in his Epiſtle to Lata: The good or evil of a childe is much to be imputed to the parents (meaning education) unleſſe (ſaith he) thou thinkeſt that the children of Chriſtians in caſe they have not received baptiſme, are onelyonly guilty of that ſin, and that the ſin is not to be layed upon them that would not give it them, eſpecially at that time, when they that were to receive it, were not able to oppoſe. As on the other ſide, the ſalvation of Infants is the gain of the parents or anceſtors. So likewiſe Hierom in his third book of Dialogues against the Pelagians. Thus.

CRITO. Tell me, I pray thee, and ſo deliver me from all questioning why Infants may be baptized? ATTIC. That their ſins may be done away in baptiſme. CRITO. What ſin have they committed? Is any man looſed, that is not firſt bound? ATTIC. Doest ask me? The Evangelicall Trumpet, &c. ſhall anſwer thee. Rom. 5. Death reigned from Adam to Moſes even upon them that had not ſinned after the ſimilitude of Adams tranſgreſſion, &c. He that is a little one is looſed in baptiſme from the bond (of ſin) of the parent, &c. And leſt thou ſhouldeſt think that I mean this in an hereticall ſence, the bleſſed Martyr Cyprian, in his Epiſtle he wrote to Biſhop Fidus concerning baptizing Infants minds us of theſe things. And there Hierom tranſcribes a great part of that Epiſtle of which you heard afore. And then addes, Eloquent Auguſtine (ſaith Hierom) wrote long ſince to Marcellinus, &c. two books of baptizing Infants againſt your (that is, the Pelagian) hereſie, by which you will aſſert that [**NOTE how the Pelagians oppoſed Infant-Baptiſme Infants are baptized, not into remiſſion of ſins, but into the kingdom of God] according to that, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born again of water, and the Spirit, be cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. He wrote alſo the third to the ſame Marcellinus against thoſe who ſay as you (Pelagians) do, that it is poſſible for a man to be void of ſin without the grace of God. He wrote alſo a fourth to Hilarius, against thy doctrine (Pelagius.) Alſo he is ſaid to have written other books in ſpeciall to thee by name, which are not come to our hands, &c. I will onelyonly ſay this, that I may end my ſpeech. That either thou (Pelagius) muſt make a new form, that p. 150after ye have baptized them into the Name of Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt, ye baptize them into the kingdom of God: or if you have one and the ſame baptiſme in little ones, and men, then Infants muſt be baptized into remiſſion of ſins, &c. Thus Hierom.

To all this of Hierom in this laſt quotation, Mr. T. anſwers in his EXAMEN, that the ſame anſwer will ſerve as to Auguſtine. Well, therefore let us come to Augustine.

Augustine flouriſhed about 391, after Chriſt;AƲGƲST. Helvic. and hath abundance concerning Infant-baptiſme, in his 28. Epiſtle, in his book of originall ſin, Chap. 40. In his ſecond book of Marriage and Concupiſcence, Chap. 20. In his third book of ſin, merit, and remiſſion, Chap. 7, 8, 9. In his ſecond book againſt Jul. ca. 3. In his fourth book of Baptiſme againſt the Donatiſts, Chap. 24**So hath THEODORET. epit. divin. dogmat. ca. de Baptiſmo. He flouriſhed about the yeer 422. And ſo GENNADIVS de Eccleſiaſt. dogmat. c. 31. He flouriſh about the yeer 458.. In his fourth book againſt the two Epiſtles of Pelag. Chap. 8.

It were a tedious buſineſſe to tranſlate all theſe places, (for me that intended more brevitie, having too much other buſineſſe, and too little time for this work, and for many Readers which delight no more in reading theſe, then I in quoting of them, but that Mr. T. leads me to them) therefore (and becauſe I ſhall tranſlate ſomewhat of Augustine by and by) I will onelyonly note particularly of Augustine theſe two things.

Firſt, that Auguſtine in that place of his 7, 8, 9. Chapters of his third book of ſin, merit, and remiſſion quotes almoſt all Cyprians Epiſtle to Fidus.

Secondly, that Auguſtine doth not build his judgement onelyonly upon Cyprian, becauſe in his fourth book of baptiſme againſt the Donatiſts, he proves Infant-baptiſme by many Arguments from the Scriptures.

Now all theſe eſpecially the laſt we onelyonly touch, that we may not toyl our ſelves, and the Reader. There are of the Anabaptiſts that can tell whether thoſe Authors be not for us, or no. We ſhall onelyonly adde ſome obſervations upon them, and ſo paſſe on.

1. That theſe five laſt Authors, Chryſoſt. Hierom, Auguſt. Theod. Genn. wrote for Infant-baptiſme after the riſe of Pelagianiſme **See alſo Voſs. Theſ. Theol. & hiſt.: Though ſome of the men were afore it, yet thoſe things afore quoted were written after it.

2. That they wrote thoſe things at leaſt 300 yeers afore Mr. T. his Walafridus was a Writer to tell us that tale againſt Infant-baptiſme; of which you heard afore, & we gave our Anſwer to it.

p. 1513. That theſe did argue out of Scripture, and no otherwiſe determine the queſtion, that Infants ought to be baptized, then as the pious learned Ancients had held in former ages long before**See before in the notes in the margin on Cyprinan..

Augustine ſhall here (for brevities ſake) ſpeak for them all; who being one of the youngeſt, and learnedſt, and moſt orthodox and pious, knew well the laſt generation in which they lived. His words are very conſiderable in his tenth book. De Geneſ. ad literarum, cap. 23. The cuſtome (ſaith he) of our Mother the Church in baptizing little children is by no means to be deſpiſed, nor altogether to be reputed ſuperfluous, nor by all means to be beleeved, but that it was an Apoſtolicall tradition. Where he means by Apoſtolicall tradition the Apoſtles Doctrine delivered brought down to us in the book of the New Teſtament, by tradition or handing of it from one generation to another. So to be his meaning is plain.

1. Becauſe Augustine in his diſpute againſt the DONATISTS for Infant-baptiſme,Li. 4. de Bap. cap. 21. prove it from the Scriptures.

2. Becauſe in his firſt book, De pecc. mer. & remiſs. cap. 26. ſaith thus. Some of the PELAGIANS do grant under ſome notion that little children are to be baptized: who cannot go againſt the Authority of the univerſall Church, which without all doubt was delivered to them by the Lord Chriſt and his Apoſtles.

3. In his tenth Sermon of the words of the Apoſtle, ſpeaking of the Baptiſme of little children, ſaith; let no man whiſper unto you ſtrange Doctrines. This the Church alwayes had, alwayes held. This it received from the Faith, or Faithfulneſſe of our Ancienters. And this it keeps with perſeverance to the end.

4. Theſe things to be moſt truly ſpoken by Auguſtine, we doe know (ſaith Voſſius) by this that the Pelagians (ſome of them) durſt not deny them. For Auguſtine writes in his ſecond Booke againſt Coeleſtius and Pelagius, that Coeleſtius himſelfe in a booke which he put forth at Rome confeſſed in theſe words Infants are baptized into remiſſion of ſinnes, according to the rule of the univerſall Church, and according to the SENTENCE OF THE GOSPEL.

But obſerve his cunning, in what ſence he meant that Infants were baptized into remiſſion of ſinnes: to wit, into future remiſſion, if they lived to commit actuall finnes, and thereby ſtood in need of pardon; not into preſent remiſſion of ſinnes whiles Infants, as not ſtanding in need of pardon, or elſe they, that is Pelagius p. 152Coeleſtius and their Sect ſaid onelyonly in words that Infants were baptized into remiſſion of ſinnes, but thought otherwiſe in their Principles they held.

This is plaine out of the Affrican Councell, held under Boniface and Celeſtinus; in the 77. Canon whereof it is thus. Item placuit qui parvulos recentes, ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat, &c. that is, It pleaſeth the Counſell that whoſoever denieth that little ones newly borne from the mothers wombe are to bee baptized, or ſaith that they are baptized into remiſſion of ſinnes, but they contract or draw nothing of originall ſinne from Adam, which need to be expiated by the laver of Regeneration; whence it followes that by them the forme of Baptiſme into remiſſion of ſinnes, is not truly, but falſly underſtood, let him be Anathema. Thus the ſaid Counſell. By the playſter made by this Counſell, you may perceive the diſeaſe of Pelagius, &c.

And in the Epiſtle of the Councell of Carthage (Anno 416. Bin.) to Innocentius, which is word for word the 90. among Auguſtines Epiſtles, there is this mentioned, that Pelagius, and Coeleſtius deny the Baptiſme of Infants, becauſe (ſay they) Infants periſhed not, neither is there in them that that needs ſalvation, or to be redeemed with ſo great a price; for as much as in them is nothing vitiated, nothing is held captive under the power of the Divell, neither is it read that bloud was powred out for them unto remiſſion of ſinnes. Albeit Coeleſtius in his Booke hath already confeſſed in the Church of Carthage that Infants alſo are redeemed by the Baptiſme of Chriſt.

And then to explaine this, how many, and how or in what manner, confeſſed this with Coeleſtius, the following words fitly ſerve.

But many who are repreſented to us, to be, or to have been their Diſciples, doe not ceaſe to affirme theſe evills, whereby they endeavour by all the craft they can, to overthrow the Fundamentalls of the Chriſtian Faith. So that if Pelagius and Coeleſtius be corrected, or if they ſay they never thought thoſe things, and deny thoſe writings to be theirs, what or how many-ſoever they be that are brought againſt them, yet is there not whereby to convince them of a lye. So the Epiſtle of the Councell at Carthage.

Mr. T. EXAMEN. Sect. 8.But Mr. T. hath many things to ſay againſt Auguſtine in his EXAMEN.

p. 153That the Authority of Auguſtine was it which carried the baptiſme of Infants in the following ages almoſt without controul, as may appear out of Walafridus Strabo, placed by Vſher at the yeer 840. who in his book De rebus Eccleſiaſticis, chap. 26. having ſaid, That in the firſt times, the grace of Baptiſme was wont to be given to them onelyonly who were come to that integrity of minde and body, that they could know, and underſtand and what profit was to be gotten in baptiſme, what is to be confeſſed, and beleeved, what laſtly is to be obſerved by them that are new born in Chriſt; confirmes it by Auguſtins own confeſſion of himſelf continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized. But afterwards Chriſtians underſtanding Originall ſinne &c. Ne perirent parvuliſi ſine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur, ſtatuerunt cos baptizari in remiſſionem peccatorum quod et S. Auguſtinus in libro de bapiſmo parvulorum ostendit, & Africana teſtantur Concilia, & aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima. And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented, and addes one ſuperſtitious and impious conſequent on it in theſe wordes; Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte ſuam ſuſcipere ſobolem vt ſit diſcretio inter ſpiritalem generationem & carnalem; Quod ſi caſu evenerit, non habebunt carnalis copule deinceps adinvicem conſortium, qui in communi filio compaternitatis ſpiritale vinculum ſuſceperant. To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacenſis, placed by Ʋſher, at the yeare 1150. writing to three Biſhops of France againſt Peter de Bruis, who denyed Baptiſme of Infants, ſayes of him, that he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors, being himſelfe a Latine, ignorant of Greeke, and after having ſaid recurrit ergo ad ſcripturas, therefore he runnes to the Scriptures: he alleageth the examples in the New Teſtament, of Chriſts curing of perſons at the requeſt of others, to prove Infants Baptiſme by, and then addes, Quid vos ad iſta? Ecce non de Auguſtino, ſed de Evangelio protuli, cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis, aut aliorum fide alios tandem poſſe ſalvari concedite, aut de Evangelio eſſe quae poſui ſi poteſtis, negate. From theſe paſſages I gather that as Petrus Cluniacenſis urged for paedo-baptiſme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors, So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures, and the Greeke Church: Now the reaſon of Auguſtines authority was this, the Pelagian hereſie being generally condemned, and Auguſtines workes being greatly eſteemed, as being the hammer of the Pelagians, the following p. 154refuters of Pelagianiſme, Proſper, Fulgentius, &c. the Councells that did condemne it as thoſe of Carthage, Arles, Milevis, &c. did reſt altogether on Augustines arguments, and often on his words, and Auguſtine in time was accounted one of the four Doctors of the Church, eſteemed like the four Evangeliſts, ſo that his opinion was the rule of the Churches Judgement, and the ſchools determination, as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have been of late. Now Auguſtine did very much inſiſt on this Argument to prove originall ſinne, becauſe Infan…s were baptized for remiſſion of ſinnes, and therefore in the Councill of Milevis he was adjudged accurſed, that did deny it: But for my part I value Auguſtines judgement juſt at ſo much, as his proofs and reaſons weigh, which how light they are you may conceive.

Auguſt. tom. 1. Confeſſ. lib. 1. c. 11. & Signabar ſigno crucisejus & condiebar ejus ſale jam inde ab utero matris meae, quae multu… ſperavit in te. And then follows, how being young and falling ſick, he deſired, and his mother thought to have him baptized, but upon his recovery it was deferred.Firſt, In that whereas he makes it ſo Univerſall a tradition, his owne baptiſme not till above thirty, though educated as a Chriſtian by his mother Monica, the Baptiſme of his ſonne Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius, if there were no more, were enough to prove that this cuſtome of baptizing infants, was not ſo received, as that the Church thought neceſſary that all children of Chriſtians by profeſſion ſhould be baptized in their infancy. And though I conceive with Grotius annot. in Matth. 19.14. that baptiſme of Infants was much more frequented, and with greater opinion of neceſſity in Africa, then in Aſia, or other parts of the world, for (ſaith he) in the Councells you cannot finde ancienter mention of that cuſtome, then the Councell of Carthage. Yet I doe very much queſtion whether they did in Africa, even in Augustines time baptize children, except in danger of death, or for the health of body, or ſuch like reaſon: I do not finde that they held that Infants muſt be baptized out of ſuch caſes, for it is cleare out of ſundry of Auguſtines, Tracts, as particularly tract. 11. in Johan. that the order held of diſtinguiſhing the Catechumeni and baptized, and the uſe of Catechizing afore baptiſme, ſtill continued, yea and a great while after, inſomuch that when Petrus Cluniacenſis diſputed againſt Peter de Bruis, he ſaid only, that there had been none but Infants baptized for 300 yeares, or almoſt 500 years in Gallia, Spaine, Germany, Italy, and all Europe, and it ſeemes he denyed not the baptizing of growne perſons in Aſia ſtill; whence I collect, that even in the Latine Church, after Auguſtines dayes, in ſundry ages the baptizing p. 155of perſons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants, till the great darkeneſſe that over-ſpred the Weſterne Churches, ſpoyled by Barbarous Nations, deſtitute of learned men, and ruled by ambitious and unlearned Popes, when there were none to Catechize, and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptiſme of the King of that Country, though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Chriſtianity, but were in reſpect of manners and knowledge Pagans ſtill, which hath been the great cauſe of the upholding of Papacie, and corrupting of Chriſtian Churches, I meane this great corruption of baptizing, making Chriſtians, giving Chriſtendome (as it is called) afore ever perſons were taught what Chriſtianity was, or if they were taught any thing, it was onelyonly the ceremonies and rites of the Church, as they called them.

2. You may conceive how light Auguſtine's judgement was,Rivet. tract. de Patrum auth… ritate, c. 9. Auguſtinus aeternis flammis adjudic at Infantes ſine badtiſmo morientes by conſidering the ground upon which Auguſtine held, and urged the baptiſme of Infants ſo vehemently; which was, as all know that read his workes, the opinion he had, That without baptiſm Infants muſt be damned, by reaſon of originall ſinne, which is not taken away but by baptiſme, yea, though he wanted baptiſme out of neceſſity; urging thoſe places, Joh. 3.5. Rom. 5.12. continually in his diſputes againſt the Pelagians, particularly tom. 7. de natura & gratia, c. 8. And tom. 2. ep. 28. he ſaith, Item quiſquis dixerit, quod in Chriſto vivificabuntur etiam parvuli, qui ſine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt, hic profecto & contra Apoſtolicam praedicationem venit, & totam condemnat eccleſiam. And in the cloſe of the Epiſtle, calls it, robuſtiſſimam & fundatiſſimam ſidem qua Chriſti eccleſia, nec parvulos homines recentiſſime natos a damnatione credit, niſi per gratiam domini Chriſti, quam in ſuis Sacramentis commendavit, poſſe liberari. And this, Perkins in his Probleme, proves, was the opinion of Ambroſe, and many more: And hence, as Aquinas, ſo Bellarmine, proves baptiſme of Infants, from Joh. 3.5. And this hath been ſtill the principall ground. The ground that you go on, that the covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their ſeed, I cannot find amongſt the Ancients. Yea, as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleadged, although Ambroſe and Auguſtine in his 4. book de Baptiſmo contra Donatiſtas, c. 22 yeilded, that either Martyrdome, or the deſire of Baptiſme, might ſupply the defect of Baptiſme, and ſome of the School-men, Biel, p. 156Cajetan, Gerſon, do allow the deſire and prayer of parents for children in the wombe, in ſtead of Baptiſme: Yet we find no remedy allowed by them, but actuall baptiſme for children borne into the world: So ſtrictly did Auguſtine and the Ancients urge the neceſſity of Baptiſme for Infants born.

3. You may conſider, that Auguſtine held a like neceſſity of Infants receiving the Lords ſupper, from the words, John 6.53. as is plainly expreſſed by him, lib. 1. de peccat. merit. & remiſ. c. 20. And accordingly, as in Cyprians tim, the Communion was given to Infants, as appears by the ſtory which he relates of himſelfe, giving the Communion to an Infant, in his book de lapſis, mentioned by Auguſt. epiſt. 23. So it is confeſſed by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the firſt, Biſhop of Rome, held it neceſſary for Infants; and that this opinion and practiſe continued about 600 years in the Church, though it be now rejected by the Romane Church in the Councell of Trent.

4. You may conſider, that Auguſtine held ſuch a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptiſme, that not onelyonly he puts uſually regeneration for Baptiſme, but alſo he makes no queſtion of the regeneration of Infants, though they that brought them, did not bring them with that faith that they might be regenerated by ſpirituall grace to eternall life; but becauſe by Baptiſme they thought to procure health to their bodies, as is plain by his words, epiſt. 23. ad Bonifacium. Nec illud te moveat, quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptiſmum percipiendum parvulos ferunt, vt gratia ſpiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam, ſed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere ſanitatem: non enim propterea illi non regenerantur, quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur; celebrantur enim per eos neceſſaria miniſteria. By which laſt words you may perceive how corrupt Auguſtine was in this matter, ſo as to excuſe, if not to juſtifie their fact, who made uſe of Baptiſme in ſo prophane a manner, as to cure diſeaſes by it: which is no marvaile, if it be true which is related, of the approbation that was given of the Baptiſme uſed by Athanaſius in play amongſt boyes.

5. You may conſider, that in the ſame Epiſtle when Bonifacius preſſed Auguſtine to ſhew how Sureties could be excuſed from lying, who being asked of the Childs faith, anſwered, He doth beleeve, (for even in Baptiſme of Infants they thought in all ages p. 157it neceſſary that a profeſſion of faith go before) He defends that act in this abſurd manner: Respondetur credere propter fidei Sacramentum, and thence he is called a believer, becauſe he hath the Sacrament of faith. Which as it is ridiculous playing with words, in ſo ſerious a matter before God, ſo it is a ſenſl…ſſe anſwer, ſith the interrogation was of the Childs faith before it was baptized, and the anſwer was given before, and therefore it cannot be underſtood of believing by receiving the Sacrament of faith, which came after.

6. It is apparent out of the ſame Epiſtle, that Infants were then admitted to baptiſme, whether they were the children of believers, or not; it was no matter with what intention they brought them, nor whoſe children were brought; yea it was counted a worke of charity to bring any children to baptiſme, and in this caſe the faith of the whole Church, was counted a ſufficient ſupplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith: So that whereas the preſent defenders of Infant-Baptiſme pretend Covenant-holyneſſe a priviledge of beleevers, it was no ſuch matter in the time of the Ancients, but they baptized any Infants, even of Infidels, upon this opinion, That Baptiſme did certainly give grace to them, and if they dyed without Baptiſme, they did periſh. And thus I grant, that it is true, the Epiſtle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Auguſtine. But neither is Auguſtine to be approved for approving it; nor doth it advantage your tenet, that you have cited his citation of it: Thus farr Mr T. his long anſwer to Mr M. ſhort quotation of Auguſtine.

Wee anſwer, and,Animadver. Firſt to that [That the Authority of Auguſtin was it, which carryed the baptiſme of Infants in the following ages, almoſt without controul] we anſwer three things. Firſt, that Auguſtine flouriſhed not till long after the firſt age from that that was next after the Apoſtles; which was the time Mr T. ſaid afore wherein baptiſme of Infants began to be in uſe as an unwritten Tradition. For Mr T. ſaith, Auguſtine flouriſhed not till 405 or 410 years after Chriſt. So that his authority prevailed not but in his and the times following him. But what was it that carryed the Baptiſme of Infants the 300 or 400 years afore Auguſtin? For all that time it was frequent as we have abundantly ſhewed out of good Antiquity. Secondly, if any after were carryed by Auguſtin to hold Infant-baptiſme; ſure they heard or read Auguſtin arguing p. 158the thing by Scripture and divine reaſon**As againſt the Donatiſts & Pelag. &c.. And then doubtleſſe they were carryed by the Scriptures and Reaſons he urged; and ſo not by the authority of the man ****Mr T. himſelf confeſſeth in a matter of 40 lines after, that Councels &c. that did depend on Auguſtine, depended on his Arguments.. Auguſtin himſelfe had taught them better, who in his works profeſſedly rejects ſome of the Fathers when he thought they went not along with the Scriptures. Thirdly, It cannot be ſaid that Auguſtines authority did in his time carry Infant-baptiſme in a manner without controle; ſeeing he had ſo much bickering with the Pelagians about it who under ſome notion did contend againſt it, as wee ſhewed afore.

2 To Mr T. his quoting of Walafridus Strabo, we anſwer firſt, That ſeeing that author is in ſuch credit with Mr T. in that he quotes him ſo oft, we expect he ſhould be believed as well for as as againſt us. Now Walafridus is for us, againſt Mr T. in theſe things.

1. About Impoſition of hands, that it did ſuppoſe baptiſme, which Mr T. denyed upon the diſcuſſion of Heb. 6.2. in his 14. Sect. of his Exercitation. But Walafridus affirmes it, De rebus Eccleſiaſticis, chap. 26. ſub initium: Saith he**Primis temporibus impoſitione manuum baptiſmum confirmari ſolere.. In the first times Baptiſme was wont to be confirmed with Impoſition of hands.

2. About Athanaſius, that in Athanaſius his time, to his knowledge there was Baptiſm of little children. Mr. T. doubts of it in his Examen, Sect. 6. But Walfride ſhews us that Legitur quoque in ultimo Eccleſiaſticae hiſtoriae libro Athanaſius adhuc puer, &c.

That, ſaith he, we read in the laſt book of Eccleſiaſticall hiſtory that Athanaſius being but a little child, did act the imitation of Baptiſme among his childiſh companions, which being done with recitall of the words that the baptizer did aske, and the baptized anſwered, when thoſe able to ſpeak were baptized: Alexander the chiefe Miniſter of Alexandria knowing the ſame, judged they ſhould not be re-baptized, but ratified with confirmation. Thus Walafridus.

3. About Infant Baptiſme; which Mr T. denies, but Walafridus Strabo quotes many authorities and antiquities for it. As that it In concilio Gerundenſi unius diei infans ſi in diſcrimine ſit baptizari jubetur. In that Councill it was commanded that an Infant one day old, if in danger of death, ſhould be baptized. Divers paſſages he hath to the like purpoſe.

2. We anſwer to the Quotation of Walafridus Strabo, that he p. 159faulters and is much faulty in the thing he is quoted for.

For firſt, He calls the times of Auguſtine who is but of late in compariſon of many Ancients we have quoted Prima tempora, that is, the firſt times, for Walafridus quotes Auguſtins practiſe, that was not baptized till of ripe years, to proove, that in the firſt times (as Walfridus calls them) men were not baptized till able to know well and make profeſſion, when as Auguſtin himſelf, as we have ſhewd, and Mr T. hath confeſſed, did refer himſelfe to ancienter times a great deal, as to Cyprian that was almoſt 200 years afore him, for the practiſe of baptizing Infants.

2. Walafrid ſaith, illis ſolummodo, &c. that is, To them onelyonly the grace of Baptiſme was wont to be given, who were of integrity or ripeneſſe of body and mind, &c. but gives not proofs or reaſons, but onelyonly one ſingle inſtance of Augustine himſelfe, for an univerſall propoſition.

3. As we noted afore, that Walfrid groſſely miſtook in the alleadging that one inſtance of Auguſtine. For Walfrid ſaith in his book De rebus Eccleſiaſticis (which we have under our eye) that Auguſtine reports in his confeſſions of himſelfe that he continued a Catechumenus a chatechiſed perſon, till he was 25 years old, before he was baptized; when as Auguſtine ſaith of himſelfe in his books of confeſſions, that he was not converted till about the thirtieth year of his age, after which he continued a Catechized one about two years, in which time he wrote againſt the Academians, and wrote his Soliloquies, and in his 34 yeer of his age, he was baptized at Mellain of Ambroſe. You ſee then how little credit is to be given to dreaming Walafrid in this point of Auguſtine.

4. Walafrid confeſſeth that upon the increaſe of diligent ſearch into divine Religion, men of underſtanding in Chriſtian doctrine finding that peccatum originale Adae. &c.

the originall ſin of Eve did hold guilty, not onelyonly thoſe that had committed actuall ſinne, but thoſe that had not; according to the 51 Pſalm, in ſin did my mother conceive me, and Rom. 3. All have ſinned and come ſhort of the glory of God, and that from Adam we had all ſinned, &c. That upon theſe grounds of Scripture they, that is, thoſe religious men, baptized their Infants into remiſſion of ſinne. And this practiſe of Infant-baptiſme Walfrid judgeth a token of the growth of Religion. And alleadgeth Auguſtins book of baptiſm of Infants, and the African Councills, and the Fathers in generall for Infant Baptiſme, againſt that of Auguſtines practiſe, baptized at ripe yeares; and withall Walafrid ſaith, That thus thoſe wiſe p. 160Chriſtians did Baptize their Infants into remiſſion of ſinnes, and for regeneration; and not as ſome Hereticall perſons contra-oppoſing againſt the grace of God, contend that Infants are not neceſſarily to be baptized.

And now I hope I have given Mr T. enough of his Walafrid (upon his ſo oft and confident alleadging him) and have ſatisfied the Reader touching him.

If Mr T. ſpeaks of Walfridus his mention of the invention of Goſſips (as they call them) following upon Infant-Baptiſme, and ſpirituall kin of Goſſips following upon that, as thereby to blemiſh Walafridus, then Mr T. breaks his own ſhins. For Mr T. did go upon the legs of Walafridus to fetch us an antiquity againſt Infant-baptiſm; If Mr T. doth but uſe Walafridus his antiquity of the invention of thoſe two things: We Anſw. 1. Goſſips were long before Auguſtines time, even in Tertullians time many hundred yeers afore. Superſtitions of divers ſorts, crept into the Church ſoon after Conſtantines time. And ſpirituall kin of Goſſips, is but a novell late dream of yeſter night (in compariſon) of the Church of Rome, falſly ſo called.