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

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

p. 1603. That neither of theſe inventions neceſſarily depend on Infant baptiſme, more then a rope of ſand, or pebles in a With: for as much as if beleevers practiſed the baptiſme of their children, it was ſeldome, but one of the Parents were alive in the Infancy of the child. Kneeling followed the Communion, and adoration of the Elements followed that kneeling; yet theſe do nothing diſparage the Communion it ſelfe in the Inſtitution and ſubſtance of it, but onelyonly defiled the Communicants that ſo ſuperſtitiouſly uſed that ſacred thing.

Thus of Walafridus Strabo. Now of Peter de Bruis and of Peter Cluniacenſis his Epiſtles to two A. B B. and two B B. againſt him, which are called Epiſtolae contra Petro-bruſianorum & Heinricianorum haereſes. And well may De Bruis and Heinricus be taxed with Herefie if that be true Cluniacenſis chargeth upon them. And he profeſſeth twice that he would not accuſe them upon uncertainties and reports; but upon that writing taken from them, and brought to him, wherein he chargeth them as from their own mouths, that they denyed all the Scriptures, eſpecially in the New Teſtament excepting the four Evangeliſts. Evangelium at ſupra dixi vos ſuſcipere. Epiſtolas Pauli &c. cur non ſuſcipitis? Reſpondetis p. 161quia non adeo certa nobis earum authoritas eſt. And for this cauſe Cluniacenſis ſpends two long chapters in proving the Old Teſtament and the New to be the true Word of God, by quotations out of the four Evangeliſts, which Evangeliſts Bruis and Henricus did acknowledge, and Cluniacenſis goes over all the Bible ſo, book after book, to ſo approve them to Bruis and his collegue. But to come to the point in hand of paedobaptiſme.

1. Mr T. tells us that Peter de Bruis denyed Baptiſme, but tels us not the reſt that Peter de Bruis denyed in that very point. Mr T. ſhewed us fairly the green graſſe, but not the ſnake lurching in it. Truely I could not but with fadneſſe read Cluniacenſis of Peter de Bruis, when I found how there as formerly, Mr T. takes here and there a touch of Authors that is for his turn, and conceals that which is moſt neceſſarily mixed and twiſted with it; which if Mr T. had but intimated, would have overthrown his quotations.

For Mr T. his Petrus Cluniacenſis gives us the firſt Prepoſition (ſo he calls it) of Petrus de Bruis thus: [Mar. 16.15. Qui crediderit & baptizatus fuerit ſalvus erit, qui verà non crediderit damnabitur. Ex his apertè monſtratur, nullum niſi exediderit, & baptizatus fuerit, hoc eſt, niſi Chriſtianam fidem habuerit, & baptiſmuni perceperit, poſſe ſalvari. Nam non alterum horum, fed utrumque pariter ſalvat **And a little after this is made more plain, Nec baptiſmus ſine propria fide, nec propria fides ſine baptiſme aliquid potuit, Neutrum cuim ſine altero ſalvat. That is,unde infantes, licèt a vobis baptizentur, quia tamen credere, obſtante aetate, non poſſunt, nequaquam ſalvantur. Non rebaptizamus, ſed baptizamus, quia nunquam baptizatus dicendus eſt qui baptiſmo, quo peèccata lavantur, lotus non eſt: that is, Mark 16.15. He that beleeveth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved, but he that beleeveth not ſhall be damned. Hence it is apparently demonſtrated (ſaith Peter de Bruis) that none unleſſe he beleeve and be baptized, that is, hath Chriſtian faith, and receives and perceives Baptiſme, can be ſaved. For not one of theſe alone doth ſave, but both of them joyntly, (ſee the Margin****Neither could baptiſm without ones own proper faith be ableto do any thing, nor ones own proper faith without baptiſm. For neither of them without the other ſaveth. So doth Peter de Bruis after explain himſelfe.) Therefore (faith De Bruis to Cluniacenſis his partee) though Infants be baptized by you, yet becauſe through the hinderance of their age they cannot believe, by no means are they ſaved. We (ſaith De Bruis) do not rebaptize, but baptize, becauſe he is never to be ſaid to be baptized, who is not waſhed in the Baptiſme wherewith ſinnes are waſhed away. Thus was the Tenet of De Bruis, as it is in Mr T. his Cluniacenſis. Whence obſerve,

p. 1621. That De Bruis did hold, That no Infants, while Infants, can have any faith. Contrary to that, That Iohn the Baptiſt was filled with the holy Ghoſt, from his mothers womb; which filling, or in being in a ſanctifying manner, is by the fruits of the Spirit, Love, joy, faith, Gal. 5. As it is ſaid, Rom. 5. The love of God (that is, as part of the meaning, the apprehenſion of the love of God) is ſhed into our hearts BY HIS SPIRIT. The little children Mar. 10. had grace, becauſe Chriſt confirmes their grace. And all graces go together.

2. De Bruis did hold, That all, whether beleevers Infants, or beleevers of ripe yeares, dying unbaptized, are damned. And ſo condemnes many of the Martyrs to hell.

3. By this opinion of De Bruis, he falſifies the Text he quotes. For though it be ſayd in the affirmative joyntly. He that beleeveth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved; yet it is not ſaid joyntly in the negative, that unleſſe One de both beleeve, and alſo be Baptized, he ſhall be damned; but onelyonly ſinglely, he that beleeveth not ſhall be damned.

4. De Bruis holds, that God the principall agent, cannot work or doth not work (he wants power or will to worke) the work of mans Salvation without the Inſtrument Baptiſme. So that God is ſtript of his Prerogative, and tyed to meanes.

5. That if a man be baptized at ripe years, and that by De Bruis or his companion Heinricus, they conceiving him to be a beleever, yet if it prove after he was not a beleever, at that baptiſme he is not to be ſaid to have been baptized. So that if after indeed that he beleeves, he be baptized, that is no re-baptizing, becauſe his former baptiſm was nothing.

By this the Intelligent Reader may ſee:

1. That ill might Mr T. alleadge De Bruis for the Antipaedobaptiſme he contends for.

2. That well might De Bruis refuſe not onelyonly the Fathers but all Orthodox Writers; for this is ſuch an Opinion as he knew he muſt ſtand alone without company. And therefore his beſt courſe was to profeſſe it as a ſingularity.

2. M. T. tells us that Cluniacenſis ſaith of De Bruis that he did reject the authority of the Latin Doctors, being himſelfe a Latine, ignorant of the Greek.

To this I Anſwer, That I have run over with mine eye De Bruis p. 163his propoſition of Antipaedobaptiſme, and Cluniacenſis his anſwer, and proof; but finde not that ſentence, nor ſence, that De Bruis was a Latin ignorant of the Greek. This I finde that Cluniacenſis confeſſeth of himſelfe he was a Latine, and not skilled in Greek, as we ſhall ſhew by and by. See ☞ in the Margin a little after, in our tranſlation of Cluniacenſis, and at our third particular in our anſwer to Mr T. his fourth particular, viz. his Obſervation.

3. Mr T. ſaith, that Cluniacenſis ſaying of De Bruis, that he did run to the Scriptures, Cluniacenſis alleadgeth againſt De Bruis the examples in the New Teſtament of Chriſts curing of perſons at the requeſt of others to prove Infant baptiſme by.

To this we Anſwer, that the naked truth is this:

1. That one of Cluniacenſis his buſineſſes was to prove, That children were counted neerer to Salvation, by the faith of the Parents, and ſo a fortiori urgeth as from the non parentall-kin, to the beleeving Parent, from the curing of the body to the curing of the ſoul, that Chriſt cured the bodies of ſome upon the faith of them, (that were no Parents) that brought them. 2. Another of Cluniacenſis his buſineſſes was to prove, That infants might be ſaved while Infants; and accordingly alleadgeth. 1. That as in the firſt Adam children, whiles children, dyed ſpiritually; ſo children, whiles childrend. might be made alive ſpiritually in the ſecond Adam Chriſt. 3. That there was not an abſolute neceſſity of a joynt concurrence of baptiſme, with faith in all that ſhould be ſaved, or elſe no Salvation: (For if Cluniacenſis had not ſpoken to this, he had for ſaken the termes and ſtate of the queſtion:) And therefore urgeth ſome of the Martyrs; and that ſaying of Chriſt, He that confeſſeth me before men, him will I confeſſe before my Father in heaven, and many other things, that ſome are ſaved without baptiſme, that Martyrdome goes for baptiſme. His fourth buſineſſe was to prove that children might be baptized, and for that urgeth Mat. 19. Mar. 10. Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, &c.

4. Mr T. makes an obſervation upon the former paſſages, as he himſelfe hath repreſented them. From theſe paſſages (faith Mr T.) I gather, that as Petrus Cluniacenſis urged for Paedobaptiſme the authority of Auguſtine and the Latine Doctors; ſo Peter de Bruis and Heinricus appealed to the Scriptures, and the Greek Church.

p. 164We anſwer. Here Mr T. makes a great treble intimation.

1. That Cluniacenſis urged Latin Doctors.

2. That therefore Auguſtines Authority was then in the great eſteem to carry the queſtion of Infant Baptiſm.

3. That De Bruis did appeal to the Greek Church, as if that were for him againſt Infant Baptiſme: But I can finde neither of theſe in Cluniacenſis. This onelyonly I finde (which I ſuppoſe is that Mr T. alludes to) that Cluniacenſis ſpeaks to De Bruis, and Heinricus the Apoſtle (as he is called, and De Bruis too) thus. Ad Veſtram, &c.

**Ad veſtram brutamhaereſin refellendam innumera mihi doctorum Eccleſiaſticorumteſtimonia ſuffragantur. Sed veſtra authoritas & ſapientia tanta eſt, ut cos coram producere non praeſumam; maxime cum didicerim Hilarium, Ambroſium, Auguſtinum, Hieronymum, Leonem, Gregorium, &c. judicio majeſtatis veſtrae eſſe damnatos. Cumque Latinos omnes & a regno caelorum excluſcritis, neſcio ſi Gracis, vel alterius linguae hominibus peperceritis. Quod ſi forte vel illi ſobrietate veſtri examinis, peremptoriam ſententiam evadere potuerunt: Mihi quid? quantum ad praeſens negotium ſpectat, aut parum aut nihil prodeſt? Cum homo tantum Latinus, peregrinae linguae quam ignoro, teſtimoniis, quibus vos aut convertere poſſim, aut convincere, uti non valeam. Quia ſanctis Eccleſiae Doctoribus fidem praebere dedignamini, ad puritlimum rivulorum omnium fontem mihi reverteudum eſt, & de Evangelicis Apoſtolicis ſeu propheticis dictis teſtimonia, ſi tamen vel illa ſuſcipitis, ſunt proferenda.That is to refell your brutiſh hereſie, innumerable teſtimonies of the Eccleſiaſticall learned D^rs give me their Votes. But your Authority and wiſdome is ſo great, that I may not preſume to produce them; eſpecially ſeeing I have underſtood that you have caſt off or excluded Hilary, Ambroſe, Auguſtine, Hierom, Leo, Gregory, &c. from the chair of the learned Doctors, and from the kingdome of heaven. I know not whether you will ſpare the Greeks, or men of any other language. But if perhaps they at leaſt, by meanes of your ſober examination, have eſcaped your peremptory ſentence, what is that to me? So far forth as concerns the buſineſſe in hand it little or nothing advantageth; ſeeing I am onelyonly a Latine, I cannot uſe thoſe teſtimonies of a ſtrange tongue which I underſtand not, whereby I may convert or convince you. Becauſe ye diſdain to give credit to the holy learned Doctors of the Church, I muſt return to the moſt pure fountain of all rivulets; and witneſſes are to be brought out of the ſayings of the Evangeliſts, Apoſtles, and Prophets, if nevertheleſſe you receive ſo much as them.

This is the onelyonly likely place that I finde in all Cluniacenſis his chapters and Treatiſes agaiſt De Bruis touching the point of paedobaptiſme, which I can imagine Mr T. ſhould mean. And in all this let the reader judge whether Mr T. his 3 ſuppoſitions in his Obſervation can be found; but rather the contrary: As

1. That Cluniacenſis did not urge the Latine Doctors, but expreſly waved them. And of Auguſtin particularly he ſaith in another p. 165place, in arguing againſt De Bruis out of the Scriptures, Ee… hoc non de Augustino ſed de Evangelio protuli. I have produced this not out of Augustine, but out of the Goſpel.

2. That therefore Auguſtines authority is not advanced in this point by Cluniacenſis againſt De Bruis.

3. That De Bruis did not appeal to the Greek Church; nor doth Cluniacenſis charge it upon De Bruis, that he the ſaid Bruis being ignorant of the Greek, did appeal to the Greek Church; But as you heard in the tranſlation of Cluniacenſis, That he the ſaid Cluniacenſis, profeſſed himſelf a meer Latine ignorant of the Greek. For Cluniacenſis makes a ſuppoſition, that perhaps De Bruis and Heinricus might deſpiſe the Greek Church and other Churches as well as the Latine. Or if perhaps they did not deſpiſe the Greeks, yet Cluniacenſis being a Latine could not urge them. So alſo in the Tranſlation afore. And there is the leſſe probability that Cluniacenſis ſhould charge De Bruis with appealing from the Latine Church to the Greek, as if it ſided with De Bruis in the point of Anabaptiſme; For Cluniacenſis urgeth on his own part the Greek Church for Paedobaptiſme againſt De Bruis in a generall historicall way; thus: Tota Gallia, Hispania, Germania, Italia, ac univerſa Europa a trecentis, vel quingentis ferè annis, nullum niſi in infantiâ baptizatum habuerit. That is, All France, Spaine, Germany, Italy, and all Europe hath not had any baptized for the 300. or 500. yeers, but Infants. All Europe containes Greece, Continent and Iſlands, And Cluniacenſis wrote (as Mr T. quotes out of Vſher) about the yeer after Chriſt, 1150.) and ſo his 500. years reacheth up to 650 after Chriſt. This paſſage of Cluniacenſis comming to my eye as I read him, I obſerved after that Mr T. ſhould think that Cluniacenſis charged De Bruis with appealing to the Greek Church as with him, againſt Infant Baptiſme; When as Cluniacenſis at moſt doth but intimate that perhaps De Bruis and Heinricus may not ſo peremptorily cenſure the Greek Doctors, as they had the Latine. However if they didor did not, Cluniacenſis was not skilled in Greek Doctors to quote and urge them to convert or convince De Bruis and his collegue; which to me is an intimation that Cluniacenſis had underſtood ſome how, by Latine hiſtory or report, that the Greek Doctors alſo were for Infant Bapiiſme; or elſe he would not have ſpoken by way of excuſe, that he was onelyonly a Latine and not p. 166skill'd in the Greek, thereby to convert or convince De Bruis, in caſe he had appealed to them.

After the allegations aforeſaid of Walafridus and Cluniacenſis Mr T. goes on in the ſame Section of his EXAMEN to tell us a ſtory,EXAMEN ſect;. 8. That the reaſon of Auguſtines authority was this; The Pelagian hereſie being generally condemned, and Auguſtines workes being greatly eſteemed, as being the hammer of the Pelagians, the following refuters of Pelagianiſme, namely, Proſper, Fulgentius &c. the Councils that did condemne it, as thoſe of Carthage, Arles, Milevis &c. did reſt altogether on Auguſtines ARGUMENTS and often on his Wordes.

We anſwer, that here Mr T. aſſerts much without any proofe;Animadver. and to what great purpoſe I know not. But I muſt follow Mr T. Therefore we ſay; It Auguſtines workes were greatly eſteemed, as the hammer of that deteſtable Hereſy of the Pelagians then generally condemned (as Mr T. confeſſeth); I hope Mr T. diſlikes not this, that men ſhould be famous for oppoſing an infamous hereſie, eſpecially ſeeing by Mr T. his words, Wicked Pelagianiſme was as well generally condemned as hammered by Auguſtine, who could do no leſſe in faithfullneſſe to the place and time he lived in, againſt an hereſie bolted forth juſt in his time when he began to bee famous. And they that condemned the totall of Pelagianiſme [That men by their own free will can repell ſinne and keepe the Commandements] (ſo apparent againſt Scripture, as was no need for any to pin their faith on Auguſtines ſleeve) they could not but condemne that ſhredd of Pelagianiſme;See before in our Quotat. of Hierom and the Council of Carthage and the 90. Ep. among Aug. Epiſtles. That [Infants need not be baptiſed into remiſſion of ſinnes as having none; but if they muſt needs be baptized, then they are only baptized into the Kingdome of heaven] An apparent lye againſt the truth of Scripture; That ſaith in Adam we all dyed, who ſinned not after th ſimilitude of his tranſgreſſion. Rom. 5. And in ſinne did my mother conceive mee. Pſal. 51. with many more Scriptures which would have informed the Churches if Auguſtine had held his peace, that Infants have ſinne in them and are baptized into remiſſion of ſinnes or into nothing: Or if the Churches had wanted prompting from learned men, Cyprian, Clem. Alexandrinus, Hierom, with many other ancient orthodox learned, yea Mr T. his Walafridus would have held out ſo much, if Auguſtin had been mute.

For Prosper its true he hath ſome verſes on the Acts of the Councill p. 167of Carthage, wherein being inflamed with an incomparable zeal againſt the Pelagian hereſie, he deſcribes the convention of the Africans **Vide Notas in Concil. Capthag. Et Baron. an. 416. nu. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.. But what is this to Prospers reſting upon Auguſtine? or if Prosper writes De Gratiâ & libero arbitrio in defence of Auguſtine, this ſhewes that he was rather an Advocate for, then a Client to Auguſtine. Therein Augustines workes depended on him, not hee on them. And if hee writes to Auguſtine, in that not as from Auguſtine.

For Fulgentius, I finde not that he doth quote Auguſtine, in the main diſpute touching Pelagianiſme in his reſponſory book to Peter Deacon; but often and aptly quotes the Scriptures. In his bookes to Monimus touching piae deſtination, he recites Monimus quoting Auguſtine. And at the end of Fulgentius his workes are printed at Baſil together with them, Auguſtines or rather Proſpers booke of anſwers to articles impoſed upon him; and ſome bodies 6 bookes Hypognoſticon in anſwer to the Calumnies of the Pelagians; Now whether all this may argue Fulgentius his relyance on Auguſtines arguments, let the reader judge.

For Mr T. to ſay, Prosper, Fulgentius, and thoſe three Councels reſted on Auguſtines wordes, and to bring us no inſtances, or to ſay they reſted on his arguments, and to bring us no paralell of both their arguments, is to dictate, not to prove: Or to ſay they relyed on his arguments, and after to ſay they relyed on his wordes, is an expreſſion of inconſiſtencies: Or to ſay they relyed on his arguments, is improbable: Likely they might rely upon arguments by him uſed, but not as his, but as divine out of the Scriptures, where Augustine urged them. But for Mr T. to ſay they relyed altogether on Auguſtines arguments, is impoſſible for Mr T. to make good to us; or for us to believe of thoſe worthyes.

For the Councells Mr T. doth not intimate, much leſſe Cipher to us which (for there are many of thoſe names) he means. If he mean thoſe Coetanian convented in the ſame 416 year after Chriſt,Reuſ. Bucholc. Perk. when about (by conſent of Chronologers) Pelagianiſme began to be condemned in Councils, and Auguſtine had now a while been famous; Wee anſwer, it is true that in this Councill of Carthage, Pelagius and Coeleſtius the Hereticks are condemned; but by notable Scripture-arguments, without the leaſt mention of Auguſtine. And it is true that that Councels Epiſtle to P. Innocent the firſt, and that P. Innocents Epiſtle backe to that Councill, are by ſome body put among p. 168the Epiſtles of Auguſtine; and are there the 90. and 91. Ep. But neither doth P. Innocent in his Epiſtle take the leaſt particular notice of Auguſtine; nor do the Councill in their Epiſtle. Nor do I know whether Mr T. doth confide that Auguſtine was at this Council, by the names ſubſcribed thus; To the moſt bleſſed, and moſt honoured brother, Innocent the Pope, Aurelius, Numidius, Rustic…anus &c. who were preſent in the Councill of Carthage? Therein being then Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage, as appears in the Epiſtle of the aforeſaid Council of Milevis to the Emperours, Archad. and Honor. But when Auguſtine Bpp of Hippon is named at a Council, he is called Augustinus. And if there be two of the ſame name at a Council, they are both named with alius. As at this Council of Carthage, Reſtitutus, alius Reſtitutus, and Victor, alius Victor. But here is but once Aurelius, and no Auguſtinus.

As for the ſaid Council of Milevis, it is true that in their Epiſtle to P. Innocent there is among the reſt expreſſed Silvanus, Valentinus, Aurelius, Donatus, Restitutus, Lucianus, Alypius, Auguſtinus, Placentius &c, And that that Council alſo was convented againſt Pelagius and Coelestius. But we finde not either in the Acts of that Council, or in the Epiſtle or &c. that there is any more particular notice of Auguſtine then of any of the reſt; much leſſe of any of his arguments againſt the Pelagians, or of his urging any one argument. Yea Bucholcerus ſaith that after theſe two Councils, viz. in Anno 417. Auguſtine began to refute the Errors of Pelagius. By this Augustine ſhould rather learn at theſe Councills to diſpute againſt Pelagianiſme, then they to rely on him.

In the next Council of Carthage in order of the printed Councils though Augustine be there, yet any Diſpute of Pelagianiſme is not there.

In the ſeventh Council of Carthage, Bin.alias a part or 2 Seſſion of the ſixt, we finde but five titles of chapters or canons: But they ſay there were recited 105 whereof a great part were thoſe at the third Council of Carthage and in the Council of Milevis as they ſay in the title of this ſeventh or ſixth Council. But that which they call the third Council of Carthage, they date in the title to be in Anno 438, which was ſaith Bucholcerus, 8 years after Augustines death. If they mean that Council of Carthage and Milevis of the ſame 416 year after Chriſt, to them we have anſwered already. If the reſidue of the Canons of this ſeventh Council of Carthage are p. 169(as the notes on it tell us and I rather believe) recited in the following African Council convented in the time of Boniface and Celestin; there indeed that Council is in diverſe Canons againſt Pelagius, and Coelestius too, and that about baptiſme of Infants which wee mentioned afore at large. But there is no mention at all of Augustines perſons or rrguments there: and is after that which Mr T. Quotes.

For the Council of Arles, if Mr T. meanes the ſecond. It was too ancient, being under Siricius who was Anno 385. I ſay too ancient to be ſwayed by Auguſtine (who was not famous according to Mr T. till Anno 405. or 410.) againſt Pelagianiſme, if there had been in it any debate about it, as there was none. If Mr T. meane the third Council of Arles this was too young and of too later times (being Anno 461 or as others 514 under P. John 1.) for Auguſtine to be there. Nor was there need of his arguments, for there are but few Canons, and none about Pelagianiſme. It is true one Fauſtus writes an Epiſtle to one Lucidus a Pelagian againſt his Errours which he had vented in a book which Caeſarinus, Avitus, and Johannes Antiochenus, confuted in writing; and this Council approves Fauſtus his Epiſtle; in neither of all which is there the leaſt mention (that I can find) of Auguſtines name or arguments.

If Mr T. think I have not ſaid enough or not punctually to his 3 Councils, and two Fathers, let him blame his non-quotations, and generall and confuſed intimations. Thus of Fulgentius, Prosper, and the three Councils.

Next Mr T. objects that Auguſtine being counted as one of the four Doctors of the Church, like the four Evangeliſts,EXAMEN §. 8. his opinion was the rule of the Churches judgement, and the Schooles determination; as to the great hurt of Gods Church, Luther and others have been of late.

Anſwer.Animadver. To that of Auguſtines reſpect and authority in matters of diſpute we have ſpoken once and again: that it hath not beene ſo high, as Mr T. his elevation. There were ſundry Antagoniſts and ſome honeſtly minded as Acrius &c. did pritty well keep Auguſtine, Hierom &c. from too much hight and extravagancy, as the Calvaniſts did the Lutherans; and like inſtances might begiven of later times.

But Auguſtine, EXAMEN Ibid.ſaith Mr T. proved originall ſinne from the baptiſme of Infants, and ſo did the Council of Milevis anathematizing p. 170them that did deny it. Ergo, great was the ſway of Auguſtines authority.

We anſwer,Animadver. (having ſpoken of the Councills afore and of their Scripture arguments) that Auguſtine proved Infant-baptiſme from the Scriptures, as we have often quoted; and then the reſult of Mr T. his argument will be only this. Auguſtine read the Scriptures for originall ſinne in Infants, and Infant-baptiſme, and ſo did the Councill of Milevis. Ergo, the Counc…ll …f Milevis depended on the authority of Auguſtine: A non-ſequitur that every man will perceive. Two Councellours urge the ſame clauſe of a ſtatute, or the ſame deduction thence, clear to both their reaſons, will it follow therefore that the ones judgement depended on the other?

But ſaith Mr T. I value Auguſtines judgement,EXAMEN juſt ſo much as his proofes and reaſon weigh.

Wee anſwer,Animadver. That's well: But as we may not extoll good men too much, ſo nor depreſſe an Auguſtine, a Luther, as if we would by a back blow ſtrike out their eyes, and then ſay they ſaw nothing. Auguſtines retractations, and Luthers voluntary ſuffering of ſo many loſſes, and croſſes for the truth, are incomparable ſignes they aſpired not to be high in authority over mens conſciences. Auguſtine argued out of the Scriptures plentifully according to his light for that he held; ſo doth Mr T. ſo do others. Therefore let us not too raſhly deſpiſe one anothers arguments. The Councill of Milevis did Anathematize them that did deny originall ſinne, and perhaps them that ſaid Infants were not baptized into remiſſion of ſinnes; but they do not curſe them that will not make Infants originall ſinne an argument for Infant-baptiſme. Sure Auguſtine did not ſo Anathema, and therefore the C. of Milevis tooke no ſuch thing from him, and therefore no wonder they doe not practiſe it.

But Mr T. again urgeth the baptiſme of Auguſtine at above 30 years old,EXAMEN §. 8. of Alipius his friend, at ripe years, of Ad…odatus his ſonne at 15, to prove that the cuſtome of baptizing Infants was not ſo received, as that the Church thought it neceſſary that all children of Chriſtians by profeſſion ſhould be baptized in their Infancy.

Wee anſwer firſt in generall:Animadver. That they were perſwaded that of Equity they ought to baptize all Chriſtians children as the ſtream of Antiquity hath carried it, of which afore abundantly. And Mr T. himſelfe chargeth Augustine and Cyprian, that they thought p. 171too many Infants were to be baptized, namely all that had Chriſtian parents or undertakers. If therefore in fact ſome few were not baptized in infancy, it muſt needs be that there was ſome outward forcible ſtop, no inward lett in the judgement. As the Iſraelites in fact gave not their children the firſt Seal or ſigne of Circumciſion for 40 years in the wilderneſſe by reaſon of their pilgrimage there ſo long; and God bare with it; though by equity they ſhould have done it upon the eighth day after birth upon pain of cutting off, Gen. 17.

2 In particular: Touching Auguſtine's baptiſme, that it was not done till he was about 34 or 35 yeares of age we have before acknowledged and we ſhall give a full account why, anon after, when we have done with this 8. Sect. of Mr T. his EXAMEN, and returne to his EXERCITATION. Section 17. where Mr T. urgeth the ſame thing touching Augustine. But mean while for Adeodatus Auguſtines ſonne, if Mr T. be ſure he was baptized at 15, the cauſe might be this: Seeing Auguſtine when he was at mans eſtate about 32 years old ranne into moſt blaſphemous errors, and after that became Catechumenus A Catechiſed, about two years, and ſo not baptized till about 34, or 35, he might poſſibly have a ſonne of about 15 years old unbaptized till the father were owned in the Church for a Chriſtian, and then he and his ſonne Adeodatus and his friend Alipius might be baptized the ſame Day; Auguſtine and his friend being men; Adeodatus his ſonne being a youth of 15 years of age. But there is no mention or probality that either Alipius had believing parents; or that Alipius had been long a Chriſtian, but rather the contrary**See Auguſt. Confeſſ. lib. 6. c. 7.. And it is uncertain to me (and not to me only; looking more wiſhly on the wordes of Auguſtine, whether Adeodatus were baptized the ſame time his father was or no?****Inde ubi tempus advenit, quo me nomen dare oporteret, relicto rure, Mediolanum remeavimus. Placuit & Alipio renaſci in te mecum, Jam indato humilita eſacramentis tuis congrua, & fortiſumo domitore corporis, ulque ad Italicum ſolum glaci…e …udo pede obterendum inſolito …ſu. Adjunximus etiam nobis puerum Adeodatum, ex…e …tum carnaliter de peccato meo. Tu bene feceras eum. Annorum erat fe…me qui decim, & ingeni… praeveniebat multos graves & doctos viros. Munera tua tibi co…f…eor, do nine deus meus, creator omn…um, & mul…um potens reformare noſtra deformia. Nam ego in illo puero praeter delictum nihil habebam. Quod enim enutriabatur a nobis in diſciplina tua, tu inſpiraveras nobis, nullus alius. Aug. Confeſſ. lib. 9. cap. 6. Nor is it of moment whether he was or was not. For Mr T. his concluſion from theſe premiſſes of Auguſtine, Adeodatus, p. 172and Alipius, I ſay his concluſion, that the Church thought it not NECESSARY That all children of Chriſtians by profeſſion ſhould be baptized in their Infancie, doth not neceſſarily follow.

But Mr T. in his EXAMEN. Sect. 8. aſſerts further, that though he conceived with Grotius on Mat. 19.14. That Baptiſme of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of neceſſity in Affrica, then in Aſia, or other parts of the world; for (ſaith he) in the Councilis you cannot finde ancienter mention of that cuſtome then the Councill of Carthage; yet Mr T. doth 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 for ſuch like reaſon. I do not finde (ſaith Mr T.) that they held that Infants muſt be baptized out of ſuch caſes; for it is cleer 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 catechiſing afore baptiſme; ſtill continued.

ANIMADVERS. We Anſwer.

1. For the judgement of Grotius as it appears there, we have abundantly ſpoken of it afore, as for us.

2. For this particular quotation as applyed by Mr. T. we ſay, beſides that it is a naked thing, not backed to a ſufficiency of a cleer and manifeſt aſſertion from negatives; eſpecially in the point of neceſſity;

we may juſtly Quare. 1. How much more frequencie and neceſſity doth Mr T. meane? How much more can he make appear? For ſure he cannot diſpute from punctilio's. And what uſe will Mr T. make of it, if for a time there appeared a grain more in Africa then in Aſia?

An Argument is not managed by countenance, or gravity of aſſerting. Men in divers countries may more frequently, and with more …al practiſe a truth, and yet the truth be ſtill the ſame. Yea different complexions and conditions of Countries in receiving, or oppoſing a truth, may make it to be more or leſſe practiſed, and yet the minds of true Chriſtians in both, may be alike one with the rule. Yea if the more frequency of Infant Baptiſme were never ſo ancient in Africa, according to the Councils there, whereof that in Cyprians time was one,**Cyprian was within 148 yeers after the Apoſtles. yet we know that it came firſt from Aſia, ****This Aſia the grea… conſiſted of Anatolia, Sy…ia, Paleſtina, Armenia, Arabia, Media, Aſſyria, Meſopotamia, Perſia, Chaldea, Parthia, Hircania, Tartaria, China, India, the Iſlands of the Indian and Mediterranean ſeas.where man was created, Chriſt born, wrought mirocles, ſuffered; p. 173All the pen-men of both Teſtaments acted; were the Monarchies and captivities over the Church. Great Aſia included Aſia the leſſe, ſince called Anatolia **This Anatolia or Aſia the leſſe comprehendeth Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia, Bythinia, Pontus, Paphlagonia, Galatia, Cappadociae, Lycaonia, Piſſdia, Armenia the liſſe, and Aſia propria.(that is, the Eſtern Country) where were the ſeven Churches Revel. 1. this included Aſia Propria ****Which comprehends Caria, Jonia, Lydiaa, Aeulis, and both the phyrigiae's.of which at leaſt is meant that Act. 19.10. and 27. All Aſia heard the Word of the Lord Jeſus; And certaine which were the chief of Aſia ſent unto Paul. Sutably we quoted Juſtin Martyr for one of our witneſſes ſince the Apoſtles time, of Infant Baptiſme. He was a Samaritan (which is part of Paleſtine in Aſia the Great) Genere Samaritanus, atque è Samaritanis ad Chriſti fidem tranſiit, Epiphan. Some of Samaria were converted by Chriſt, John 4. v. 5. v. 29. v. 30. v. 39. After in the Apoſtles time the Word was preached to many Villages of the Samaritans Act. 8.25. Juſtin Martyr was converted to the faith about 28 yeares after the Apoſtles.

To that of not baptizing children in Africa but in danger of death, or &c. we have ſhewd the contrary out of ſeverall antiquities, & particularly out of Cyprian whither we refer the reader. And ſure enough, from the life of Auguſtin (of which anon after) it is cleer that Auguſtines ſicknes whiles young, was ſome occaſion of deferring his baptiſm for that time. For he ſaith in his firſt book of Confeſſions, and c. 11. That having been ſick, they deferred their thoughts of baptizing him, that they might the more freely give him his will to do what he would for the furtherance of his recovery, which they might not allow him if once he were under the bonds of Baptiſme.

Thoſe words Mr T. addes, Children were baptized for the health of body, or ſuch like reaſon, ſeem to claſh againſt that he ſo often preſſeth in his book, that Auguſtine and the Ancients did too much put ſalvation, and the taking away Originall ſinne, in Baptiſme, which preſently Mr T. repea…es within 25 lines following. You may conceive (ſaith Mr T.) how light Auguſtines judgement was, by conſidering the ground upon which Auguſtine held, and urged the baptiſme of Infants ſo vehemently; which was (ſaith Mr T.) as all know that read his works, the opinion he had, that without baptiſme Infants muſt be damned by reaſon of Originall ſin, which is not taken away but by baptiſme; and for this quotes ſeverall places out of Auguſtine, T. 7. de Nat. & Gra. c. 8. T. 2. Ep. 28.

For the diſtinction of the Chatechiſed and the Baptized, and that the uſe of catechiſing afore baptiſme ſtill continued, and a great p. 174while after (he means Auguſtines time:) All this doth not overthrow the common tenet and practiſe of that antiquity, and upward, as well as downward, in baptizing Chriſtians children. The chatechiſing being for the children of thoſe whoſe parents were not ſuppoſed Chriſtians, as before we abundantly ſhewed out of Tertullian, and Iunius upon him: and out of Pareus, Calvin, Bullinger, Marlorat, &c. on Heb. 6.2. And this is practiſed in all Proteſtant Kingdomes to this day, notwithſtanding the conſtancy of baptizing Infants. If there be not uſed a right judgement to determine who are Chriſtian-parents, that is the fault of men, not of the Ordinance, or its inſtitution. If I ſhould go about to anſwer that quotation of Auguſtine, with others out of Auguſtine, I might abound with his ſentences for Infant Baptiſme. As his collation of Baptiſme and Circumciſion, in many places of his works. His Collation of baptiſme, with the Flood, the Cloud, and Red Sea, divers times. His ſayings, That Baptiſme is not to be deferred. That repentance is not abſolutely univerſally neceſſary before baptiſm; His ſeverall tracts of the Baptiſm of little ones, &c. Which we need not quote to them that are acquainted with Auguſtine. All which ſhew in what ſence Auguſtine ſpake of catechiſing before baptiſme; viz. of thoſe whoſe Parents were not Chriſtians. If with Nazianzen he had held that little children of three years old, being Chatechiſed, to anſwer that they underſtood not, might be baptized; what is that more to the purpoſe then to baptize them whiles Infants? We muſt underſtand that in moſt of the Fathers times there were no whole Kingdomes, or for the moſt part converted, or Religious worſhip ſet up by allowance of the ſtate, but the generall of them were heathens. Therefore of neceſſity, there muſt have been ſome catechiſing afore the baptizing of ſome. And for baptizing Infants for bodily health, &c. named but not quoted out of Auguſtine, as his opinion, we can anſwer it out of Auguſtine who ſaith;T. 7. Col. 84. c. Edit Baſil. Ibid. Col. 55. That Baptiſme doth not profit all. That Baptiſme profits not without charity. That one baptiſme by faith purgeth. And that the Vertue of Baptiſme is not in the water but in the word; which we forbear to quote and tranſlate at large, as having too much (if it might have been prevented troubled the read…r with quotations already. They are obvious to him that reads Auguſtine.

But Mr T. EXAMEN §. 8.objects that catechizing afore baptiſme continued in Auguſtines time, and after a great while, in Aſia, becauſe Peter Cluniacenſis p. 175ſaith that there had been none but Infants baptized in all Europe for 300 or 500 years afore his time: but doth not deny the baptiſme of men of ripe years in Aſia.

We anſwer, Firſt touching Cluniacenſis we have ſaid abundance afore. Secondly,Animadver. that this Argument doth no more determine any thing about Aſia, then about Affrica (which is Mr T. his Qu. in hand). And for Affrica we have heard abundantly out of all ſorts of antiquity of the baptizing of Infants. Thirdly, Cluniacenſis profeſſeth himſelf a Latin, ignorant of Greek and other tongues, and therefore doth not determine here any thing concerning places out of Europe, but is ſilent, concerning them. Fourthly, Touching baptiſme of Infants in Aſia we heard afore.

To that Mr T. objects Auguſtine and Ambroſe his judgement for Infant-baptiſme, as putting too much in the ordinance, as conducing to ſalvation;

We anſwer;

Firſt, we have but now in that anſwered for Auguſtine by Auguſtine.

2 That the Papiſts put too much of juſtification in faith, as it is abſolutely conſidered as a quality; may not we therefore hold juſtification by faith relatively conſidered as taking in the object Chriſt? So the over zeale of thoſe fathers touching the neceſſity of Infant-baptiſme, muſt not beat us off from the mediocrity of truth touching it.

3 For Auguſtine let us go no further then Mr T. his quotation of him, to clear him. Tom. 2. Ep. 28.

That Infants cannot be ſaved but BY THE GRACE OF THE LORD CHRIST, which he hath commended to us in his Sacraments. He ſaith there they are ſaved by the Grace of the Lord Christ. And ſaith only Chriſt commendeth his grace to us in the Sacraments. And for my part when Auguſtine and others of the Fathers do ſpeak ſo confidently of the ſalvation of Ʋnbaptized Martyrs, yea of the Ʋnbaptized Theefe; I cannot imagine that it was their conſtant abſolute opinion that ſalvation lay in the very bare ordinance; Or that all unbaptized Infants were certainly damned.

We gave you touches afore, that the fathers writing infinit much, ſpeaking ſometimes in one extream againſt the oppoſites on the one hand, did after in their polemicall dealing with the oppoſites on the other hand, or in a doctrinall way moderate the ſame. So we muſt take their ſayings altogether, or we ſhall wrong them and our ſelves too. And therefore Mr T. might have done well, not to have charged up ſo fiercely upon Auguſtine and Ambroſe in this point, p. 176ſeeing Mr T. confeſſeth preſently following, That Ambroſe and Auguſtin in his 4 book de Baptiſme contra Donatiſtas. c. 22. yeilded, That either Martyrdome, or the deſire of baptiſme might ſupply the defect of baptiſme. We could add ſeverall other expreſſions of Auguſtine to the ſame purpoſe:Tom. 5.713. Edit Baſ. contra Donat. l. 5. To. 7.452. Edit Baſ. Ibid. 101. Ibid. 663. As that death ſometimes ſupplyes the place of baptiſme. That ſuffering, faith, converſion of the heart, ſupply the room of Baptiſme. That the Baptiſme of blood, is greater then the Baptiſm of the river. That little ones not baptized have a moſt eaſie condemnation. Laſtly, whatever the rigidneſſe of Auguſtin and Ambroſe was in ſome paſſages touching Infant-baptiſm; the grand point in hand is whether Baptiſme in theſe mens, and other fathers times were in practiſe as an unwritten tradition, or as grounded on the Scriptures? And for the latter, thoſe and the reſt of the ancients are full, and to purpoſe, as we have heard.

For Mr T. indeavouring to detract from Augustine touching his inferring the neceſſaryneſſe of Infant-baptiſme from Iohn 3.5. Becauſe Aquinas and Bellarmine urge the ſame place for the ſame point;**See Marlorat on the place & Bullingers words. to me is a poor argument. Do the Papiſts and we agree in no truth? Do not generally all our moſt famous godly and learned Proteſtants within this laſt hundred years underſtand that very place of baptiſme? And dare any of us in our Pulpits ſay there is not (neceſſitas praecepti & medy) a mandatory and inſtrumentall neceſſity of ordinances, that at our perill we may not wilfully neglect them? So that with Cyprian afore quoted we conclude, we muſt not as farr as in us lies debarr our poſterity from ſalvation.

Likewiſe the next objection of M. T. is not ſo conſiderable,EXAMEN §. 8. where he ſaith that he cannot find among the Ancients for Baptiſme, that ground of ours that the Covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their Seed.

For firſt we demand;Animadver. muſt not the worthy Ancients be ſaid to hold a tenet upon ſcripture-arguments (for that is the point at preſent) unleſſe they hold it upon all arguments? 2 We find few of our arguments againſt Epiſcopacy in the Fathers; yet in this we ſide with Aerius againſt them; though they condemned him for Hereticall. 3 Antiquity hath ſomewhat of the Covenant of grace in relation to Infant-baptiſme, in the things we have afore quoted. Tertullian ſets recounting in Chriſt, over againſt counting in Adam. Cyprians Epiſtle tells us in thoſe times they looked to circumciſion p. 177for Infant baptiſme. Gre. Nazianzen once and Auguſtine oft makes parallels and compariſons between Circumciſion and Baptiſme. Tertullian again ſaith that the children of either parental-ſexe ſanctified, are holy by the prerogative of the ſeede, and the rule of diſcipline. See alſo before Clem. Alexandrinus, and Heſichius; yea ſome of the Ancients were ſo farre tranſported in the conſideration of the deſcent of the line of the Covenant of grace, from the parent to the child, that they did tranſcend to this opinion, that the child conceived and being in the mother at her baptiſme, was ſome how baptized in the mother. This appeares partly from Auguſtine diſputing the contrarie**Auguſt. lib. 6 contra Iulian. Col. 11 19. edit Baſil. (and it is not my note only, but the note of ſome others alſo); and partly from one clauſe in a decree of the Neo…aſarien Synod, held Anno. 313. after Chriſt, (as ſome interpret it****Balſam. et Zanar.) wherein they decree foreign, foreign, &c. That is, the woman great with child may be baptized when ſhe pleaſe; for in this ſhe that is about to bring forth, imparteth nothing to the child that is to be borne. Now if this be ſo (Ex malis moribus bonae procreantur leges) that a law ſuppoſeth a fault; then there is ſome how, ſome what too much inſpection in ſome of the ancients, upon the Covenant of grace in relation to the Baptiſme of Infants.

EXAMEN Animadver.As for the Popiſh Schoolmen, Biel, Cajetan, and Gerſon touching the neceſſity of the Baptiſme of Infants which Mr. T. alleadgeth; we are not carefull to give any anſwer to them, as we are not to care for their opinions. Proteſtants are not tyed to make good the dreames of Papiſts. Or if this will not go for an anſwer, let one of their owne tribe anſwer them; namely Peter Lumbard in his ſence of the text, 3 of Ioh. ver. 5. upon which Aquinas and Ballarmine and the reſt of that route towred up on high their too ſublime and abſolute neceſſitie of the baptiſme of Infants upon paine of ſalvation. Peter Lumbards words are, The place of Ioh. 3.5. unleſſe a man be borne againe of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, is to be underſtood (ſaith he) of thoſe which may be, yet contemne to be baptized.

To that Mr. T. objects about Auguſtines opinion of giving the holy Supper to Infants; we will anſwer to (God permitting) anon when we returne to Mr. T. his Exercitation Sect. 17. Where he hath the ſame charge againſt Auguſtine, though it be quite beſide p. 178the point in hand of Infant-Baptiſme, and without all coherence of argumentation in the diſpute.

Mr. T. Yet againe urgeth (even to a ſurfeit upon it) Auguſtines opinion of the neceſſity of Infant-Baptiſme,EXAMEN. in that he held ſuch a certaintie of obtaining reg…n…ration thereby.

We reply. 1 This is no good argument,Animadver. Auguſtine held Infant baptiſme too rigidly; therefore he held it not at all. This muſt be the argument or elſe it is to little purpoſe. For Mr. M. quotation (to which Mr T. gives the preſent objection as part of his anſwer) is that alſo in Auguſtines time, as formerly, Infants-Baptiſme was the Tenent and practiſe of the Chriſtian Churches. 2. Mr. T. might hauehave excuſed Auguſtine, and anſwered himſelfe touching this out of Grotius whom he hath ſo often quoted for his own turne, which Grotius tels him**The words of Grotius on Matt. 19.14. are; caeterum illa ſententia, infantes non baptizatos certo ſuppl… ciis aeternis quanquam levioribus addici, tam rigide defenſa ab Auguſtino, ne ipſi quidem Auguſtino placuera…, ante quam cum Pelagio collideretur. Voſſ. de neceſſ. bap. Theſ. 21.Matt 19:14 that Auguſtines, rigidneſſe about the neceſſitie of Infant baptiſme, Ne ipſi placuerat Auguſtino, was not pleaſing to Auguſtine himſelfe before that he diſputed with Pelagius. Likely he might Confeſſe, or Retract ſomewhere in his workes ſomewhat of that rigidneſſe; but we have not leaſure as that Emperour to hunt after every fly. 3. Let Ʋoſſius anſwer. They object (ſayth he) that Auguſtine, Fulgentius, Gregorie, and the Author of Hypognoſticon, adjudged thoſe Infants to Hell torments that dyed without Baptiſme. And this was Socinus his objection as well as Mr T. his, here in the margin of his 8 Section of his EXAMEN. p. 15. But ſayth Voſſius, 1 The later ancients (that alſo held infant baptiſme) did juſtly diſapprove of their judgement as Bernard diſputeth againſt it in his 77. Ep. And of the ſame judgement was his fellow Petrus Bleſenſis of the ſame time with Bernard. Serm. 22. de S. Trinitate ſaying Sufficit &c. The ſpirit and water ſuffice, the ſpirit and bloud ſuffice; if not the CONTEMPT OF RELIGION, but the point of neceſſitie excludeth the water. The ſpirit if ſelfe will ſuffice, becauſe the teſtimonie thereof hath weight. So again the ſame man Serm. 24. In festo Iacobi. By this you may ſee how farre Mr T. his former aſſertion is true, that Auguſtines authority carried others without controll, in the point of Infant baptiſme. 2, Ʋoſſius anſwers we oppoſe (ſaith he) Auguſtine to Auguſtine; For nothing is more cleere and manifeſt then thoſe words of Aug. lib. 5. de Baptiſmo contra Donatiſtas. I againe and again conſidering (ſayth Aug. there) do find, that not only ſuffering for the name of Chriſt, may ſupply that which was wanting of p. 179baptiſme, but alſo faith, and the change of the heart, if perhaps by reaſon of the diſtreſſes of the time, recourſe cannot be had to baptiſme. By this you may perceive whether we gave a juſt reaſon why Auguſtines, and his ſon Adeodatus his baptiſme was deferred (if Adeodatus his was deferred).

But how doth Mr T. prove his laſt allegation of Aug. rigid opinion of the neceſſity of Infants baptiſme?EXAMEN §. 8.

Firſt thus. Augustine uſually puts Regeneration for Baptiſme.Animadver.

Wee Retort. Yet before**cap. 13. in our anſw. to EXAMEN §. 4. EXAMEN §. 8. Mr T. did much doubt whether Ireneus might mean baptiſme, by the word Renaſcuntur, that is, are regenerated.

Secondly Mr T. proves it out of 23. Epiſtle of Auguſtine to Boniface. That though people brought children to baptiſme out of their by-intention to procure the childrens health, or &c. yet thoſe children might be regenerated.

We demand in anſwer to this,Animadver. What great thing is inferred hence; we ſay not to the qu. of Infant-baptiſme in Auguſtines time (for it is nothing to that) but what is it to Mr T. his deſign of diſgracing Auguſtine upon the by (as Civilians do witneſſes, that all judgement may lie in their own breaſts)? For what if Auguſtine went to hear Ambroſe meerly to be tickled in the eare with his eloquence as he confeſſeth, and at that time God converted him by Ambroſe his Miniſtry: And whiles another went to a Sermon of purpoſe for bodily ſleep, was converted out of the ſpirituall ſleep in ſinne; Doth this advance the Miniſtry of the word too high, to ſay hereupon and in the like inſtances, that the word converts men to the true end, whiles they come to it for a falſe end? The ſame may be ſaid of Baptiſme; and in charity (that hopeth all things) of Auguſtines meaning. For it is clear out of ſeverall places of Auguſtine ſo common that we need not quote more then thoſe quoted afore, that Auguſtine did think that baptiſme did not profit all that received it.

But Augustine (ſaith Mr T.) was ſo corrupt in this matter,EXAMEN ſo as to excuſe it, if not to juſtifie this fact of ſo bringing Infants with a ſiniſter end to baptiſm.

The bare r…citall (ſay we) of Auguſtines words will be a ſufficient confutation of this objection.Animadver. Nec illud te move at and let not that move thee (ſaith Augustine to Boniface. Epiſtle 23.) that ſome p. 180bring their little ones to receive baptiſme, not with that faith that they may by ſpirituall grace be regenerated to eternall life; but becauſe they think by this remedy they may retaine, or receive temporall health. For not therefore, are thoſe children not regenerated, becauſe they are not offered by them with this intention. For by them the neceſſary miniſtry or ſervice is Celebrated. By all which words I ſhould thinke that Auguſtine doth no way juſtifie or excuſe their bad intention; but magnifieth Gods powerfull operation, that he can beſtow the right end of an ordinance, whiles by men the wrong is intended. Let us interpret others with that candor we our ſelves would be interpreted, as farre as words and Grammer will permit.

VponUpon this quotation of Aug. 23. Ep. Mr T. Concludes his period thus;EXAMEN No marvile then if it be true, which is related of the approbation that was given of the baptiſme uſed by Athanaſius in play among boyes.

And upon this Objection we make theſe animadverſions.Animadver. 1. That it was not Auguſtine that approved it, but Alexander the chiefe Miniſter of Alexandria 60. yeeres afore Auguſtine. 2. That this ſtory is in Mr T. his eſteemed Walafridus. Chap. 26. de reb. eccleſ, by him before quoted; yet here he miſtruſts him. 3. By this it ſeemes Athanaſius (upon whom Mr T. before called to ſpeake in the point of childrens baptiſme) knew that in his time little children, at leaſt as ſoone as they could well ſpeake,EXAMEN were baptized.

But Mr T. objects that Auguſtine abſurdly anſwers to Boniface about excuſing Goſſips from a lye when they ſay the child to be baptized doth beleive.

We anſwer Seing Mr T. doth not here queſtion but a child may have faith,Animadver. the reſt is ſo light a thing he ſpeakes of and ſo impertinent to the Qu. Of the Tenet and practiſe of Infant baptiſme in Augustines time, as that it deſerves no anſwer. Only we deſire but this equitable favour of Mr T. and his friends, that upon juſt occaſion we may have but the ſame freedome to plainly lay downe to the world the ſtrange phantaſies of ſeverall ages of Anabaptiſts or Antipaedobaptists, as he hath wrung even to bloud as we ſay a few unwary expreſſions, and pettie miſtakes of the moſt Godly and learned Martyrs and Saints of God.

EXAMENWhereas Mr T. doth paraphraſe upon Boniface his queſtion to Auguſtine about Sureties at baptiſme [That even in Baptiſme of p. 181Infants they thought in all ages, it neceſſary, that a profeſſion of faith go before.

We anſer.Animadver.

1 We wonder Mr T. will aſſert confeſſion of faith in all ages before all baptiſme, from witneſſes or Sureties; when as we know that the firſt intimation of touching them was not till about 195 years after Chriſt. And how novel the invention of their confeſſions is, who can juſtly tell?

2 I propoſe it to grave conſideration; Whether confeſſions of Sureties were not at firſt in imimation of Chriſtian parents (in whoſe ſtead they ſtood)? So that as children were baptized, when their parents had formerly made confeſſion; So Sureties confeſſed in relation to themſelves, that they might be reputed fit to ſtand as a kind of parents to a child of an unbeleeving parent to be baptized; even as Abraham; profeſſion of his beliefe in God Gen. 15. Gen. 17. made him ſtand as a parent to all his houſhold.

The laſt thing Mr T. objects againſt Augustine, EEAMENand through him againſt Antiquity, is, that in thoſe times they baptized all Infants: whether of believing parents or not; or whether with this or that intention they brought them.

We anſwer;

1 Too much, Animadver.doth not overthrow enough in antiquity to prove. Infant-baptiſm in thoſe times; which is the diſpute now in hand.

2 That this argues againſt Mr T. that Infant-baptiſme hath been anciently more univerſally practiſed, then adult baptiſme.

3 That in Auguſtine's time, Boniface ſcrupled whether the ſinnes of parents might not praejudice the baptiſme of their Infants, ſeeing the faith of believing parents did advance the baptiſm of their Infants. Auguſtin Epiſt. 23. And Auguſtin himſelf there anſweres that Infants are regenerated (he means baptized) by the ſpirituall will of them (parents, or in place of parents) that bring them. And in effect hath this further in his firſt book de animâ, & ejus origine chap. 11. That thoſe children that are born of wicked parents, and are not commited into the hands of any godly perſons that may ſtand inſtead of parents**As Abraham did to all his family of ſtrangers &c., and ſo dye unbaptized, are damned by the traduction of originall ſinne from their parents.

4 You heard before how Antiquity looked upon the diſcent of the Covenant of grace, from parents to children.

Thus by many inſtances and vindication of ancient Writers you have ſeen that that particular of Mr T. his Minor in his fifth argum. of his Exercitation [That, in ſome ages after the firſt from the Apoſtles, p. 182the Tenet, and practiſe of Baptiſme was in uſe, as a Tradition not written] I ſay you have ſeen it proved to be moſt falſe: and have vindicated the Ancients from Mr T. his objections in his EXAMEN.Exercitat. §. 17. Now let us returne to his Exercitation. § 17.

Where Mr T. will undertake to prove it, that at one time, at leaſt in one place (where Origen lived) by one author, to wit Origen, that Infant-baptiſm went for an unwritten tradition. And for this he quotes only one place, and only quotes it, not giving us the words he intends, in any language.

But we have given you the place afore in the beginning of this 14 chap. of our Animadverſions,Animadver. in our quotation of Origen. And that place out of him, in his fifth book on the ſixth chapter of the Epiſtle to the Rom. Mr T. quotes here, by the name of Hom. on Rom. 6. where we have cleared it, that Origen cannot underſtand by Tradition, an unwritten Tradition. To which we add now that which is very conſiderable to clear the mind of Origen, from holding any baptiſme to be a meer tradition, namely, in that he ſpeaks ſo often in his 6 Hom. ſuper Ieſum Nave, that Baptiſm (without limitation) is the ſecond Circumciſion. And once hath there theſe words [Sed ex quo venit Chriſtus, & dedit nobis ſecundam circumciſionem, per baptiſmum regenerationis &c. that is; But ſince Chriſt came, and hath given us the ſecond Circumciſion, by baptiſme of regeneration he hath purged our ſouls]. So Origen. So that now Mr T. may take his choice: Would Mr T. accept of Origen on Rom. 6. for his witneſs for an unwritten tradition of Infant baptiſme? We have heard his witneſſe, examined him by circumſtances; he ſpeaks no ſuch thing. Or would Mr T. impeach, and diſgrace his own witneſſe as not competent, ſaying, that he is uncertain whether he reads Origen or Ruffinus, that reads that enarration on the Ep. to the Romans; Why then doth Mr T. quote that one place, thereby before the ignorant to aſſay to blaſt all the beſt antiquity, almoſt ſince the Apoſtles, that conſtantly ſay Baptiſme of Infants came from Chriſt and the Apoſtles, and ground it upon ſeverall Scriptures, and divine reaſon? Why did Mr T. hang ſo huge a weight on ſo ſmall a wyer? Hee hath produced but one pretended place on Rom. 6. for himſelf, and that he weakens too with a glance at Origens works on Leviticus, to prevent our quotation of any thing thence. But as we have given him one place out of Origen on Levit, and another out of him on Rom. 6. both as they are tranſlated out of the Greek by Hierom, as p. 183the beſt Editions promiſe us; ſo we have given him a place out of Origen on Luke, againſt which Mr T. hath made no exception. And we ſay further if Mr T. be not ſure whether he reads Origen on Rom. Then he is not ſure whether he reads Ruffinus, for his doubt lies between them two.

To that of Mr T. concerning Auguſtine and Hieromes relyance (as he ſuppoſeth) onelyonly on Cyprians 59. Epiſt,Exercitat. §. 17. to Fidus for Infant Baptiſm, we ſay onelyonly this, Let the Reader turn back to what we have tranſlated out of thoſe Authors, or turn to our Quotations of them, and read their Scripture Arguments, and then judge whether Mr T. doth not much miſtake. I confeſſe ſince I took th…s work in hand to Animadvert a little upon Mr T. his Exercitation, I have oft wondred that he ſpeakes ſometimes ſo unwarily, (that had ſuch long time to conſider) ſometimes gives forth great things with ſmall hints, and glanceth intimations for poſitions and probations. But I anſwered my ſelf with this, likely he remembred he was propogating a now-taking-opinion. He therfore that will not conſider; but will be miſtaken, let him be miſtaken, if he will be miſtaken.

Thus of Mr T. his firſt particular in his minor, That Infant Baptiſme was an unwritten tradition in ſome ages after the firſt of the Apoſtles: but he cannot tell when as we have proved.

To his ſecond particular of Jewiſh imitation.Exercitat.

We have ſpoken already in anſwer to the Major. Animadver.And we have ſhewd that the pious learned ancients had other Scripture reaſons, then only Circumciſion, or their greedineſſe to increaſe the number of Chriſtians (who ſo oft gave warning to take heed to whom they gave that ſacred thing baptiſme**Caeterum Baptiſmum non temere credendumeſſe ſciunt quorum officium eſt. Nolite dare ſanctum canibus; ne participes a liena delicta &c. Textul. lib. de baptiſ. cap. 18.) or Mr T. his perhaps (a fine word for an argument and in divine things) heatheniſh luſtration of little ones; When Juſtin Martyr, Tertullian &c. apologized againſt heatheniſme for Chriſtianity; and many of our quoted authors ſealed their oppoſition againſt Heatheniſme with their blood. And if there were any true Jewiſh imitation of Circumciſion in Infant-baptiſme, it was in Fidus that thought children might not be baptized till the eight day, and not in Cyprians Epiſtle that confuted him. Nor do they more intimate the neceſſity of baptiſme to ſalvation then Chriſt himſelf Iohn 3.5. Except a man he borne again of water and the ſpirit &c. (which is a place they oft quote) or the Apoſtles that ſay we are baptized into remiſſion of ſinnes, and for receivall of the holy ſpirit, which they, Hierom and others alſo p. 184alleadge. And it is moſt ſure there is ſuch a neceſſity in regard of Gods precept and means as to us in the uſe of ordinances, as let them venter their ſalvation on the willing neglect of them that dare; I dare not. As it is a ſinne to put more in an ordinance then God ever put in it (as the Anabaptiſts talke of wonderfull ſtrange manifeſtations at and in the act of dipping, I know what I ſpeak) or to think one is damned without an ordinance when God prevents the having it, by death or otherwiſe; ſo greater is the ſinne to contemne an ordinance injoyned when it may be had: As Tertullian ſpeaks in his book de Baptiſmo chap. 13.Hic ergo ſceleſtiſſimi illi &c. Here thoſe moſt graceleſſe follows provoke queſtions: So that they ſay baptiſm is not neceſſary, to whom faith is ſufficient &c.

To Mr T. Exercitat. §. 17.his third particular in his Minor, that Infant-baptiſme was not univerſally practiſed; for Conſtantine was not baptized whiles an Infant, though his mother Helena were a Chriſtian: Nor Auguſtine, though his mother Monica was a Chriſtian &c. We anſwer.

1 No wonder if baptiſme of Infants be not univerſally practiſed in all ages,Animadver. when ſo many Sects under one notion or another, more or leſſe ſtuck at it; Firſt Arrians in one age; after that the Pelagians in another; after them Arminius; then the Anabaptiſts in Luthers time; then the Anabaptiſts in Ainſworths time; and now the Anabaptiſts in our times. Shall theſe men make a practiſe, and then make of it an argument for themſelves? who will be ſwayed with ſuch an argument as that? They ſhould make out their practiſe from an argument, and not make an argument of their practiſe.

2 Mr T. doth not here ſo much as ſay that Helena was a Chriſtian at Conſtantines birth, or that Monica was a Chriſtian at Auguſtines birth, which to have cleared was neceſſary to the argument.

3 Who doth not know, that hiſtories make mention of Helena as of a very weak and wonderfull (I had almoſt ſaid) ſuperſtitious Chriſtian,Socrat. ſchol. Ecleſ. hiſt. lib. 1. chap. 13. according to the Engliſh tranſ. in digging for the croſſe of Chriſt at Hieruſalem, and finding three, to wit thoſe two alſo on which the theeves were crucified on: and being perplexed which was Chriſts, a miracle of curing a dying woman with that which was Chriſts, reſolved which was his; and ſo ſhee locked up ſome of it in a ſilver cheſt, and the reſt was ſet up upon a pillar in the market place at Conſtantinople p. 185ſo called of Constantine for the preſervation of that City. As alſo that ſhe finding the nayles that faſtened Chriſt to the Croſſe, ſhee ſent them to her ſonne Conſtantine the Emperour, whereof he cauſed bittes for bridles, helmets, and headpeece to be made, which he wore in battail. So Socrate Eccleſ. You ſee how vaine a ſtory here is. And that all the Chriſtianitie by this appearing in Helena, relates to the time of her ſonne Conſtantines being Emperour. And therefore what Mr T. can make of it to his purpoſe I know not.

4. At this time of Conſtantines birth were great perſecutions riſen now almoſt towards the higheſt; it coſt after that Conſtantine many a battle before he could quiet things, and therefore Helena the Empereſſe, the wife of Constantius the Emperour (Religion then daring little to peepe forth; more then in notorious ſuffering for it) might well be affraid (if ſhe were then a Chriſtian) to doe ſuch an act as to carry her ſonne to Baptiſme, as Miniſters might be afraid to doe it, Conſtantius the father not being a Chriſtian, though politically moderate.

5. For Auguſtine. 1. It is cleare out of Aug. Confeſſions The firſt Booke, and 11. Chap. that his father was not a beleever at his birth, nor when he was growne up to be a little boy of ſome underſtanding. For he ſayth there in the deſcription of himſelfe while he was Puer a little boy, or lad. Ita jam credebam, et illa et omnis domus, niſi pater ſolus &c. So I and my mother and all the family did now beleeve, except my father onelyonly, who notwithſtanding did not controule my mothers power over me, whereby I ſhould not beleeve in Chriſt. For ſhee rather endevored, that thou O my God ſhouldeſt be my father, rather then he; ſo Auguſtine. Now the want of the fathers concurrence in carrying a child to baptiſme in thoſe difficult times, might be ſome delay of that Sacrament. For ſecondly, We ſay perſecution was walking among Chriſtians about that time, for Auguſtine in his third Booke chap. 25. Contra literas Petiliani ſaith that after the death of the great Tyrant he went into Africa. Intimating alſo that his mother lived a very private life, his father being then dead. Thirdly, Auguſtine tell us in his firſt book of confeſſions and 11. chap. That Cum puer **One is ſaid to begin to be a Puer from … 4 yeere old & ſo upward to 14.eſſem, et quodam die preſſus ſtomachi dolore &c. When I was a little boy, or lad, being a certaine day oppreſſed in my ſtomacke, and ſick even to death, thou O God ſaweſt, becauſe p. 186thou art my keeper, with what motion of minde, and with what faith I earneſtly deſired from the pietie of my mother and of thy Church the mother of us all, the Baptiſme of thy Chriſt, and of God my Lord. And the mother of my fleſh was much troubled, &c. and earneſtly haſty that I ſhould be initiated and waſhed with the ſaving Sacrament &c. But being now refreſhed that my purifying was delayed. And Auguſtine tels us the reaſon in many words; the effect in ſhort was this. That his friends thought that more indulgence was to be allowed to let him have his will to doe what he liſted, being yet weake, and not fully recovered; then was fi… to be permitted in caſe h… had bin Baptized. Which thing Auguſtine there bewa…es in theſe words, my Baptiſme was delayed, as if it had beene neceſſary I ſhould be more defiled, it I would live. It founded in my eares from theſe and thoſe, let him alone to doe what he will, for he is not yet Baptized. And yet of the health of the body we ſay not, let him be wounded more, for he is not yet healed. Fourthly, when he was Poſt pueritiam, paſt the age of childhood or of a little boy, or lad, many and great waves of temptation hung over him.**So in the ſame booke & chap▪ of his Confeſſions. And though in his child-hood or lad-ſhip, he loved not his learning, and hated to be urged to it, yet there was leſſe feare of him then then when he was a youth**In adoleſcentia. So in the 12. chap. of that firſt booke of his Confeſſions, Fifthly, After this, before his Baptiſme (which was about the 34. yeere of his age as we ſhewed afore) he ranne into blaſphemous errors, in ſo much as his mother would not admit him to her table, ſo he confeſſeth in his third booke of Confeſſions Chap. 11. And thus you ſee the life of Auguſtine, and the cauſes of the delay of his Baptiſme, ſure enough the delay of his and Conſtantines baptiſme was not from the cuſtome of the Churches as we have before prooved. From a non-fact, to a non-equity is no conſequence, though they were not Baptized young, yet they ought.

But Mr. T. Exercitat. §. 17.gives other inſtances for his particulars in his minor, of Theodoſius, Alipius, Adeodatus that were not baptized in their child-hood; and ſo Infants baptiſme was not Vniverſally practiſed in thoſe times.

1. Touching Alipius and Adeodatus we have anſwered afore.Animadver. That of Alipius is very doubtfull whether he were of Religious Parents; the contrary being more probable, by ſome paſſages out p. 187of Auguſtine we have there quoted. And it is doubtfull of Adeodatus whether he were baptized at 15. yeeres old as was alleadged. 2. Touching Theodoſius the Great (for that's the man I ſuppoſe Mr T. meanes) it is true that both Pezelius, and Socrates Scholaſticus doe tell us that he was baptized at mans eſtate, but they doe not make out that which is deficient in Mr T. his aſſertion, namely whether his Parents, or either of them were Chriſtians when he was an infant. It is true that they ſay he was formerly trayned up in Chriſtianitie. But by the ſtory it ſeemes to me, that Religion did not ſo ceaſe upon his ſpirit, or that he did ſo declare himſelfe againſt Arrianiſme and for the Orthodox Religion and faith till he fell ſick a little afore his baptiſme. For the naked ſtory in ſhort is this. His Collegues Valentinian the ſecond, his aſſiſtant in many batles, and Gratian (who was Partner with Theodoſius in a victory againſt the Barbarians) being dead, Theodoſius ſucceeded them in the Empire. By ſtock a Spaniard, his deſcent from Trajan; he had beene formerly trayned up in Chriſtianitie. After the aforeſaid battles, he fell ill, and lay ſore ſicke at Theſſalonica, in which time he deſired to be baptized. Sent for Anatolius alias Aſcholius the Biſhop of that Church; asked him whether it was lawfull for him to be baptized of an Hereticall Biſhop? The Biſhop anſwering that for his part he deteſted the opinion of Arius, that he imbraced the faith delivered by the Apoſtles, and ſet forth in the Nicen Creede by the Council of Nice, he was preſently baptized by him. Then wrote Theodoſius to the people of Constantinople, that he was addicted to the Orthodox Religion and exhorted them to conſtantly imbrace the Orthodox faith. Thus the ſtory. Now what inferences Mr T. can juſtly make hence for a conſult delay of Theodoſius his baptiſme, by his Chriſtian friends I know not. This hence onelyonly appeares to me, that ſeeing we cannot learne neither how good his Parents were at his baptiſme, though great, in his infancie (and who ſhall meddle with great mens children in point of Sacraments without their conſent?); nor how long or how much his education in Chriſtianity had beene in his youth (it being unlikely that forwardneſſe in Religion would forward them to be elected Emperours in thoſe generally troubleſome and Hetheniſh times) nor what leaſure he had ſeriouſly to thinke of Religion and worſhip in p. 188his young manhood, the Empire then being full of warres againſt the Gothes, Hunnes, and Alanes &c. That that was the onelyonly fit time to baptize him when he was baptized. Now his ſickneſſe made his ſoule well. Now he had leaſure to thinke of Religion for his owne ſoule; now he is hungry for baptiſme, now he regarded of what faith Miniſters were; now being Emperour and baptized, he declares himſelf in writing what he was in Religion, and in opinion.

Therefore for Mr T. to infer from the Contingency of Theodoſius his baptiſme at ripe yeare, to a Neceſſity that the Churches then thought, ſo baptiſme ought to be adminiſtred, is a conſequence which I never found in my Logick. And if This Theodoſius was about the yeere 401. after Chriſt as the Eccleſ. Chrono. at the end of Euſeb. tells us**Others put him higher. then all thoſe Godly learned Ancients before alleadged for infant baptiſme, from Juſtin Martyr to Auguſtin had declared their judgements to the world for the ſame, as the Tenet and Practiſe of the Churches in all age of the New Teſtament. And therefore Theodoſius, and the other few inſtances Mr T. hath given of adult baptiſme at ripe yeeres, were rather beſide, then according to the generall Tenet or Practiſe of the Churches anciently and downward: which doe no more infringe the generalily of the Tenet and Practiſe of Infant baptiſme, then the hills and vallyes doe the roundneſſe of the world's which by the Moone we can ſee keepes its exact rotundity. The Moone light of antiquitie can ſhew us that the generalitie of Infant baptiſme hath been all along ſo uniuerſally held and practiſed, that it ſwallowes up a ſmall handfull of inſtances of the other practiſe.

Mr T. his fourth particular of his Minor, Exercitat. Sect. 17.of his fifth argument againſt infant Baptiſme, is That together with it, went along the error of giving the Lords ſupper to Infants, as is manifeſt out of the booke of Cyprian de lapſis, and others.

In our anſwer to this:

1. Let us conſider the proof.

2. What connexion and inference it hath to make an Argument

1. For the proofe, And firſt for that Mr T. doth but intimate in the words, [and others.] It is true that in the eighth Sermon upon the Words of the Apoſtle [This a true ſaying and worthy of all acceptation, &c.] put among Auguſtines workes in the tenth Tome, are theſe Expreſſions, Infantes ſunt, &c. That is, They are Infants, but they are Christs Members: they are Infants, but they receive his Sacraments: p. 189they are Infants, but they are made partakers of his table that they may have life in themſelves. But**Cenſura patrum. Rob. Cooke, **Cenſ. tom. 10.Eraſmus, and they that put forth the Lovaine Edition,**In that Edition Auguſtine name is not praefixed. do doubt whether the 2.4. 6.8. Sermon with many more of them there on the ſaid words of the Apoſtles be Augustines or no. Secondly for that proof, Mr T, expreſſeth the firſt part of it is here, out of Cyprian de lapſis, quoted by Auguſt. in Epist. 33. the ſecond part is in his Examen, out of Auguſtine in his 1 book of merit, and remiſſion of ſin, chap. 20. on the words, Iohn 6.53. and Maldonat on Iohn 6. who confeſſeth 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 R. Church in the Council of Trent. Thus Mr T. Now we anſwer to theſe things in the Generall thus:

1. That here is produced onelyonly matter of fact, but no rule, ſo much as pretended out of any Scripture, Councell, or any Father for it, by thoſe that uſed it.

2. That this fact was for about 150 years, From Cyprian till Augustine, very rare; As before Cyprian, Helvie.from whom up to the laſt of the Apoſtles are neer 140 yeers, I finde no mention of it at all in the beſt antiquity.

And for this reaſon it was rarely uſed, becauſe the Ancients upon Scriptures ſwaying them, were all along ſo confident as we have heard that baptiſme alone, was as Ordinance fully ſufficient to aſſure them of the ſalvation of Infants, which cauſed the univerſality of practiſe of Infant-Baptiſme, all along in thoſe times. In particular. 1. To Cyprian we ſay, if this place be not interlined and corrupted, with patches by others inſerted, as thoſe books that are altogether accounted Cyprians are**So Revet. Perkins, Cooke. Poſſevin. and if in this ſilly ſtory of a phantiſied miracle, unworthy of learned pious Cyprian, ****The ſtory in a word is; That a mayden Infant being made by the Idol worſhippers to ſuck in a little of a bit of bread ſopped in wine, left by them that had there ſacrificed; ſhe being after brought by her mother to the communion, the Deacon forcing into the Infant ſome of the Sacramentall wine, ſhe preſently vomitted, &c. which is taken as a miracle to diſcover the ſinne, before unknown, of her partaking of the Idol-ſop. Popiſh Pamelius indeed huggs this ſtory to prove miracles ſince the Apoſtles, and tranſubſtantaition. But for Proteſtants, they maybe rather aſhamed of it, then own it.this wine were given to the child not as aliment, but as a Sacrament, why was not the Sacramentall bread given to it too? And if it could not ſucke downe a crumme of that bread, p. 190as it is ſaid, they gave it the idol-ſop, becauſe it could not ſuck upon the fleſh; how is it ſaid to receive the Lords Supper? For it is ſaid by the Apoſtle, The bread that we break is the Communion of the body of Chriſt. We leave this uncertain, and ſimple Teſtimony of Infant Commuuion, in Cyprians time. Let us come ſecondly to Auguſtine: letting paſſe his weakneſſe in too credulous quoting that weake paſſage in Cyprian, his raſh aſſerting that the child received the Lords Supper, and his in conſiderate application of it to warne perſons of ripe yeeres of unworthy communicating; whereas more fitly he might have inferred, that it ſhewed what a ſinfull humaine invention it was to force the wine of the Sacrament into an Infant: I ſay, letting paſſe theſe things in his 23. Ep. Let us conſider what is alleadged out of him, In his book of the merit and remiſſion of ſinnes, Chap. 20. upon occaſion of his alledging Iohn 6. To which we ſay. 1. That Auguſtiue doth not ſpeake of Infants receiving the Communion as the common Tenet of thoſe times. 2. He brings in ſome diſputing againſt him, that that place of Iohn 6.53. doth not belong to Infants. 3. When Auguſtne weakly endeavours to pull that text to reach to Infants, from the verb plural, unleſſe yes ſhall eat; and that it muſt belong to children too, or elſe to thoſe only whom Christ there ſpeakes, and not to us alſo in following ages &c. In the concluſion he ſayth only this; That fleſh which was given or the life of the world, was given for the life of, LITTLE ONES, and if they SHAL not eat the fleſh of the ſonne of man, nor SHAL they have life, ſpeaking in the future tence, or time. As for Maldonat that Popiſh Calumniator, I think it nor worth while to turne to him, if I had him; or to believe him if I read him. If Innocentius the 1. Biſhop of Rome ſo thought and ſayd, its wonder there were no letters, or Epiſtles between him and his Coeve friend Auguſtine, concerning this point too; And that Boniface ſucceeding Innocent, and was alſo in Auguſtines time, did not mind Auguſtine of it, nor Auguſtine alleadge Innocent to Boniface in his 23. Ep. to Boniface; Auguſtine touching upon this very point and alleadging Cyprian for it, in that Epiſtle. Howſoever if the 600. yeeres of that opinion and practiſe were thoſe next before the Council of Trent, th…n the opinion and practiſe was rare and privat in Cyprian and Auguſtines time, if the 600. yeeres muſt begin at Cyprian, yee a or at Auguſtine, and his Coeve p. 191Innocentius; how is it averred that the Council of Trent firſt rejected it? Sure it was a groſſe thing in the opinion of all Orthodox Churches, that the Council of Trent muſt reforme. Thus of Mr T. his proofe that the error of Infant cummunicating, went along with Infant-baptiſme. Now according to promiſe, a word of the connexion and inference to make it an argument,

1. We have proved Infant baptiſme to be no error, therefore it cannot beget an error in the Adminiſtration of the Holy Supper.

2. The adjunct or companion cannot neceſſarily argue the badneſſe of the ſubject or thing. The Sunne ſhineing, many men commit evil yet this doth not prove the badneſſe of the Sunne-ſhine.

3. The Sacraments are two things ſpecifically different, diſtanced by expreſſe rules, that only ſelfe examiners may Communicate; its not ſaid ſo of baptiſme; therefore they that give the Communion to Infants erre for want of eyes, not for want of light, diſtinguiſhing between Sacraments.

4. Many errours for many hundreds of yeeres clave to moſt ordinances, as to Preaching, Praying, Sacraments, Faſting, Thankſgivings, yet we leaving the error, doubt not of the Inſtitutions, and Adminiſtrations of thoſe ordinances according thereunto.

5. Mr T. thinks that Adult-baptiſme might be ſevered from (to uſe his own words**Exercitat. §. 17. p. 29. l. 13. The pernicious errors, and madd furies of FORMER Anabaptiſts: Therefore might infant baptiſme be ſevered from ſome errors that have accompanied it.

6. If the errors accompanying Infant-baptiſme have made it doubtfull to Mr T. So have the pernicious errors and madd furies of the Anabaptiſts in former ages which Mr T. hath confeſt made their baptiſme doubtfull to us.

Mr T. adds in his 17.Exercitat. §. 17. Sect of his Exercitation towards the cloſe of his 5. argument, That of old

1. Other inventions of men under the name of Apoſtolicall Tradition. Cauſed or attended Infant-Baptiſme, rather then any ſolid argument frō Scripture.

2. A wrong likeing of Judaiſme. Cauſed or attended Infant-Baptiſme, rather then any ſolid argument frō Scripture.

3. The uſing of it as a main Argument againſt the Pelagian Hereſie. Cauſed or attended Infant-Baptiſme, rather then any ſolid argument frō Scripture.

4. The meer authority of the Councills under Cyprian, the Councill of Milevis, Auguſtine, and Jerome. Cauſed or attended Infant-Baptiſme, rather then any ſolid argument frō Scripture.

p. 192To the

1. We ſhall anſwer in Mr T. his next Argument (in number the 6.) which is touching humane inventions.

2. We have anſwered already, indiſcuſſing of the aforeſayd antiquities.

3. We ſay now; that we have produced ſufficient proof afore out of approved antiquity; that the Tenet and practiſe of Infant baptiſme, was common in the Churches ſince the Apoſtles times, hundreds of years before Pelagianiſme was known in the world. See before all our 13. Chap. and Chap. 14. from the beginning thereof, to the end of the quotation of Ambroſe, p. 148.

4. We have anſwered afore. chap. 14.

Laſtly, Mr T. addes theſe words as the cloſe of his fifth Argument, and Section of his Exercit.Exercita…. §. 17. So in this laſt age (ſaith he) ſome moderne men ſeeme to imbrace this tenet of Infant baptiſme out of horror of minde, leaſt they ſhould goe headlong into the PERNICIOVS ERRORS of former Anabaptiſts, and their MADD FVRIES, or 2 leaſt they ſhould ſeem to deſert the leading men of the Reformed Churches, or 3 move troubles in the Churches; rather then from perſpicuous foundation in the Scriptures. Which they will think that I have not ſaid as one that dreames, who ſhall reade what Robert Lord Brooke hath in the end of his Treatiſe concerning Epiſcopacie, Daniel Rogers in his treatiſe of Baptiſme and others elſe-where.

We anſwer: to the 1 particular thus. That the modern men cannot be juſtly abhorred,Animadver. for their horror of mind, leaſt they ſhould by any Tenet fall headlong into pernicious errors and madd furies. And if Mr T. doth but approve his owne ſeventh Argument for a right rule viz. That which hath occaſioned many errors, that is deſervedly doubtfull whether it be right &c.] then it will follow uncontradicted by Mr T. That as he doubts of Infant Baptiſme, becauſe of errors that have followed it; ſo we doubt of adult p. 193baptiſme according to the Tenet and Practiſe of the Anabaptiſts, becauſe of the pernicious errors, and madd furies that have followed it.**We ſhall give inſtances anon in the due place, in anſwer to Mr. T. his 6 7.8.9. Argument in our 13. chap. To the ſecond particular we anſwer thus. That it is not ſo convenient ſuddenly to deſert the leading men of reformation, then in their debates before they have declared themſelves, and we meane while not ingaged neceſſarily to practiſe againſt our conſciences; and in ſuch points, as will no wayes ſtand in the line of any concord ſo much as negatively. The Church way or Independency (as they nick name it) differs from the intended Preſbytery (as we gueſſe) …n…ainly in point of Appeale, eſpecially in the manner of it; which may breed no diſtraction in caſe particular Churches walke ſo wiſely as not to neede appeales; as ſome diſcreet pariſhes did in the worſet times of Epiſcopall Courts. Reſts in a ſong whereby to ſing onelyonly when the concords will beare it, and reſt where not, till they Symphoniſe againe doe not marre, but grace the harmonie. But whether Anabaptiſme, or Catapaedobaptiſme, denying Baptiſme to believers infants, wherein the great part of a ſad diſtracted kingdome is intereſted, will for the preſent ſo well fagge, I leave to Mr T. to make out, which if he can, it ſhall not be a ſorrow to me. We are unwilling indeed, to admit thoſe beleivers to the Communion of the Lords Supper, that will not ſome how intimate to us that they yeelde to a relation of Paſtor and Flocke, betweene them and that Miniſter of whom they require that Ordinance, and to walke with us ſubmiſſively to all the Ordinances of Chriſt (till God provide better for them) that we may know how they live, as well as when they receive, and be willing alſo to receive Chriſtian admonition, where they live amiſſe. But for baptizing of beleivers Infants, ſeverall Churches of us doe hold, that we may Baptize them, though neither of thoſe Parents be of our particular Churches. Baptiſme, as we Conceive, being but an admiſſion into the univerſall viſible Church; As thoſe Baptized, Matthew the 3. The Centurion Act. 10. The Goaler Act. 16; were Baptized, neither in a particular Chriſtian Church, nor into ſuch a particular Church. To the third particular we anſwer. That it cannot but be a conſiderable thing to godly and wiſe men how they move troubles in the Church. And therefore in capi…ulating as I may ſay with p. 194point of Argument for reformation they thinke it not ſeaſonable to indeavoure for the inward Hold, till they can take the out-workes. Reformation from Adams fall, to the higheſt pitch in the old Teſtament, came on by degrees; ſo from Iohn Baptiſts time to the ende of the Apoſtles, in the New Teſtament. And ſo in every Kingdome ſince from the firſt ſitting downe of Religion there, to its grouth; or from the Lapſe thereof, to its Reſtitution. We cannot come to the ende but by meanes. And it cannot but be dangerous in an unwildy Kingdome to jumpe from the leſſer to the greateſt things of that we count Reformation at one leape. For my part, I ſhould deſire rather to ſuſpend mine owne intereſt then to be a co…djutor to further a generall dangerous diſtraction.

For that clauſe [that infant-baptiſme hath been held rather upon the ſaid three particulars, then upon any Perſpicuous ground of Scripture] we anſer; we have held it upon ſufficient grounds of Scripture (if our Animadverſions may be counted worthy to be one witneſſe). But if Mr T. meane by Perspicuous any thing more then ſufficient, we anſwer we conceive we have as Perſpicuous Scriptures for Infant-baptiſme as Mr T. hath for The Lords day, and for womens partaking of the Lords Supper.

To Maſter T. his allegation of the Lord Brookes, and Daniel Rogers, that Mr T. did not dreame. We ſay that it is poſſible two more, may dreame as well as Mr. T. we ſay two more; for to his [&c.] And others elſe-where, we can diſtinctly anſwere nothing, where nothing is alleadged. But for the two particularly named, giving their bookes all due reſpect.Robert Lord Brookes of Epiſcopacy. Sect. 2. chap. 7 p. 96. of 2. edit. 1. The bare recitall of the Lord Brookes words are a full anſwer, which are theſe.

I will not, I cannot, take on me to defend That men uſually call Anabaptiſme: Yet I conceive that Sect is Twofold: Some of them hold Free-will; Community of all things; deny Magiſtracy; and refuſe to Baptize their Children. Theſe truly are ſuch Hereticks (or Atheiſts,) that I queſtion whether any Divine ſhould honour them ſo much as to diſpute with them; much rather ſure ſhould Alexanders ſword determine here, as of olde at the Gordian knot, where it acquired this Motto, Q…ae ſoivere p. 195non poſſum, diſſecabo, What I cannot unty, I will cut aſunder.

There is another fort of them, who only deny Baptiſme to their Children, till they come to yeeres of diſcretion, and then they baptize them; but in other things they agree with the Church of England.

Truly, Theſe men are much to be pitied; And I could heartily wiſh, That before they be ſtigmatiz'd with that opprobrious brand of Schiſmatick, the Truth might be cleered to them. For I conceive, to thoſe that hold we may goe no farther than Scripture, for Doctrine or Diſcipline, it may be very eaſie to erre in this Point now in hand; ſince the Scripture ſeemes not to have cleerly determined This particular.

The Anaglogy which Baptiſme now hath with Circumciſion in the old Law, is a fine Rhetoricall Argument, to illuſtrate a Point well proved before; but I ſomewhat doubt, whether it be proofe enough, for that which ſome would prove by it: ſince (beſide the vaſt difference in the Ordinances,) the perſons to be Circumciſed are ſtated by a poſitive Law, ſo expreſſe, that it leaves no place for ſcruple: but it is farre otherwiſe in Baptiſme; Where all the deſignation of Perſons fit to be partakers, for ought I know, is only, Such as beleeve. For this is the qualification that, with exacteſt ſearch, I find the Scripture requires in perſons to be baptized: And This it ſeemes to require in All ſuch perſons. Now, how Infants can be properly ſaid to beleeve, I am not yet fully reſolved.

Yet many things prevaile very much with me in this point.

Firſt, For ought I could ever learne, It was the conſtant cuſtome of the pureſt and moſt Primitive Church, to baptize Infants of beleeving Parents; For I could never find the beginning and firſt Riſe of this practiſe: Whereas it is very eaſie to tracke Hereſies to their firſt Riſing up, and ſetting foot in the Church.

Againe, I find all Churches (even the moſt ſtrict) have generally beene of this judgement and practiſe: yea though p. 196there have beene in all ages ſome, that much affected novelty, and had parts enough to diſcuſſe and cleere what they thought good to preach; yet was this ſcarce ever queſtioned by men of Note, till within theſe Laſt Ages. And ſure, the conſtant judgement of the Churches of Chriſt, is much to be honoured, and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture.

Nor can I well cleere that of Saint Paul (1 Cor. 7.14.) Elſe were your Children Ʋncleane, but now are they Holy. I know ſome interpret it thus, If it be unlawfull for a beleever to live in wedlock with one that beleeveth not; Then have many of you lived a long time in unlawfull marriage; and ſo your very Children muſt be Illegitimate, and Theſe alſo muſt be caſt off (as Baſe borne:) But it is not ſo; for, Your Children are Holy; that is, Legitimate.

I confeſſe, This ſeemes a very faire Interpretation; yet I much queſtion, Whether This be all the Apoſtle meanes by that phraſe Holy; eſpecially when I reflect on the preceding words, The Vnbeleever is Sanctified by the beleever. Nor yet can I beleeve any Inherent Holineſſe is here meant; but rather That Relative Church-Holineſſe, which makes a man capable of admiſſion to Holy Ordinances, and ſo to Baptiſme.

Thus farre the Lord Brookes, where he is againſt Maſter Tombes touching the meaning of 1 Cor. 7.14. And touching Infant Baptiſme. But the queſtion is whether Maſter Tombes be not more then a Catapaedobaptiſt, namely an Anabaptiſt, for Rebaptizing; who ſo readeth the laſt page of his exercitation, will not thinke that I meerely dreame. For there he ſaith [Nor is the aſſuming of Baptiſme in ripe yeeres, by thoſe who were waſhed in Infancy, a renoucing of Baptiſme, as ſome in their groſſe ignorance conc…it.]

2. For Maſter Rogers (not daring to play the Aſtrologer, to tell what influence Epiſcopall wandring Starrs might have upon his Booke Printed in the yeere 1635. having beene once Printed afore; but eſteeming the man) I dare ſet downe his words alſo as a full anſwer to Maſter Tombes; his words are theſe.

The fourth and chiefe perſon, yea equall object of Baptiſme, p. 197is the party baptized.The fourth perſon, the infant. For not onelyonly the Church may and doth baptize her Infants: but alſo (adultos) grown ones alſo, if any ſuch being bred Pagans, and brought within the pale of the Church, ſhall teſtifie their competent underſtanding of the new covenant; and profeſſe their deſire to be ſealed with Baptiſme, for the ſtrengthning of their ſoule in the faith thereof: profeſſe it I ſay, not baſely and ſlightly, but with earneſtneſſe and entireneſſe; cutting off their haire and nailes, and abhorring their Paganiſme. But the truth is, the exerciſe of the Churches baptiſme is upon infants: Here the Anabaptiſts riſe up,A ſhort touch of the baptiſm of infants. pleading the corruption of ſuch baptiſme, and urging the firſt baptiſme of catechized ones and confeſſors of ſinne, and cravers of the ſeale, upon the worke of the Miniſtry foregoing in knowledge and faith, which can be incident only to adulti, or grown ones. They alledge that we ſeale to a blank, to no covenant, and therefore it's a nullity. Sundry learned men have undertaken to ſtop their ſchiſmatical mouths and to anſwer their peeviſh Arguments: my ſcope tends another way in this Treatiſe, ſo farre as my digreſſion may be veniall. I ſay this, for the ſettling of ſuch as are not wilfull, that I take the baptiſme of Infants to be one of the moſt reverend, generall, and uncontrouled traditions which the Church hath, and which I would no leſſe doubt of than the Creede to be Apoſtolicall. And although I confeſſe my ſelfe yet unconvinced by demonſtration of Scripture for it, yet.Reaſons for it.

Firſt, Sithence Circumciſion was applyed to the infant the 1eighth day in the Old T…ſtament.

Secondly, there is no word in the New Teſtament to infringe 2the liberty of the Church in it: nor ſpeciall reaſon why we ſhould bereave her of it.

Thirdly, ſundry Scriptures afford ſome friendly proofes by conſequence 3of i….

Fourthly, the holineſſe of the child, (externall and viſible) 4is from their parents who are (or ought to be) catechized, con…tors, p…niten…, and Proteſtants in trueth (which priviledge only open revolt diſables them from) therefore I ſay, The ſeed being holy and belonging to the Covenant, the Lord graciouſly admits them alſo to the ſeal of it in baptiſme.

p. 198Howbeit here a further quaerie ariſes. And becauſe the Sacrament of Baptiſme is here handled by us,Queſtion. How it is capable. 1 Pet. 3.21.1 Pet 3:21 not a halfe a Sacrament, (onelyonly including a waſhing of the fleſh) but an entire Sacrament, holding out and giving an inviſible grace by out-ward meanes: By what authority ſhall wee ſay, an Infant may be preſented to that, whereof it is not capable?

To that I anſwer: Anſwer. Firſt, it's not meete that Baptiſme being the Sacrament of new birth, which can be but once, ſhould deſtroy her owne Analogy, by frequent adminiſtering: therefore if but once, the moſt comprehenſive way, is to do it in the Infancy, when the outward admiſſion of a member is allowed to it.

Secondly, although the child be not capable of the grace of the Sacrament by that way, whereby the growne are, by hearing, conceiving, and beleeving: yet this followes not, that Infants are not capable of Sacramentall grace in and by another way. Pittifull are the ſhifts of them that have no other way to ſtoppe an Anabaptiſts mouth, ſave by an errour, that an Infant may have faith. It's eaſie to diſtinguiſh between the gift conveyed, and the manner of conveying it. For if the former be, the latter in ſuch caſe will prove needleſſe. But if the infant be truly ſuſceptive of the ſubſtance of Chriſt, none can deny it the Sacrament.

Now to underſtand this, marke, that Infants borne of beleeving parents, are of the number of thoſe that ſhall be ſaved (though dying in their Infancy) none of our reformed Churches will deny. It is enough therefore that ſuch before death doe partake the benefit of Election in Chriſt, together with the benefits of Chriſt in regeneration, adoption, redemption and glory; Now that the Spirit can apply theſe unto ſuch Infants, is not doubted of: Though the manner thereof to us be as a hidden and myſticall thing: yet ſo it is, the Spirit of Chriſt can as really unite the ſoul of an Infant to God, imprint upon it the true title of a ſonne and daughter by adoption, and the image of God by ſanctification without faith, as with it. Now, if the grace it ſelfe of Bap…ſme be thus given it, why not Baptiſme? Nay, I add further, I ſee no cauſe p. 199to deny, that even in, and at, and by the act of Baptiſme, (as the neceſſity of the weake infant may admit) the Spirit may imprint theſe upon the ſoule of the Infant.

Thus Maſter Rogers. Where, by his quotation of Scriptures and diſcuſſ… of arguments you may ſee what he meant by Apoſt…licall tradition.