A VINDICATION OF BAPTISING BELIEVERS INFANTS. IN SOME ANIMADVERSIONS Upon Mr. TOMBS His EXERCITATIONS About Infant Baptism; As also upon his EXAMEN, As touching the Antiquities and Authors by him alleged or contradicted that concern the same. Humbly submitted to the judgement of all Candid Christians, By NATHANAEL HOMES. And Jesus called a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Except men be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven, whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones, which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea, Matth. 18.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Published according to Order. London printed by M. Simmons, and are to be sold by Benjamin Allen at the sign of the Crown in Popes-head Alley. 1646. TO THE READER. DEdications of Books are to me a scruple. The truth of God is less mine, than a day, or a place, to dedicate to creatures, and more able to defend itself then any thing on earth. And Delarations in Epistles are in my opinion so curious a thing rightly to manage, as that there is more hazard of their miscarrying, then hope of doing good. Yet seeing importunity will not be satisfied without an Epistle, therefore thus: Hearing of Mr. Tombs his book against Infants-Baptisme, coming forth with such a mighty shout of acclamation, though of some fit to admire then to judge; this made me in haste to see it, if it might prove convincing upon my spirit. But finding upon a conscientious weighing, that it was not of strength to bereave the faithful sons of Abraham of their right, and hope to give the little ones of their tender bowels to the pledge of God, the first seal, annexed to the promise, I am the God of thee & thy seed, Acts 2. Gen. 17. The promise is to you and your children; But like a violent motion to be forced at first, and languid towards the end, I further considered it. And having upon occasion of the question among my brethren, then in order to be discussed, found that I could fairly answer Mr. T. his arguments with abundant satisfaction to myself and some others; but all that doubted could not at first hearing, feel the weight of every passage; I was partly occasioned hereby to give them my thoughts in print. And the rather that I might hear the judgements of the Saints, whether I had thought aright of the question? And if not, by friendly conference to clear up to me the mind of God in it. Mean while I could not but lament the untimely birth of Mr T. his Exercitation, and his unnecessary falling in travel with it, after at least six able brethren, and about so many days, by nervous disputation, had given him so much cause to doubt of his Tenet, or at least, a while to suspend it. For the question about Infants-baptisme is yet rather a controversy of private persons, then of Churches; these being most prudentially careful now rather about the right form of a particular Church; to which the administration of the first seal doth nothing contribute, at least in the first instant of its generation. Matth. 3. Acts 8. Acts 10. Acts 16. For many were baptised in the New Testament, whose baptism neither found them in, nor form them into any particular New-testament Church. The Scripture is either contrary to, or utterly silent concerning it. Josh. 5.4, etc. Even as the Israelites, while they were forty years in the wilderness, without the administration of Circumcision (all the circumcised saving a very few being dead) are called a Church, Acts 7.38. So that the supposed want of the due administration of the first Sign, doth not unchurch a Church, or prejudice the proper form thereof. But the insatisfactory calling of the Anabaptists-Administrators of their pretended better baptism, upon a former worseconceited-baptisme; being either not extraordinarily called; or not having the first Seal themselves; or being Sebaptists, that is, self-baptizers; or baptised with the old sort of Infant-baptisme: (in either of which they are most unlike to John THE BAPTIST) hath justly caused many to hold off from them, and many to fall away from them. And many that are with them, to be at a loss where to rest. One Congregation at first adding to their Infani-baptisme, the adult baptism of sprinkling: than not resting therein, endeavoured to add to that, a dipping, even to the breaking to pieces of their Congregation. Since that, the Minister first dipped himself. Not contented therewith, was after baptised by one, that had only his Infant-baptisme. Thus doth God's justice leave us to find nothing in an or dinance, when we put too much upon an ordinance; and from too much, to fall to nothing, but a crying out, All Ordinances, Ministeries, etc. are all polluted. So that as before they could not tell where to end, so now not where to begin to reform, and so out of that pretence turn As they were, in order, Nothing. Contrary to that unanswerable place, Ephes. 4. That Christ ascending, left a Ministry, or Ministeries; Ephes. 4.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. all or some; by succession, or new election, or extraordinary mission; still a constant supply of a Ministry; for the work of the Ministry, the perfecting of the Saints, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. I was thus forward, to put forth before others of my abler brethren, not out of selfconfidence (the Lord knows,) but, beside mine own private interest in my doubting friends, partly from advantage of time in knowing some of Mr. T. his arguments, and partly from the assault of them that gave me the first Alarm, I sent forth this scattered forlorn hope, scarce well rallied and arrayed to my mind, through haste, to set the movable popularity at a stand (if it might be;) keep the pass, and maintain the fight, till better help should come in. This (though less than I hoped, by reason of pressures of mine own business, and slowness of Presses) I have attained. And so I expect those worihy brethren, that have perhaps more time, and more parts, and reading, I am confident, than myself, to carry on the main Battalio, and to maintain their ground with those Brigades, wherein they are by name engaged. For it would have been disorder, if not presumption, and prejudice to the cause for me to have anticipated them. In that I have done, as I was hopeless to please all, so unwilling justly to displease any, saving in the very opinio in question. And therefore let no ingenuous reader take offence, either at the word Anabaptist (used only as the known term of distinction;) or at the much quotation of Fathers, and Antiquities in an historical way, being necessarily drawn thereunto by Mr. T. or at any quickness of expression, it being, if I know myself, rather the complexion of my stile, than any intention of sharpness. The Lord, I trust, hath now made me better to know and to make known a Gospel spirit, especially in print and preaching. If any notwithstanding that have read Mr. T. will not patiently read over those on the other part, they cannot be excused of partial injustice, and of unfaithfulness to themselves, and to the truth, in that they will not hear with both ears. Qui parte alterâ inauditâ aliquid statuerit licet aequum statuerit, haud aequus est. It's the law of England, he that without hearing either party passeth sentence, though he determine a just thing, yet he is not a just Judge. The Lord settle thee and me in the truth of the Lord Jesus, is the earnest prayer of thy faithful friend in the Lord, NATHANAEL HOMES. ERRATA. CAndid Reader, since the sheets came to my hands, as wrought off the Press, casting mine eye here and there, I espied these faults, page 104. CHAP. I. for CHAP. XII. Pag 110. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. P. 142. l. 31. Of Infants not in danger of death, for of Infants in danger of death. P. 150. l. 23. Sin, merit, for sins merit. P. 217. l. 9 design for desire. P. 202. l. penult. take for takes, line 28. thus to be blotted out; which makes me fear there may be more of the like nature, but (if so) have not time to find them out, and so am forced to leave it to thy charity as a Christian to correct, or candidly interpret the faults of human frailty, that can do nothing perfectly. ANIMADVERSIONS UPON Mr. TOMBS HIS EXERCITATION ABOUT INF ANT-BAPTIS ME. CHAP. I. THe present Tenent (saith Mr. Tombs) according to which Infant-Baptisme is practised, is, Exercitation. Section 1. that the Infants born of Believers are universally to be baptised. This Doctrine, and practise conformable, is doubtful to me, by these arguments. 1 That which hath no testimony of Scripture for it, is doubtful; but this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme hath no testimony of Scripture for it, ergo it is doubtful. 1 We put in caution; that we say not Infants, but Infants of believers may be baptised. 2 We retort, Animadvers. that institution against which there is no prohibition, is doubtfully laid aside. But there is no prohibition against the institution of giving the 1. sign, or seal to believers children, whilst children; ergo it is doubtfully laid aside; as the Anabaptists teach and do. The minor (saith he) is proved by examining the places that are brought for it, which are these. Gen. 17.7. etc. Act. 2.38, 39 Exercitat. Sect. 1. 1. Cor. 7.14. Mar. 10.14.16. Act. 16.15.32.1 Cor. 1.16. We answer, Animad. that the confirmation of our minor is proved by examining the Exercitators examinations of those Scriptures that are brought for the baptising of believers children, or infants. The argument from Gen. 17.7, Exercitat. Sect. 1. etc. hath so many shapes, that I may take up here that speech, With what knot shall I hold shape-changing-Proteus? We are sorry that Mr. Tombs should compare an endeavour fully to draw forth the marrow of a text of Scripture (which every where abounds with sense) to a poetical fable touching Proteus. Animadvers. If Mr. T. will justify that, we may with more boldship 1 say of Mr. T. himself, that had he been an Ulysses he might have constrained Proteus, or a Gordius, he might have knit a knot upon him (whosoever he be) that could not be untied. 2 That if the man for baptising believers infants be a shape-changing- Proteus, what then is the Anabaptist, touching the point in hand, and in his answers to the text now in question, to wit, Gen. 17? For sometimes he saith that this Covenant with Abraham is a fleshly Covenant; So Mr. B. S. P. etc. sometimes a temporal Covenant; sometimes a spiritual covenant; and if a spiritual, sometimes he saith it is a covenant of works: sometimes he confesseth it is a covenant of grace in part. But than one while he doubts whether seed here doth not only signify Christ? another while, if it doth signify more, whether it be not only a particular covenant to Abraham? To all which (seeing Mr. T. hath occasioned us to mention them) we desire to speak a little, before we come to Mr. Tombs his answers. The Apostle makes but two Covenants, Answ. 1 1. of works, and 2. of grace, and this of grace twofold in the administration, viz. Old and New. Hebr. Chap. 8. Chap. 9 where the Apostle makes it his business to set down all the main differences between the old and new Testament-administration of the covenant of grace: but never mentions this of the Anabaptists; that children of believers were to be signed with the 1. sign of the old, in the old Testament, and not with that of the New, in the new Testament. But to answer. 2 more particularly to the several reasons. Obj. 1. P. H. Whether not fleshly, because its a sign in the flesh. A. So is Baptism and holy Supper fleshly or carnal in the sign. The outward shell of an ordinance may be carnal; when the substance is spiritual. Hebr. 9.10. See v. 9 yea see in the Apostles exposition of the whole Ceremonial Law throughout the Epistle to Hebr. Ob. 2. Whether not a temporal covenant i. e. of temporal things. As, 1 Whether not of giving Canaan only, so Gen. 17. W. S. v. 8. Or, 2 Whether not of making Abraham a father of many nations. D. P. So Gen. 17. where it is mentioned three times, v. 4. v. 5. v. 6. compare Rom. 4.11. Heb. 6.14. A. You see in the Gospel that the body of the Covenant of grace is, God is our God in Christ. But the appendices of temporals if taken in the shell as, Seek first the kingdom of God, and all other things shall be added to you. Matth. 6.33. And all things shall work together for good to them that love him; to them that are called according to his purpose. Rom. 8.28. And I will not leave you nor forsake you. Hebr. 13.5. do not make two covenants, nor doth the latter make void the former. And as considered in the kernel they relate to heaven: blessed are ye that shall eat and drink in the kingdom of heaven. Luk. 22.32. Behold I and the children. Hebr. 2.13. If our earthly tabernacle: etc. 2 Cor. 5.1. and so fit to be joined as appendices to heaven. All our mammon made friends to us towards heaven. Luk. 16.9. So in the old Testament, Canaan and children. Considered in the shell. But in the meaning, Canaan signifies the Church militant, Jerusalem above, Gal. 4.26. And triumphant, If Jesus had given them rest. Hebr. 4.8. And children signify that among them Christ should come, Gen. 22. compare Gal. 3. And that many children signify he shall have many believers to his children, Rom. 4. And therefore hath faith in uncircumcision that he might be the father of the Gentiles that believe: Ibid. Rom. 4. and therefore these well suited with the Covenant of grace. Therefore to that Gen. 17. touching Abraham's posterity, the Lord speaks in that order. 1 To settle Abraham's faith and comfort with many privileges. 2 Descends from temporals in the shell, to spirituals in substance. 3 In order of nature. 1 Abraham must have children, than Christ, then comes the great part or basis of the Covenant, v. 3. In Christ I am thy God. It's usually in the Hebr. to name last, the main thing to be spoken of. 2 To that Rom. 4.11. it's plain to have many children is made a part of the covenant of grace; and the reason is showed, that he might be the father of all that believe, which is a spiritual thing. 3 To that Hebr. 6. its clear of an additional promise by oath made, Gen. 22. not of the main Covenant. 3 Whether not a covenant of works. As a manuscript would have it. Ans. No, so expressly, Rom. 4.11. Obj. He saith that there, Gen. 17. it is said, if they did break his covenant on their part, he would be no more their God, but curse them, v. 14. Ans. 1. The covenant of works they broke long afore in paradise, Rom. 5. Therefore was this covenant added. 2 He doth not cut them off for breaking the Covenant once taken, but if they did not enter into it, which was to break the command of entering into covenant. Ibid. Gen. 17.14. So in the Gospel, He that believeth not shall be dammed. Joh. 3. And except a man be born again of water and the spirit he shall not enter into the kingdom of God. ibid. Joh. 3. But grant, say some, it be a covenant of grace, yet, say they, the question is, 1 whether by seed is not meant Christ. As the Apostle expounds, Gal. 3.16. Answ. That in Gal. 3.16. relates to Gen. 22.11. of God's oath to Abraham; not of the form, or sign, or administration of the Covenant. Gen. 17. For in Gen. 17. is no such expression. But Gen. 22.18. it is expressed according to this of the Apostle. Obj. It is said, Gen. 17.19.21. My covenant will I establish with Isaac, that is, with Christ, for an everlalting covenant. Ans. Where it is said, that with Isaac, that is, Christ, the covenant shall be established; the holy Ghost speaks of the efficacy of the covenant, showing wherein and whereby the covenant shall be effectual; namely, by faith in Christ. But where it is said, Gen. 17.7.9. I am the God of thee and thy seed, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, to circumcise all the males of thy house, it is spoken of the outward administration of the sign of the covenant. So that in the same chap. where the holy Ghost intimates the efficacy of the covenant to be only with Isaac in Christ; yet doth he command the outward administration of the sign to all the males in Abraham's house, yea to Isinael, though to him the covenant should not be established, as it is expressed, v. 18, 19, 23, 21, 22. ☞ The want of the observing this distinction between the efficacy of the covenant, and the form and outward administration of the sign of the covenant is that which hath bred much of the dispute between the Anabaptists and us. I wish therefore it may be weighed, for the Scripture is very clear in it to me touching every ordinance. Concerning the word, the administration is, Go preach to every creature, Mark 16. But of the efficacy it is said, Heb. 4.2. The word profits not without faith. The form of baptism is, Baptise in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Matth. 28.19. But of the efficacy we have other expressions, Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. viz. Baptised into Christ, baptised into his death, buried with him, planted into his death. And Mat. 3. baptised with the holy Ghost, and with fire. So the form of administration of the Lords Supper is, Take, eat, this is my body which was given and broken for you, do this in remembrance of me. Mat. 26.26. Luk. 22.19.1. Cor. 11.14. But of the efficacy it is said in other words, The bread that we break is the communion of the body of Christ. 1 Cor. 10.16. And ye show the Lords death till ye come. ibid. And ye are all one bread, 1 Cor. 10.17. Suitably we have it in Scripture, that many partake of the outward administration, that partake not of the efficacy. Judas partook of the administration of the word, and the passover: Simon Magus and Ananias of baptism, Ishmael of circumcision, and some intimated to partake of the outward administration of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. all which might not partake of the efficacy. So that for the inward efficacy, we must leave that as a secret to Goa, to work it upon us, and in us, when, and how, and how much he pleaseth, whether we are baptised whiles infants, or when ripe of years; whether we hear the word as men, or children; and so in the rest of the ordinances; But for the outward administration and participation, we must keep close to the express institution, not straightening or widning it, but to take it up as God lays it down. They Matth. 3. come to John's baptism; and are baptised according to the institution, v. 6. with water. But after they were baptised, he tells them that Christ must baptise them with the holy Ghost, the spiritual fire. v. 11. Obj. If a covenant of grace, whether it was not a particular covenant to Abraham; and not to be extended further; because it is clothed with many circumstances which will suit only with Abraham, and fit him only. Answ. This covenant was made with Abraham as a father, and expressly extended to his seed. And as he believing, the covenant runs to him and his natural seed, whiles infants, I am the God of thee & thy seed. Gen. 17: so other Gentiles believing, being Abrabams' seed, (as the Apostle expounds the intent and meaning of the covenant, Rom. 4. Gal. 3.) the Covenant runs, to them and their natural seed while infants. CHAP. II. NOw we return to Mr. T. his Exercit. where we left. But in the issue (saith Mr. T.) the argument from Gen. 17. 7, etc. falls into one of these forms. The first thus. To whom the Gospel covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel covenant agrees also. But to the infants of believers the Gospel covenant agrees; therefore to them the sign of the Gospel covenant agrees, and consequently Baptism. 2 Form of argument from Gen. Exercit. Sect. 2. 17.7 etc. is thus (saith Mr. T.) to whom circumcision did agree, to them baptism doth agree; But to infant's circumcision did agree; therefore also baptism. 3 Form (saith he) is thus. Exercit. Sect. 3. If baptism be not granted to the infants of believers, than the grace of God will be more restrained in the new Testament then in the old. But this is not to be affirmed; therefore baptism is to be granted to infants of believers. These are all the forms of argument from Gen. Animadvers. 17.7, etc. as Mr. T. reports: but he reports not all the forms; nor the all of those forms he reports. For with great injury to these three arguments, some material thing is left out of every one of them by Mr. T. as we shall plainly declare when we come to animadvert upon his answers to them. Mean while let us tell the Reader that there are other forms of argument drawn from Gen. 17.7, etc. and long since in print; See Mr. Ainsworths' Answer to the Anabaptists. and those to our apprehension very considerable; and to be put in the first place in this dispute, according, to order of method, if not of nature too. Therefore let the Reader that ingenuously reads to know, and not to quarrel that he may not know, patiently give us leave to set them down, and briefly urge the vigour of them; and then we will lay aside all to give him those short notes we have to Mr. T. his Exercitation. Our first form of argument from Gen. 17.7. etc. is this; urged by Mr. Ainsw. in his book against the Anabaptists. Where there is a command for a thing, never remanded or contramanded, there the thing is still in force. But there is a command for signeing the Infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of grace, Gen. 17.7.9. never yet remanded, or contramanded: therefore the signing Believers children with the sign of the Covenant of grace, (namely Baptism now) is still in force. So he. For the confirmation of the Minor. If any where there is any Institution of baptising, only men of ripe years then in Matth. 28. But not there, as we shall see more after: mean while the Argument hence against baptising of Believers Infants lies not 1 In the order of words, for the order is inverted and contrary, Mar. 1.4. 2 Not in the affirmativenesse, one affirmative without a determinating word expressed doth not take off another affirmative. 3 The universal term cannot note the subject of Baptism, viz. All Nations. For then all are to be baptised. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would answer in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, observe that Nations here mentioned well answer to Nations, Gen. 17. explained, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. That as Infants of believing Abraham were to be circumcised, so the Infants of believing Gentiles to be baptised. 4 Not the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if that must needs signify make Disciples. For, 1 Its unlikely that so great a controversy as the Anabap: make of the Subject of Baptism, should have no clearer an Institution, than a Gr. criticism, of taking one sense of a word that is taken divers ways. For Significat & docere in Mat. 28. Legh. Crit. S. Novar. in Mat. 28.20, Aliquando est verbum transit, pro docere, ut Mat. 28. Whitak. Descript. The great Arias renders it only Docete, teach. So the renowned Vatablus, so the Syr● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Arab. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So many others which for brevity we omit. 2 As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in v. 19 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. therefore most likely in v. 19 it signifies only a general teaching. And so the great Critic & learned men in Gr. tongue. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to teach them that are strangers to Doctrine, that they may become Disciples, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach them that are Disciples. So that here in v. 19 is not meant an exact complete platform of Christ's commission to the Apostles: For here is no mention of the holy Supper, but only the naming of the two more usual things, viz. teaching and baptising, and not the matter of subject of the administration of Baptism. 3 The holy Ghost renders this text, Mar. 16.15. by plain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, preach the Gospel. 4 If the Greek word should be taken in that peculiar sense, than the sentence would run thus: therefore make all Nations disciples, which for these 1600 years was never done in any nation. 5 Nor can the gender in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answering to the neuter gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify that the children of believers ought not to be baptised. For if we stick so precisely to the gender, than women are not to be baptised. If we keep to the gender, as to relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than the children of believers are called disciples, Act. 15. 10. They upon whose necks the false teachers would put the yoke of circumcision are called disciples. But the yoke of circumcision was put upon children as well as men; and according to their institution upon children of eight days old. Gen. 17.12. and so to continue unless in some great impediment, as in the wilderness. And therefore out of doubt those false teachers that urged here that the grown disciples should be circumcised, urged that their children should be circumcised also. Therefore children are called disciples. For which two Reasons. 1 The children are reckoned with the parents in all ordinances communicable to both, by warrant of Scripture. As till the Jews were broken off, Rom. 11. Till the vineyard was let out, Luke 20. Circumcision went along with the parents to children; when parents lost it, the children lost it. When Ishmael was cast out of the Church, his posterity was not circumcised, that we read of. By the same proportion baptism goes along from parents to children. 2 There is a double preaching, and a double Sacrament. A preaching to the heart, and to the ear: An innitiating and a corroborating Sacrament. God can preach to the heart when not to the ear. He a Spirit can preach to a spirit without sentences, and so to children. This preaching is most suitable to infants, because thus man is altogether passive: so the innitiating Sacrament is fit for infants, because in that they can be but passive. The soul of an infant is out of the body all one with an Angel. And therefore one defines a soul, An Angel in a body. If the body cannot act, yet God can act without the body. As we see great revelations, visions, etc. were given when the body was asleep and unuseful. See the patriarchs, etc. And Paul saw a most glorious vision, when he had no use of his body, 2 Cor. 12. To make the inward work of grace to depend on the body, is like the Pelagians and Arminians, yea worse to make a work depend not only on reason, but on sense. 2 Form of Argum. from Gen. 17. is this, to whom the Covenant in force, runs in the same tenor in the New Testament as in the Old, to them the application of the first sign, or Seal of the New Testament may be applied as well, as the first of the Old Testament. But this Tenor of the Covenant of grace still in force, is as true and doth as truly run to a believing Gentile, I am thy God, and the God of thy seed, as it did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Ergo, the first Seal of the Covenant may be applied to Believers children, now in the New Testament, as well as in the Old Testament to Abraham's. The Major is plain, because in Gen. 17. the tenor of the Covenant, and the application of the first Seal, are knit into a dependence one upon another. I am the God of thee and thy seed, see v. 7, 8. Therefore thou shalt circumcise every male, v. 9 etc. The Minor is unquestioned of any that I know. 3 Form of Argum. from Gen. 17. Where there is the same reason of a Precept, there may be the same practice. But the Promise which is the reason of the Precept runs in the New Testament (as flowing from Gen. 17.) to Believers, and their children. The Promise is to you and your children. Act. 2.39. Ergo. That this of Act. 2. flows from Gen. 17. Observe these particulars. 1 A Promise recited musts needs relate to a former engagement, and to them to whom he speaks, viz. Jews. 2 And the or that promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 musts needs relate to some eminent Promise; as that to Abraham was. 3 Some passages have an intimation of the Covenant with Abraham, viz. 1 It is in relation to the Covenant of grace, now to be sealed with the first Seal; Ergo, to that with Abraham, Gen. 17. 2 It answers in words. It is to you and your children, all one with you and your seed. And mentions calling, as God calling Abraham, accepted his seed, etc. Ergo, Infer, that the same reason on which the administration of Circumcision was grounded, the administration of Baptism was grounded. So that the Apostle doth not only show how Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision; but that it comes in the room and is administered upon the same ground; Ergo to the same matter or subject. For children now as well as Gen. 17. are alike capable of that ground. So the children here are made free of God's City, the universal Church, by the Father's Copy, whether the Father be present, as the Jew, to whom the Apostle spoke, or fare off, either jew, whether unregenerate, and fare off in time, or scattered, and so fare off in place, or Gertile, that is fare off in both, if any of these are called, the Promise is to them, and their children. If any Gentile believe, he is a child of Abraham, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. and so the promise, and first Seal are to him, and his children; as the Promise and Circumcision were to Isaac and his children. And therefore when Zacheus is converted, presently it is said, Salvation is come to his house, for as much as be also is the son of Abraham, Luk. 19.9. Quest. But is not the Promise here meant of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy-Ghost, as to speak with tongues, do Miracles, etc. Ans. 1. How then doth this suit with the Promise to Abraham, to which this Text relates, as we proved afore? 2 The Apostle applies the Promise here meant to his hearers now present, for their salvation whiles they cried out in their unregenerate estate, what shall we do? 3 All did not receive these extraordinary gifts. But all that are baptised into Christ, must receive the saving gifts of the Holy-Ghost, Matth. 3. Therefore this Promise is to be extended beyond the gifts of Miracles, or other extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, etc. For as all agree that, these were but the Firstfruits of the effusion of the Spirit, in that visible manner; to signify the abundant effusion of the saving gifts of the Spirit, in an invisible manner, in future ages. So that this must be a a Promise to all Believers, and so to their children or seed indefinitely, that they shall receive the Holy-Ghost. Quest. But are not these words [as many as the Lord shall call] an explication of Children; so that the Promise is to their children with this condition, if they shall be called? Ans. No. For first, If so; then the Apostle needed not to say to you and your children; but only to have said the Promise is to you, and to all the Lord shall call. But this Promise is applied to them the Parents afore their calling, that it is to them as they are children according to birth, of Abraham, a Believer, to the end to call them; and so to be continued to them when called, and their children; and than it follows; And to all that are a fare off, when they shall be called, and so to their children (so it must be supplied) so that Calling is an explication of the sentence to them that are a fare off. 2 The Apostle speaks to the Jews to the end to better, rather than to worse their condition. But their children by virtue of the outward privilege and Tenor of the Covenant, to and with them the parents, had the sign of Circumcision; therefore (by the Apostles intent) their children should also have Baptism. If this had not been the Apostle meaning, he had left these Jews children, and all their Infant-posterity in no better condition, than the most barbarous Heathens then in the world; and this had spoilt these Jews comfort, and crossed the Apostles design, to draw them to Conversion, and the new Sacrament of Baptism, for confirmation of that Conversion. Now we go on with the place in Gen. 17. Namely, 3 Observe that this Covenant is called everlasting, which cannot be truly, and properly so said of this, and other Ceremonies, but as relating to Christ. Therefore, if the Covenant be everlasting to them and their seed, indefinitely (as Election is propounded in the Scripture to us) than the sealing of it outwardly to both them and their seed, must be everlasting to the world's end; and to all eternity inwardly to whom it is effectual. And therefore as in the Old-Testament it was sealed by Circumcision, so in the New-Testament by Baptism. Now we come to animadvert upon Mr. Tombs his forms of Argument from Gen. 17. as reported by him. 1 Argument saith Mr. Tombs, Exercitat. Sect. 1. (or at least the 1. form of Argument.) To whom the Gospel-Covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-Covenant agrees also. But to the Infants of Believers the Gospel-Covenant agrees; therefore to them the sign of the Gospel-Covenant agrees. And consequently Baptism. The minor is proved, Gen. 17.7. Thus Mr. Tombs lays down the Argument. But we ourselves should more cautiously form it thus. Examinat. To whom the Gospel-Covenant agrees, to them the sign of conveyance of the Gospel-Covenant agrees, etc. For the Institution in this 17. of Gen. doth not extend to any sign as to the corroborating, or confirming sign or Sacrament, viz. the Passeover. Nor is it our intention to extend it so fare, as if we would wind in that Believers Infants might receive the confirming corroborating sign of the Holy-Supper, as Mr. Tomles his forming the Argument would seem to reach. The difference is too wide between some sign and all signs, for us to conclude that if some sign is due to them to whom is the Covenant, that therefore all signs in the New-Testament are due; and so to departed from the design of the Text in hand. But Mr. Tombs not satisfied with the argument as laid down by himself, Exercitat. p. 3. makes divers exceptions against it, although he confesseth, that the Gospel-covenant was the same in all ages in respect of the thing promised, and the condition of the covenant, which we may call (saith he) the sul●stantiall, and essential part of the covenant, to wit, Christ, faith, sanctification, remission of sins, eternal life. Animadv. So he. and consequently (say we) he confesseth that this Covenant, Gen. 17. is a Gospel-one in the substance, and essence. The exceptions Mr. Tombs makes are four. That it is not (saith Mr. T.) apure Gospel-covenant, 1 Except. Exercitation. Sect. 1. p. 2. but mixed. For (saith he) the covenant takes its denomination from the promises: but the promises are mixed, some Evangelicall, belonging to those, to whom the Gospel belongs, some are domestic, or civil promises, specially respecting the house of Abraham, and polity of Israel ergo. So he. Answ. Denomination is (as Mr. T. well knows) a part potiori from that which is principal in a thing. And who will not yield that the promises that concern grace and salvation are the principal. Where doth the Scripture call it a mixed covenant? yea doth not the Scripture in the New Testament frequently hold it forth as a pure covenant of grace, as pure as any we have. Rom. 4. v. 2, 3. called a covenant of justification, v. 4. A covenant of grace, v. 11. A covenant of faith, v. 13. Of the righteousness of faith. And opposeth it not to temporal promises, of domestic, or politic, or civil things, but to works, v. 2. v. 4. v. 6. To the law of works, v. 14, 15. Just so, Gal. 3. it's called a covenant of righteousness by faith, v. 6. of justification through faith, v. 8. opposed not to civil promises, but to the law of works, ver. 10, 11, 12. And I say this covenant with Abraham, notwithstanding any civil promises of temporal things, was as pure a covenant of grace as any we have in the New Testament. For where God repeats that in Isaac all the earth should be blessed, that is, in Christ, namely, Rom. 8.32. is there not a conjunction of a promise of temporal things? If he spared not his own Son, how shall be not with him freely give us all things? So 1 Cor. 3.22, 23. Whether Paul, or Apolle, or Cephas, or the world, etc. all are yours, because ye are Chrisis. So Christ himself, Matth. 19.29. Every one that hath forsaken houses, etc. shall receive an hundred fold, and inherit everlasting life. And for this cause, Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. when God repeats that which M. T. calls a domestic or civil promise, viz. the multiplying Abraham's seed, this the Lord refers to the covenant of grace. Rom. 4.11. compare v. 17. and makes it the appurtnance of the grand promise. Ibid. v. 13.16, 17. For appurtenances do not alter the tenure or substance of the hold of a Manor. Amplification 1. Mr. T. to clear this his 1. exception, doth thus amplify, saith he, that was Evangelicall, Gen. 17.5. Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. I have made thee a father of many nations. And that Gen. 15.5. so shall thy seed be, viz. as the stars. Compare (saith he) Rom. 4.17, 18. which places (say we) express only this, That he should be the father of many nations through the power of God, according to that promise, so shall thy seed be. And saith Mr. T. a little after, this is domestic and civil; namely, the multiplying of the seed of Abraham. Ans. Now where is expressed any plain substantial difference between these two expressions, Animad. and whereby are we guided as by a sure thread, to call this or that expression civil, or evangelical, I am not satisfied. 2 He adds further, that the promises of deliverance out of Egypt, Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. Animadvers. Gen. 15. and the possession of Canaan, Gen. 17. were civil. Ans. Seeing the holy Ghost makes these temporal things by divine institution significative of spiritual things. Deliverance out of Egypt, Mat. 2. and in the Preface to the first Commandment, Canaan, Hebr. 4. I see not how (especially being mentioned in relation to the covenant of grace) these are more civil than Sinai and Jerusalem, Gal. 4.24, 25, 26. or bread and wine in the holy Supper. 3 Mr. T. doubt in this amplification upon the first exception, Exercit. Sect.. 1. p. 2. whether this covenant made with Abraham may be called simply Evangelicall, and so pertain to believers as believers, seeing that those promises which were evangelical, according to the more inward sense of the holy Ghost, do point at the privileges of Abraham's house, in the outward face of the word. Answ. Animadvers. We see the Apostle, mentioning those expressions of fatherhood of many nations; of the land of Canaan, etc. doth apply this covenant as purely evangelical to believers as believers. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Hebr. 4. Of which afore. And I see no more cause to doubt of this to belong to believers as such, then of that promise, Gen. 3. to belong to believers, The seed of the woman shall break the serpent's head: that is, we shall conquer Satan through Christ; though this were in the face of the words an advancement of the privilege of Eves family, Iosh. 1.5. or generation. That promise in the outward face of words did point at the privilege of Joshnahs' house; that God would not leave him nor forsake him, viz. in his war with the Canaanites, yet this the Apostle applies to believers as believers, Hebr. 13.5. 4 Mr. T. annexeth this reason to his doubt. Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 3. There were, saith he, annexed to the covenant on mount Sinai sacrifices pointing at the sacrifice of Christ, and yet we call not that Covenant simply evangelical; but in some respect. Answ. Animadvers. If any do not (if their fact weigh any thing in a dispute) sure it is not because of the Gospel types, for so Gospel sacramental types would detract from their absolute Gospel notion; but in regard of the legal terrible manner of delivering the ten Commandments; which severed from the atonement of the Ceremonial Law, were in a manner turned by the Jews into a covenant of works. Therefore the Apostle saith, as it were, Rom. 9.32. Moses mosissimus (saith Luther) killeth. But Moses Aaronicus saveth. The ten Commandments looked truly upon, under a right notion, as added to the Ceremonial Law, Moses joined with Aaron are as absolutely evangelical; as obediential love added to faith in the New Testament. Cameron Thes. 66.67. And therefore it is only in regard of some modal differences that Cameron calls the covenant at Sinai the covenant subservient to the covenant of grace; but not in the sulstance in which it agrees with the covenant of grace in as many particulars, as Cameron brancheth them out; as in showing sin, leading to Christ, restraining from sin; pledging in and by a Mediator, promising life, etc. yea there are (as Diodat is one) that doubt not to call the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai a covenant of mere grace. Diodat. pref. to Exod. Exercit. p. 3. 2 Exception Mr. Tombs makes is; That the seed of Abraham is many ways so called. 1 Christ is called the seed of Abraham, by way of excellency. Gal. 3.16.2 All the clect, Rom. 9.7. All believers, Rom. 5.11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18. that is, the spiritual seed. 3 There was a natural seed to whom the inheritance did accrue, viz. Isaac, Gen. 21.12.4 A natural seed, whether lawful, as the sons of Keturah; or base, as Ishmael, to whom the inheritance belonged not. Gen. 15.5. But no where do I find that the infants of believers of the Gentiles are called Abraham's seed. Of the three former kinds of Abraham's seed the promise recited, is meant; but in a different manner thus. That God promiseth he will be a God to Christ, imparting in him blessing to all Nations of the earth; to the spiritual seed of Abraham in evangelical benefits; to the natural seed inheriting in domestic and politic benefits. Ans. Sure the holy Lord in a Covenant would not be thought to equivocate, and be uncertain in his meaning. Animadvers. Though God appoints the outward administration of the covenant to Abraham the believer his seed indefinitely, Gen. 17. yet he gives the efficacy of the covenant but to some; viz. that shall be the seed by faith, Rom. 4. Yet we must follow the administration according to express institution, Gen. 17. To whom is derived the covenant effectually, to them are derived the promises of blessing in every manner recited by the Exercitator (subordinate things are not contrary) or in no manner per modum aut vim faederis, under the notion of a covenant. Unregenerate men have a right to temporal things, by an humane right, and higher, by a divine right of common providence, either as dwelling with, or receiving them from those in real covenant with God; but not by virtue of any covenant between them and God. And for that great quaere made by Mr. T. whether the children of believing Gentiles are called Abraham's seed? Exercitat. p. 3. which is the main thing to the question in hand. Ans. They are, Anius advers. by the distinction and quotation of the Exercitator himself, by stronger consequence then by which the Exercitator proceeds in most things he allegeth. For first, he saith that the natural seed of Abraham, as Isaac, etc. are called his seed. Secondly, that all believers are Abraham's seed, quoting Rom. 4. We infer then, that the natural seed of believing Gentiles are as well the seed of Abraham, as the natural seed of Isaac were; though Esau were Esau. If a Gentile believer be the seed of Abraham, Rom. 4.11. Gal. 3.8. than the children of the Gentile believer must needs be reckoned for the seed of Abraham; being the promise runs as truly in the New Testament, The promise is to you and your children. Act. 2. or I am the God of thee Gentile believer and of thy seed, as in the old Testament to Abraham, I am the God of thee Jewish Abraham, and of thy seed. 3. Except. Exercit. p. 3. That there is not (saith Mr. T.) the same reason of circumcision of Baptism in signing the Gospel-covenant. The promise of the Gospel (saith he) or the Gospel-covenant was the same in all ages in respect of the thing promised, and condition of the covenant, 1. Mr. Tombs his concession. which we may call the substantial and essential part of the covenant, to wit, Christ, faith, sanctification, remission of sins, eternal life; yet this evangelical covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified, and various sanctions by which it was confirmed. To Adam the promise was made under the name of the seed of the woman, 2. The distinction of divers forms. bruising the serpent's head; To Enoch and Noah in other forms; otherwise to Abraham under the name of his seed, in whom all nations should be blessed. Otherwise to Moses, under the obscure shadows of the Law; otherwise to David, under the name of a successor in the kingdom; otherwise in the new Testament in plain words, 2 Cor. 3.6. Hebr. 8.10. It had likewise divers sanctions. 3. The variety of sanctions. The promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of circumcision; and by the birth of Isaac. To Moses by the Paschal lamb, and sprinkling of blood on the book, the rain of Mannah, and other signs; To David by an oath. In the New Testament by Christ's blood. 1 Cor. 11.25. Therefore circumcision signified, 4. The conclusion. and confirmed the promise of the Gospel according to the form and sanction of the covenant with Abraham. Baptism signifies and confirms the same promise according to the form, sanction, and accomplishment of the New Testament. Now these forms and sanctions differ many ways; 5. The illustration of the conclusion. as much as concerns our present purpose in these; 1 Circumcision confirmed not only Evangelicall promises, 1. Partic. but also political. And if we may believe Mr. Cameron in his Theses of the threefold covenant of God, Thes. 78. Circumcision did primarily separate the seed of Abraham from other nations, se●led unto them the earthly promise; Secondarily it did sa●nifie sanctification. But Baptism (saith Mr. T.) signifies only Evangelicall benefits. 2 Circumcision did confir the promise concerning Christ, 2 Partic. to come out of Isaac; Baptism assures Christ to be come already; to have been dead, and to have risen again. 3 Circumcision belonged to the Church constituted in the house of Abraham; 3 Partic. Baptism to the Church gathered out of all Nations. Whence I gather (saith Mr. T.) that there is not the same reason of circumcision, and baptism, in signing the Evangelicall Covenant. Nor may there be drawn an argument from the administration of the one, to the like manner of administering the other. Answ. 1. From the concession in the third exception; Animadv. That the Gospel-covenant was the same in all ages, in respect of the thing promised, to wit, Christ, remission of sins, sanctification, eternal life; And the condition of the Covenant, namely, faith; We infer, that Mr. Tombs grants, 1. that God's covenant with Abraham signed with circumcision was a Gospel-covenant. 2 That faith was the condition. And yet it was administered to children; and to some that had no faith, either seminal, habitual, or actual, neither at the time, nor after the time of their circumcision, namely, to Ishmael. Therefore infancy, or want of actual faith, or possibility of never having any true grace, are not sufficient hindrances of administration of the sign of the Gospel-covenant. But as God knowing all those things did yet command the outward administration, and signing of the Gospel-covenant with the first Sacrament in the old Testament, upon that ground that God was the God of the father of those children; So thus far by Mr. T. his grant we may likewise sign the Gospel-covenant in the New Testament. 2 To the distinction of the divers forms in which the things of the Gospel covenant were signified, etc. We answer. What essential difference of form is there between the expression to Eve under the name of the seed of the woman; and that to Abraham in the name of his seed; or that between bruising the serpent's head, and blessing men in their deliverance from the serpent? And whether was not the covenant as well confirmed in shadows to David (who by divine direction set up very many in God's worship) as to Moses? And whether the Covenant was not confirmed to Moses under the notion of a successor to him, to wit, Christ in the government of directing and preseribing in the name of the Lord. Deut. 18.18. Act. 3.21, 22. And of rule, namely, Joshua called Jesus the type of our deliverance by the Lord Jesus. Hebr. 4. to succeed him. Deut. 31. Or doth the types of the covenant, and the plain meaning, Heb. 8.10. make several considerable forms of a covenant? Then sacramental signs or seals, and the meaning of them; should make several forms of the most Gospel-covenant in the New Testament. 3 To the variety of sanctions we say, that they are not so distinct as that they are not common to the persons mentioned. The covenant was as well confirmed to Moses, as to Abraham by circumcision; to David by both circumcision and the paschal lamb as to the other. And as well to us in the New Testament by oath as to Abraham. Hebr. 6. Hebr. 7. 4 To the conclusion Mr. T. makes; * Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 4. that therefore circumcision signified and confirmed the covenant to Abraham, etc. We answer. That we can by no means be satisfied by this inference from the premises how any thing is inferred by way of determination of the subject of Baptism; as to show why children of believers should be circumcised, yet not now baptised. But you will say, it lies in the illustration. Therefore. 5 To the illustration of the conclusion, we answer. To the 1. partic. thus. 1. That Baptism doth as well confirm civil promises and benefits as Evangelicall, as did circumcision. Rom. 6. Baptism signs o●scals Christ according to the promise, To us a Son is given. And God giving Christ, with him (mark, with him) freely gives us all things. Rom. 8.32. which is further explained of deliverance from temporal dangers, so that they shall not hurt us, if hit us, v. 35. to the end. And 1 Cor. 3. two last. We have all outward things, the world, etc. because Christ is ours. 2 That circumcision did confirm civil promises, under a spiritual notion, for a spiritual use, that is, to signify spiritual things, as we shown afore; even as baptised one's are to look upon all temporal things, under spiritual considerations. Make you friends (that is, to further you towards heaven) of the unrighteous mammon. And all outward things are the addition to seeking and obtaining the kingdom of heaven, and the righteousness of him, that is Christ, the King of that kingdom. And so this difference is of no bulk to carry any breadth with it. To the instance of Cameron we answer; that when I seriously read the whole Thesis, I can make no more than this; that by primarily he means immediately, and 1. in order; and by secondarily mediately, and 2 in order, and cannot be understood as chief, and not chief. For sure the more ultimate and spiritual an end is, and so more like and near to God, the more chief it must be. So that according to cameron's instances (for he gives three) circumcision did more chief intent sanctification, circumcision of the heart, as the Scripture oft advanceth it, and so spiritual separation of the mind from earthly things, them the separating their nation from other kingdoms, by a mark in their flesh. So secondly, the passover signed rather, Christ our for the delivery of our souls, 1 Cor. 5. then the Angels passing over the Israelites, and not slaying them in Egypt. So the sacrifices, did more intent our spiritual purification by Christ, than any carnal purification, as Cameron calls it. We add that Baptism as well as circumcision doth not only signify regeneration, but puts a distinction between them, and Heathens at least; as all not circumcised in the old Testament were counted Heathens. To the 2 partic. of the illustration we thus answer. That it is not in the formal analogy of circumcision between the sign and the thing signified, nor set down in any express form essentially annexed, to set forth the nature of circumcision, that circumcision as circumcision, doth signify, sign or seal Christ to come, as to come. For as Christ come himself, was circumcised, so many were circumcised after jure divino, the ordinance being in full force till Christ was sacrificed; if Paul did not by that rule, after Christ had been long ascended, circumcise Timothy. Act. 16. So that for three years and an half, circumcision from John Baptist ministry, to Christ's death ran parallel and even together authoritively in the Church of the Jews in the New Testament in several, if not the same subjects; in some, if not in all that received the 1. seal. It is true, circumcision and other ceremonies by the concurrence of the circumstance of time of administration in the Old Testament did imply Christ to come, but could not of themselves either signify, or consignify Christ to come, for the reasons abovesaid. Even as Baptism either by analogy in the sign, or expression of any form annexed, as setting forth the essence of baptism, doth not signify Christ as come. For some were baptised (as the Scripture calls it) before Christ came. As those in the Ark, 1 Pet. 3. 21. the Israelites, men, women and children in the Red sea, and the cloud. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, etc. And this the Jews understood as Baptism; and therefore do not say to John wherefore baptizest thou? but by what authority. Jeh. 1.23. And the Rabbins make mention, that the Jews foresaw also the baptising with fire, mentioned Matth. 3. To the third partic. our answer is this: That circumcision as circumcision belonged to all of all Nations (and their children) that should come in as proselytes to the Jewish Church, whether constituted in a family, Gen. 17.12, 13. or in the Nation, Exod. 12. 47, 41, 49. as Baptism in the New Testament to all, and only those that came into the Christian Church; and their children. I say into the Christian Church; that is, the parents came in at least into the universal visible Christian Church; by confessing Christ to be the Son of God; and so this difference pretended by Mr. T. between baptism and circumcision comes if not to a sameness yet to a likeness; and so the reason thus far apparently to me, is the same between both. And the like argument may be drawn for the administration of the one, as of the other. The fourth and last exception Mr. T. makes against this argument out of Gen. 17. is, Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. that these terms federate, and to be signed are not convertible. Answ. They are convertible jure in equity; For Mr. T. will not doubt but that those signed with circumcision, Gen. 17. or, etc. (for of circumcision is the question immediately now, according to Mr. T. his instances, p. 4. l. 16.) were federate; were reckoned, and to be reckoned in the covenant at the time of doing it, and after, till contrary cause appeared. And all federate, or counted within the covenant were to be signed with circumcision. So this text, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9 I am a God to thee and to thy seed, thou shalt keep my covenant THEREFORE, that every man-child be circumcised. But to this fourth exception, Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 4. 1 Partic. Mr. T. argues. That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong. Of Ishmael God had said, that his covenant was not to be established with him. Gen. 17.20, 21, 25. Rom. 9.7, 8, 9 Gal. 4.29, 30. The same may be said of Esau. All that were in Abraham's house, whether strangers, or born in the house were circumcised, Gen. 17.12, 13. of whom nevertheless, it may be doubted, whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham did belong to them. There were other persons, 2 Partic. to whom all, or most of the promises in the covenant pertained, that were not circumcised. This may be affirmed of the females coming from Abraham; the infants dying before the eighth day; of just men living out of Abraham's house, as Melchisedech, Lot, Job. If any say that the females were circumcised in the circumcision of the males, he saith it without proof. And by like, Mr. T. his answer to an Ob. perhaps greater reason may it be said, that the children of believers are baptised in the persons of their parents, and therefore are not to be baptised in their own persons. But it's manifest, that the Jews comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circumcised, were nevertheless not admitted to Baptism, by John Baptist, and Christ's disciples, till they professed repentance, 1 Conclus and faith in Christ. Hence I gather, that the right to Evangelicall promises," was not the adequate reason of circumcising these, or those," but God's precept, as it is expressed, Gen. 17.23. Gen. 21.4. 2 That those terms are not convertible [federate and to be signed]. 2 Conclus. Answ. to 1 Particular. [That some there were circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong.] Mr. Tombs argues from the non-fact to the non-equitie, Animad. and from the non-efficacie to non-administration, and from an after discovery to cross the present rule; which arguing he knows, carries not with it in other things any consequence. What if the facto some were not circumcised according to the directory of administration; therefore jure aught they not, if opportunities and accommodations concurred? What if some appeared after when men not to have the efficacy of circumcision; were they not therefore justly circumcised, when the institution did enjoin, and cause it to be done, whiles they were infants? I need not enlarge upon the inconvenient sequels in the use of all ordinances, if that administrations may not be, though ineffectualness appear not always after. And howsoever it be apparent in some, and doubtful in others, (and therefore infer nothing) that the promise was not established, that is, was not effectual to them, yet it is most apparent that the institution and administration of circumcision is grounded on the express promise. As I am the God of thee, and of thy SEED, therefore thou shalt keep my covenant to circumcise every male. Gen. 17.7.9. The promulgation and preaching of the promise belongs to many, to whom it is not after effectual. Mar. 16.15. and if the institution must go along with the promise here in Gen. 17. though it might be specially revealed to Abraham what a one Ishmael should prove; then sure much more amongst men who have no such revelations. And though we grant the 1. line in this 1. partic. of Mr. Tombs," that no promise in the covenant belonged to Ishmael; yet Mr. Tombs confesseth that circumcision signed civil * Sect. 1. p. 3. l. 16. 17. p. 4. l. 1.2. promises to some of Abraham's seed. And that promise, Gen. 17 20. made to Ishmael of blessing and multiplying him, must at least be such; though eminently, and as concerning the coming of Christ, it is emphatically said that in Isaac shall the covenant be established. Gen. 17. However, Abraham looked so much on the promise, I am the God of thee and of thy seed, and the commentary upon it touching blessing Ishmael, and the institution grounded on that promise (however the effect should prove) that he circumciseth Ishmael. For others within the covenant, yet de facto not circumcised; we must needs see that it is by reason of other causes, and not the want of connexion between those two foederati & signandi, that is, to belong to the covenant, and to be signed with the covenant. If God exempt infants by death that died within the seven days, being not fit in nature for so sharp a Sacrament, what can we infer more against the institution of this Sacrament, then against any other. As for Melchisedech which was Sem (as the most learned agree upon unanswerable reasons) he was born 500 years before the institution of circumcision, whose institution is not to look higher than to Abraham at the highest, and so to descend downward. If we could be sure that Lot and Job were not circumcised; we could as surely answer that Job was not in the Land, Let not in the County where the institution of circumcision was then made known. And for women, the institution of circumcision reached not to them, because there was no fit matter for that Sacrament. That alteration of nature to intimate they were a peculiar seed set apart from the Heathens as well as the males were, was done in their fathers; on whom was acted more than the water can act, namely, to make a natural change, though no spiritual followed. So that these particular instances did destroy the ground and nature of the institution of circumcision being only accidentally and extraordinarily excepted, upon the aforesaid reasons; no more than the Israelites forty year's journey in the wilderness hindering circumcision so long did detract from the ordinary institution and ground thereof. And therefore we Ans. To both the conclusions, that the claim to this promise (which Mr. Tombs confesseth * Exercitat. Sect. 1. p. 2. 3. to be Evangelical in the substance) I am the God of thee and of thy SEED was the adequate reason in the ordinary prosecution of circumcising. For though the institution than is to Abraham's family, and to the males, etc. yet the ground is the promise; I am thy God, and the God of thy seed. And so federate, and to be signed are convertible in regard of the ground; upon which it followed that Abraham was to have a Gentile seed. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. to which the same promise should run, I am your God, therefore the God of your seed. However if federate and to be signed were not convertible terms, but only this true, that all federate are to be signed: as thus such as to whom the promise is given, I am your God, and so of your seed, being circumcised, their children by nature, or adoption (as it is Gen. 17.12, 13.) ought to be circumcised; thus much would serve our turns out of Gen. 17. for the baptism of believers children. Though we could not turn the proposition convertibly, that all circumcised or baptised are truly and effectually federate, in covenant. But how it may be turned we have showed afore. And thus I leave the ingenuous Reader to judge how great, or how little reason Mr. T. hath to deny the major, or minor proposition of the 1 Argument out of Gen. 17. And to his reason of denying the minor, Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 5. because (saith he) those children of believing Gentiles are Abraham's children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith, which are not known to us, but by profession, or special revelation. We answer. That we must beware of circumcising and cutting off the tenor of the covenant, taking only thus much (as many do) I am thy God; or drawing it out beyond its length (as others do) thus; I am the God of thee, and thy seeds feed; but take it evenly up as God lays it down just thus, I am the God of thee and thy seed: therefore give the 1. sign or seal; and than it is easily resolved who are Abraham's seed, and to be signed among the Gentiles, namely, he that believes that God is his God, and the God of his seed, may sign his seed with baptism; the parent knowing his children belong to it by the revelation of the Word, and his own confession of faith in his heart and mouth. CHAP. III. 2 ARgument (saith Mr. T.) is thus form. Exercit. Sect. 2. To whom circumcision did agree, to them baptism doth agree. * [But to Infant's circumcision did agreed] therefore also baptism. The major is thus proved; If the baptism of Christ succeeds into the place of circumcision, than baptism belongs to them that circumcision belonged to; But the antecedent is true; there also the consequent. The minor is proved to be true, because Colos. 2.11, 12. it is said that the Colossians were circumcised, because they were buried with Christ in baptism. Here we must complain again, Animadvers. that somewhat is most injuriously left out of the minor proposition of the former syllogism, namely, of that proposition above noted with * [But to Infant's circumcision did agreed] where the words OF BELIEVERS are left out, which should necessarily have been put in thus, But to infants of believers circumcision did agree. The leaving out of which words, how great an inconvenience it would bring to the state of the question, etc. every ordinary capacity will easily conceive. For answer. Exercit. p. 5. This Argument (saith Mr. T.) supposeth baptism to succeed in the place of circumcision; which may be understood divers ways. 1 So as that the sense be, that those persons be to be baptised which heretofore by God's command were to be circumcised. And in this sense the argument must proceed, if it conclude to the purpose: But in this sense it is false, for no females were to be circumcised, which yet are to be baptised. Act. 16.14, 15. And believers out of Abraham's house, as Lot, Melchisedech, Job, were not to be circumcised; but believing Gentiles are universally to be baptised. We answer. 1. Animadvers. That collations of the old and new Testament must be adidem, to the very point in hand, thus; that those persons that are capable of the material sign of baptism are to be baptised, as those which were capable of circumcision in the old Testament were to be circumcised by God's command. But all male infants of believers of Abraham's race being capable of circumcision were to be circumcised according to God's command (unless some extraordinary let stepped in for a time, as in Moses child, and in the Israelites for forty years in the wilderness) therefore all infants of believers both male and female, being capable of baptism, are to be baptised; unless this rule be observed, we shall hardly allow any deductions from the old Testament, for our use in the New. 2 In our illations and inferences from the old Testament, we must not throw away all the command upon a promise there, because the New Testaments practice extends it further upon the same promise. It is affirmative in Gen. 17. that male infants of believers may have the 1. sign, to wit, circumcision; upon this ground, that God will be the God of them and of their seed; it is extended further in practice in the New Testament, that all infants male and female of believing parents may be baptised; because the promise, I am the God of thy seed believer, runs as well to females as to males. Act. 2. The promise is to you and your children, whether male, or female. And there is no impediment in nature to hinder their capacity of baptism, as there was of circumcision. But as the mothers were not circumcised, because of natural impediment; so their daughter infants were not: So in the New Testament, the mothers were baptised, because there was no such impediment. Act. 16.14, 25. therefore by proportion their infant-daughters. Chap. 2. in answer to Mr. T. his 4. Except. and 1. partic. Or we may say further of female infant's circumcision (beside that we said afore) that they were circumcised in their father's being begotten of them that were circumcised in their flesh; they were generated of them that had the filthy foreskin (as it was then accounted) cut off; and so descended of parents, refined as it were by that natural alteration. Therefore female infants also may be baptised according to their natural capacity, in person as formerly they were circumcised according to their capacity, in their lineage. 3 Always in the analogy between the old Testament and the new, we must in our allegations keep to the substance; so the Apostles in alleging Scriptures of the old Testament they kept to the substance, not regarding the circumstance; as innumerable instances may be given. Take this one, Rom. 10.15. the Apostle proving that faith comes by hearing of a Preacher that is sent; saith out of Isa. 57 As it is written, how beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Now the place whence it is quoted, Isa. 52.7. is thus: How beautiful upon the MOUNTAINS are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, etc. Because the Word was to go forth out of the mountain of Zion, Moriah, and other mountains on which the Temple and Jerusalem stood. Now this place is to be applied to Ministers now, though they come not upon those, or other mountains; or else the Apostles proof falls to the ground. So if the command of the seventh day, may not be alleged for a seventh day, we have no command for the Lords day. Chap 2. in our answer to Mr. T. his 4. Except. & 1. partic. To that of Lot, Melchisedech, and Job, we add by way of answer beside that spoken afore: that if Let, Job, Melchisedech were not, nor were to be circumcised, there may be special reasons. First, not Melchisedech, alias Shem, 1. because he was baptised in the Ark, 1 Pet. 3.20, 21. Secondly, he was to be a special type of Christ, in that he came not of the tribe of Levi that ceremonious Ministry; and so to be exempted from that ceremony (in the shell) circumcision. For Lot and Job, God would show in them, that he was not so tied, but that he could save without an outward ordinance when he will not extend it, or if he please to take ☞ away the opportunity of having it. A fair item for the Anabaptists that put so much in Baptism, that the want of it (say they) doth unchurch Churches, etc. Lot and Job had churches in their families. And the Israelites in the wilderness forty years, is called a Church, Act. 7.38. all which time there was no circumcising among them, nor but two Josuah and Caleb circumcised, left among them. Josh. 5. 2 (Saith Mr. T.) It may be so understood, Exercit. p. 5. as if the right of baptism than began, when the right of circumcision did, or was of ●ight to end; but this is not to be said; for John Baptist and the disciples of Christ baptised, Joh. 4.1, 2. before circumcision of right ceased, and they who were circumcised were after baptised, being converted to the faith, as is manifest concerning Paul, Phil. 3.5. Act. 9.18. Answ. Yet before Mr. T. saith, p. 4. that circumcision did sigcifie Christ to come. Animad. If Mr. T. pincheth upon that of Christ to come of Isaac, we say we see no more in the analogy of circumcision nor in the words of institution, for it to signify Christ to come of Isaac then of Abraham or Jacob. 3 (Saith he) It may be understood as if Baptism did succeed in the place of circumcision in respect of signification; Exercit. p. 5. which is true in some things. First, it is true that both signified the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11. Rom. 6.3. Gal. 3.27. 1 Pet. 3.21. Secondly, it is true, both signified sanctification; and this is all may be concluded out of the place alleged, Col. 2.11, 12. To which I think it meet to add, that if the text be looked into, that place speaks not of any circumcision, but of Christ's circumcision, in whom we are complete, and by whose circumcision we are said to put off the body of the sins of the flesh: Nor doth the text say, we are circumcised because we are baptised; but we are complete in Christ, because we are circumcised in him, and buried with him in baptism; in which, or in whom, ye are also risen together, through the faith of the operation of God that raised him from the dead. Answ. If they agree but in those two significations, Animad●. they agree sufficiently in signification to favour the argument out of Col. 2.11, 12. that baptism comes in the room of circumcision, and fitly; that as circumcision signified and signed those two to believers infants; so, baptism now signifies and signs the same to believers infants. But whether this be all that may be concluded out of the place alleged, Col. 2.12. (as Mr. T. affirms) I shall appeal to the ingenuous Reader of our observations on this place of Scripture; which are from the analysis, scope, argument, and method of prosecution: which if not exactly attended, we may easily feign plausible interpretations for our own turns, but lose the drift and argument of the Apostle. The Apostles design is to take off the Colossians from false doctrines of false teachers, teaching with enticing words, Philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, rudiments of the world, among which were the shells of Jewish ceremonies, as circumcision considered in the shell of the outward sign, etc. And the argument the Apostle useth as the best means to fetch them off, was to advance Christ's fullness, to the full worth, before the eyes of their minds. This design, and this manner of pursuance of it are so oft mentioned and repeated combinedly; that they cannot be hid from an ordinary eye looking upon the text. Once v. 3, 4. again v. 6, 7. a third time v. 8, 9 Now the Apostle saying ye are complete in Christ, v. 10. (Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filled up, or made complete) he intimates, what need the Colossians harken after Jewish ceremonies, as circumcision, & c? Now because the Colossians might object, that Abraham and the Patriarches had Christ, and yet were circumcised too, he anticipates and prevents this objection, v. 11. saying, they had inward circumcision, which is the chief. In whom also ye (observe the also ye) are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of sins, etc. Your persons are not only circumcised in the circumcision of Christ (who is as our common nature) and so imputed to you (as in Adam, the common nature of man, we finned, and so his sin was imputed to us) but you are circumcised with the virtue of Christ's grace, signified in circumcision, to make you put off the body of sins (even as Adam's sin was not only imputed to us, but his corruption of sin derived into us). But because the Colossians might object again, that though Abraham had inward circumcision before (Rom. 4.) yet he had outward circumcision too, and so others; and therefore they were not so complete in Christ as believers in the old Testament. The Apostle preoccupates and prevents this objection too, in v. 12, saying, that instead of outward circumcision, they had been baptised, and baptised effectually into Christ. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen, through the faith of the operation of the Son of God, etc. As if the Apostle should say, in stead of the outward sign of circumcision, Christ hath instituted another sign, namely, baptism; that circumcision being to be done away (at Christ's death at least) and this to be used instead thereof; more significant than the other; for circumcision fitly signified spiritual death to sin, which is mortification, but baptism is fitted to signify more; namely, your rising from under the water lively represents your spiritual life by Christ, your rising to newness of life; and both these have been effectually signed or sealed to you by baptism; And therefore you are no longer to call for circumcision, but to use and enjoy baptism in the stead thereof, as formerly you and your children did circumcision (for the Apostle hints not the least difference about the subject thereof.) Even as Christ himself circumcised the eighth day, was after baptised to signify an end now about to be put to circumcision. This I ingenuously think to be the naked scope, and plain argumentation and method of the Apostle here in this 2 of Colos. Which secondly, more appears to us by these two arguments. 1 From the inconveniences against the Apostles dispute, if baptism doth not so come in the room of circumcision. For first if we have not baptism in the room of circumcision, to us believers, and our infants, we are not so complete (as the Apostle affirms) as the Jews, by Christ. Secondly, if baptism doth not come in the room of circumcision, how doth the Apostle call off the Colossians from circumcision, by the consideration of their baptism? How doth he truly imply that as the first Sacrament that believing Abraham and his children received was circumcision, so the first, the believing Colossians and their children received was baptism, (no other seal intervening)? How are the Colossians said to be inwardly circumcised, and outwardly and inwardly baptised in the same Christ, who in himself put down the one by taking up the other? 2 From the analogy and agreement between both, namely, circumcision and baptism; which the Apostle hints in this 2. of Colos. First the Apostle intimates that as putting off the body of sin (which is a phrase to signify natural death, 2 Cor. 5. and so is here an allusion to signify spiritual death to sin) is the signification of circumcision. Colos. 2.11. So spiritual burying (which argues death) is the signification of baptism. Secondly, that as neither of these are assured to any but as having Christ sealed to them; so as circumcision sealed an implantation into the death of Christ, that he put off the body naturally in the grave; so the circumcised put off the body of sin spiritually; v. 11. Even so baptism signifies and seals our implantation into the burial of Christ, v. 12. as is more fully expressed, Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. 3 That as the way to kill sin, and so to live was by circumcision into Christ in the old Testament. Colos. 2.11. insomuch that he that should wilfully neglect outward circumcision for himself or his child that might have it, should be cut off, Gen. 17. So baptising into Christ is the way to bury sin, and so to live. v. 12. of this 2 Colos. insomuch that he that shall wilfully neglect baptism with water, the seal of regeneration who may have it: shall not enter heaven. Joh. 3.5. A soul may be saved without the use of a seal in some case, but in no case can be saved in the contempt of a seal. I am not ignorant that some do understand this, Joh. 3.5. of the spirit only compared to water, but who doth not know that (as Bullinger saith, Omnes penè de baptismo interpretantur) all almost interpret it of the water of baptism, Bullinger himself consenting with them, only he would not have the efficacy of the Spirit, to be transferred to the sign. And sure while Christ was instructing Nicodemus of regeneration, he would not be silent touching the seal of it, baptism. Nor can we so well parallel this phrase with Matth. 3. Baptising with the holy Ghost and with fire; where only the Spirit must be meant, because there is no other baptism of fire. But there is a baptism, with water, beside baptism with the Spirit. And therefore water must signify baptism. For it were harsh to run to a metaphor without need, and to understand by water the Spirit, which in relation to the efficacy of baptism is usually called fire. Thus we have showed out of this Colos. 2. from the scope of the Apostle; the analogy of the two Sacraments, and the inconveniencies of the contrary; that Baptism succeeds in the room, and to be used instead of circumcision; now let the ingenuous Reader ponder, and see whether there be not more in this text, than Mr. Tombs would acknowledge. To that passage of Mr. T. that Col. 2.11. doth not speak of any circumcision, but of Christ's circumcision, meaning I suppose the circumcision of Christ in his own person, (for else all circumcision, and baptism too is Christ's, both in regard of institution; sign, and making effectual) we have answered already, in the analysing of the place. The sum whereof was, that not only Christ's circumcision was imputed to them, but the virtue of circumcision was inherent in their hearts, by express words of the Apostle, Colos. 2.11. Circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh. To that other passage, that the text, Colos. 2.11, 12. doth not say, We are circumcised, because we are baptised; We answer, and add to our former intimations, that the Apostle clearly labours to satisfy the Colossians from seeking to be circumcised, because they were inwardly eircumcised; and inwardly circumcised, because inwardly baptised, according to the outward sealing of baptism, or else he had not mentioned baptism upon any just ground or pertinent cause to the point in hand that I can conceive. He tells them they had no need of circumcision, which was abolished; and had the effect of it sealed by, and conveyed through or with outward baptism which they had received according to the order of calling men to be Saints in the New Testament. In some things, saith Mr. T. baptism doth not succeed in the place of circumcision in respect of signification. For first circumcision did signify Christ to come of Isaac according to the flesh. Gen. 17.10, 21. But baptism doth not signify this, but points at the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Answ. Though we have answered to this afore, Animadvers. on Exercitat. p. 4. yet we add, First, as circumcision did no more signify Christ to come of Isaac (for any thing that is in the analogy, or form of institution or administration) then of Abraham: so baptism hath in it as well to signify the true Christ to come of Isaac as circumcision. Secondly, that ver. 10. of Gen. 17. hath nothing in it but what is spoken in common to Abraham and his seed indefinitely. That v. 21. is not the institution or form of administration, or any thing to express the analogy of circumcision to the thing signified, but only a word added touching the making circumcision effectual, and imports only that Christ is the effect of all Sacraments, he is he that must establish the Covenant, in all its promises, and seals. In him are all the promises yea and amen. 2 Cor. 1. He is the seed to whom and in whom promises were made, and to be made firm. Galat. 3.16. It was not all Isaac's seed that could establish the Covenant; but Christ. Nor did Christ more establish as Isaac's seed, then as Abraham's seed spiritually. Gen. 12.3. Gen. 17.7. and Gal. 3.8. Thirdly, that whereas afore Mr. T. said, p. 4. of his Exercitat. that Baptism assures Christ to be already come (to which we answered, that no such thing appeared in the analogy of water; nor in the form of administration, to wit, I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, etc. nor in the use; many being baptised afore Christ came. 1 Pet. 3.21. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, etc. many before Christ came to act his mediatorship, of doctrine, passion, resurrection (his incarnation only preparing him, Psal. 40.6. mine ears hast thou opened, or bored, Hebr. 10.5. A body hast thou prepared me.) Now Mr. T. speaks more warily, Baptism points at the incarnation, death, etc. of Christ. Well, and how doth it point at the incarnation and death of Christ more than circumcision? Did not circumcision signify Christ to be born according to the flesh of one circumcised? Did not cutting off of the foreskin and drawing blood as well point at death, as ordinary afflictions are said to kill all the day long. Rom. 8? Sure that bloody Sacrament did as much, if not more point at Christ's passion, as a little being under the water and up again did in baptism. But to signify time to come, or time past, that was only employed in the time of administration; if either Sacrament administered afore Christ's coming, than it pointed at Christ to come. If after his coming, than Christ come. Secondly, Exercit. p. 6. (saith Mr. T.) circumcision was a sign that the Israelites were a people separated from all nations. Rom. 3.1. But baptism signifieth that all are one in Christ. Gal. 3.28. Answ. And doth not baptism as much separate all the spiritual seed of Abraham and their children from all the Nations unbaptised, as circumcision did Israel and the proselytes out of every Nation from the uncircumcised? For that is the difference, Matth. 28. Go teach all nations, baptising them. If nations do not receive this teaching and baptising, there is the difference that men can put. And it is as wide, as usually circumcision did put; the Israelites generally being evil, and very oft idolatrous. And it is a question to me, wishly looking on that place, Rom. 3.1, 2, whether their keeping the oracles of God is not put if not as the special difference. Compare Psal. 147. last, yet as the equal difference with circumcision (the Turks, etc. circumcise, but have not the oracles of God) and than what more is conferred on circumcision, then on baptism? The Word must go before, and along with a Sacrament, or else it will appear rather a mixture of heathenish superstition, than a distinction. And for baptism, it doth indeed signify that all we Gentiles with the Jews that are baptised are all one in Christ, as before circumcision signified that all Jews with the Gentiles, proselytes, that were circumcised, were one in Christ. But me thinks the text Gal. 3.28. speaks of Christ as making us all one. If of baptism, then of baptism as made an effectual means to put into Christ; and then effectual preaching is as well a means, and so no special thing is put to advance baptism above doctrine. Thirdly (saith he) circumcision signified that Moses law was to be observed. Exercit. p. 6. Gal. 5.3. But baptism doth signify that Moses law is made void, and the doctrine of Christ to be retained. Act. 10.37. Answ. This seems to import some difference, at some time, and in the shell; but not always, not any in the kernel. For was not the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of Moses in substance john 5.46, 47? was not baptism (as we shown afore) instituted, and administered, Mat. 3. etc. whiles Circumcision was not of right to end till Christ's death three years and a half after: So that though in Acts. 10. (Christ being ascended) the administration of baptism by help of that time, might imply, Moses law in the shell was to be done away, yet at other times afore Christ's death it could not signify that Moses law is made void, signanter precisely (as Mr. T. speaks.) To that, Gal. 5.3. we say that as Circumcision did signify that Moses his law was to be kept, so the Passeover, and any other ceremonies, a paribus from the like reason, that a believing Galathian would observe one Ceremony out of conscience, ought likewise observe the rest. So that the Apostle mentions Circumcision only as being to the question then in hand. And for Acts 10.37. of baptism, we say that whiles it might any way hint that Mose● law in the shell was to be done away, it tied to the observation of it in the substance of gospel meaning. So in that Acts. 10.37. compare with john. 5. two last. Mat. 28. v. 20. when teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded, followed baptism. Fourthly, (saith Mr. T.) Circumcision did sign Canaan; Exercit. p. 6. Baptism eternal life. This we have answered to afore, Animadver. That Circumcision did sign Canaan as it was a type of heaven, Heb. 4. As baptism and the holy Supper under material elements signify and give us things spiritual and eternal. All this while I cannot see such a material difference between Circumcision and Baptism in the least to deface the analogy and semblance between the administration of the one and the other, to beleivers and their Infants, or to interrupt that consequence from the one to the other. What ever may be urged against the incapacity of children to be Baptised, may as well be argued against Circumcision. By this that hath been answered candid men may see what reason Mr. T. hath to deny major, or consequence, or minor. If this argument be not restrainedly understood an egg is laid, Exercit. p. 6. out of which manifest judaisme may be hatched. No fear, if we argue as the Apostle argues; Animadver. who Collofians 2, 11. 12. (as we have cleared we hope) puts Baptism in the room of Circumcision. If we do not put those things in the place one of another, which God puts in (though but by practice and example) without looking for a new institution or command, there being a difference only of circumstances, I am bold to say, an egg is laid out of which may be hatched Antisabbatarianisme a nulling of the Lords day, (as is frequent upon this very consequence, among the Anabaptists) and Exemption of women from the holy Supper with many the like inconveniencies, which we stay not now to name. But it this kind of Argument, Exercitat. P. 6. out of Coloss. 2.11. be restrainedly taken, (saith Mr. T.) no more follows thence, but that Baptism and circumcision, in some things signify the same, which is more plainly said of Noah's flood, 1 Pet. 3.21. Of the red sea, and the cloud that guided, 1 Cor. 10.2. And yet we say not that Baptism succeeded into their place; much less do we infer to be instituted in their place. If Mr. T. restrains Cor. 2.11. whether he pleaseth, Animadver. then must it signify but what he listeth. But you have already seen the dimensions of that place to be larger than Mr. T. his measure. As for his WE say not that Baptism succeeded, I suppose he means Protestant Orthodox Writers; and then he mistakes (if I mistake not:) For Calvin saith that Noah being ●aved by water, had quandam Baptismi speciem, a certain Image or representation of Baptism; and this the Apostle minds us of, to the intent that the likeness between him and us might be the more apparent: so he. Beza saith much more, of which only this: There are two types of the Church's sanctification, and rising up out of the depth of sin and death; but the deliverance from the flood was the precedent Type, shadowing forth the following Type of Baptism answering to it; in which respect Baptism may be set over against the cloud, and the passing through the red Sea as the Anti-type to them; So Beza. Dispatch bid us quote no more. And the text will supply all, and clear it to me that Baptism doth come by divine right in the place of the Ark. For Peter calls Baptism the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Anti-type to the Ark, that signing salvation, as this doth. Now who doth not know that the Anti-type comes by divine authority, in the place of the Type. And for that of the 1 Cor. 10.2. let another speak and not my mouth. Mr Diodat in his notes saith, The meaning of that place is, That as the deliverance out of Egypt was a figure of the redemption by Christ, and the pilgrimage thorough the wilderness, an image of the elects life in the world, and the land of Canaan a shadow of the kingdom of heaven; So the passing thorrow thered sea was correspondent to Baptism, and Manna and the water coming out of the rock, a sign which had some resemblance to the Lords supper: So Mr Diodat. And he had said true, and if he had said more, for the text would have born● him out. For the Apostle being about to warn the Corinthians of sinning in idolatry etc. like the Israelites, Pareus. lest they perish as the Israelites, v. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. He prevents in the 2. and 3. verse an objection the Corinthians might make, that we have better sacraments to keep us from sin then the Israelites had; I would not (saith the Apostle) have you ignorant (not reason so ignorantly) but know that your fathers (the Israelites) went to heaven (as many as went) the same way, and by the like means as you the children must go (if you go;) they had like sacraments in the sign, Pareus. and the same thing signified as you have. They had their passing under the cloud, and through the red sea for their Baptism, and Manna and water out of the rock for their holy supper, both signifying Christ; instead whereof you you have the washing of water for your Baptism, and bread and wine for your holy supper to represent Christ. Now seeing the holy ghost did by express exposition of the Apostle, intent those two to fore shadow Baptism and the Lords Supper; and tells the Corinthians they had these two Baptism and Holy Supper instead of them, as of no more privilege in the outward sign; how can I but conclude that Baptism and holy Supper comes by divine authority in the place of them? Mr. T. reckons up many inconveniences that will spring from deductions of arguments from analogies, Exercitat. §. 2. without the Lords precepts, and the Apostles examples, as the maintenance of Tithes jure divino; the asserting of Jewish Sacraments to be types of christian Sacraments; the setting up of a Pope instead of the Jews Highpriest; the giving of the Lords Supper to children, because they eaten the passover, etc. We plead for no analogical arguments, Animadver. but such as are countenanced by New Testament scripture. And if the Scriptures express any jewish Sacrament, to be any how, or in any degree, types of the christian Sacraments we must say so, what ever men say against Bellarmine, to untie him and fasten themselves. We heard afore what Calvin, Beza, Diodat, and Pareus said on those texts of Scripture, whatever some others, to make a shift may assert universally against Bellarmine, out of a supposed inconvenience in some particular. And Mr Tombs himself alleged Cameron, that Circumcision primarily sealed to the seed of Abraham the earthly promise (namely Canaan) secondarily sanctification. And is not this to make one type to signify another type? for Canaan was a type of Heaven, Heb. 4. And as we dare extend analogies as far as the text of Scripture bears us out; so we dare not stretch them beyond, where the Apostle puts a bar. And therefore we cannot argue from the children's eating of the Passeover to their partaking of the Communion, because the Apostles mark of a Communicant is, to be able to examine himself, before he eats. 1 Cor. 11. Lastly, Exercitat. it is to be considered how by these Argumentations, consciences may be freed from the danger of will-worship, and polluting so remarkable an Ordinance of Christ as Baptism is, specially this care lies on them, who by Prayers, Sermons, Writings, Covenants and Oaths, do deter Christians from humane inventions, in God's worship diligently, and as is to be hoped sincerely. We retort; Animadver. Let it be likewise considered how we may be likewise freed from will worship, in confining Sacramental administrations to such time, age, circumstances, which Christ never enjoined; and so count the seed of believers all wholly polluted, whom he never so accounted. CHAP. FOUR Exercitat. §. 3. The third Argument from the parity of grace in the New Testament to that in the old examined. THe third Argument is thus framed. If Baptism be not granted to the Infants of Believers, than the Grace of God will be more restrained in the New Testament than in the Old: but this is not to be affirmed; therefore Baptism is to be granted to Infants of Believers. Answ. 1. If this Argument be of any weight, it will prove that the grace of God is straitened, because we give not the Lord's Supper to children, to whom the Passeover was given, as appears by that which was said before. 2. The grace of God is not tied to Sacraments, neither do Sacraments give grace by the work done, and therefore grace is not restrained, though Sacraments be never granted, grace is not denied to an excommunicated person, who is inhibited the Lords Supper, the grace of God is free, whether we understand it of the divine affection, or the effects of it; nor can be made larger or narrower by our act. 3. Yet it is not absurd to say, that in respect of some privileges, the grace of God is more contracted in the New Testament then in the Old: For instance, no family hath now the privilege that was granted to Abraham's family, that out of it Christ should be born; no man besides Abraham is called The Father of the Faithful; no woman besides one, The mother of Christ; nevertheless, simply the grace of God is said to be larger in the New Testament, by reason of the revelation of the Gospel imparted to all Nations, the more abundant communication of the holy Spirit, and more plain manifestation of the mystery of the Gospel: I would have it weighed, whether those phrases of the Apostle, Rom. 11.21. as the natural branches, vers. 24. The wild Olive by Nature, were graffed contrary to Nature. These which be natural branches, do not sufficiently imply, That the Jews children by their birth had a privilege beyond the Gentiles children. In the frame of this third Argument, from Gen. 17. First, Animadver. these words are very prejudiciously left out in the major or 1 Proposition. Then the grace of God [ * The words unjustly left out. in the administration of the first Seal] will be more restrained in the New Testament then in the Old. 2. The word Grace is disadvantageously put for Privilege. To Master T. his Answer as he hath laid the Argument; and first to his first Answer: [That we give not the Lord's Supper to children to whom the Passeover was given:] We Reply. 1. That he speaks not ad idem to the point in hand. For this doth not take off the straitning the New Testament above the old in the first seal. 2ly. Our argument proceeds not of Gods limiting, but of men's straitning; we dispute not against God, but against Anabaptists streitning where God hath not limited. 3ly. Mr T. in his 1 Section proclaims the Latitude of the New Testament above the Old divers times: but here he evens them again, and tells us we have but Quid pro quo, if we have got in the first Sacrament, we have lost it in the second. To his 2. Answer, of God's grace not tied to Sacraments. 1. Here seems to be an eluding of the true intent of our Argument, by the equivocal acception of the word Grace: for if any form it of God's Grace being restrained, it is rather meant of Grace signifying the favour of God manifested to us, then of Grace signifying the Graces of God's Spirit inherent in us. 2. Though Mr. T. saith here Grace is not tied to Sacraments; yet the whole design of his Exercitation is so to tie them together, that Sacraments without manifestation of grace are nothing with him. 3. Therefore we retort, That where the first Sacrament is more inhibited, and restrained, there the favour of God, and the gifts of grace are less to be expected. And therefore though we cannot straighten God's grace in itself; yet we do, unwarrantably, the comfortable assurance thereof, when we refuse the sign that God hath given us, of that he hath or will give. To his 3. Answer. [That in some privileges the grace of God is more contracted in the New Testament than in the Old, etc.] 1. We Reply: If we speak of some particular privileges, it is a privilege of the New Testament, not to have them; to wit, any of the Jewish Ceremonies. Or that there should be another family besides Abraham's line of whom Christ should be born. 2. We Reply that Mr T. hath matched one great Old Testament privilege with alike in the New, if he had but placed it right among the New, and not among the Old. Namely, [that Marry the mother of Christ in the New Testament, answers to the promise of him to come of Abraham in the Old.] But if we speak of the privilege of the New Testament in general, it must be more large than that of the Old, or else God would never have found such fault with the Old, as in stead thereof to make a New, Heb. 8.6, 7, 8. Observe in the margin on the 6. verse, Covenant is rendered Testament by our translation. 3. Upon Mr T. his confession, That simply the grace of God is said to be larger in the New Testament by reason; first, of the Revelation of the Gospel to all Nations: secondly, of more abundant Communication of the holy Spirit: thirdly, of more plain Manifestation of the Mystery of the Gospel: we retort then, sure believers in the New Testament have less reason to have a meaner opinion of their children to reject them farther off from the 1 Seal, than they of the Old; there being no precept for that rejection. The Parent knows more, receives more grace now generally, by Mr. T. his intimation; why then must all this abundance of revelations, and effusion of spirit fall besides our children, that none should be sanctified in their tender years as Samuel, john Baptist, and the little ones, Mar. 10. To that Rom. 11.21, 24. We say we have considered it, and advised with learned Authors, yet neither they nor I can see more than this, That the Jews of whom the Apostle speaks were natural children (taken in its natural sense) of Abraham, to whom immediately was the great privilege, Rom. 3.2. Of the Oracle of God, and his promise was immediately viuâ voce, by express words made and delivered Gen. 17. and so they had the privilege also to hear sooner of it; and it continued a long time in their line, in the former ages of the World; and so had the 1. conveyance of the 1. Seal to them and their children. But firstness in order or time doth not give any more spiritual right to an Ordinance. Act. 13.46. Nor is it the naturalness (see Ishmael and his posterity) but the spiritualness of the father (that he be a Believer) that gives privilege to the child. And therefore we conclude that faith being the condition of this Covenant Gen. 17. to Abraham (as Mr Tombs confessed afore. §. 1.) and so thereupon the 1. Seal was given to his natural born infants; So now a believing Parent by faith being of the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3. Rom. 4.) the 1. Seal by the same proportion is due to his natural born infants. And this is all the heft we can find in this place upon weighing of it. For Mr Tombs his justice in denying the major, or consequence, or minor of this argument, I leave to the candid Reader to judge from what we have said. The sum of the Answer to the Arguments, Exercitat. §. 3. Conclu. drawn from Gen. 17.17. is this: The Sacraments are not to be administered according to rules taken from our reasonings, but God's appointment. Rightly doth Mr Ball forenamed, in the Book forenamed, Posit. 3. & 4. page 38. say▪ But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism, do agree or differ, we must look to the institution, and neither stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it, for he is the institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure; and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be administered, how they agree, and wherein they, differ, in all which we must affirm nothing, but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us. We close with you taking reasonings for such as are merely depending upon humane wit, Animadver. but if they be such as are clearly deduced (according to our best light) from the Word of God; we can conceive no otherwise of them then as such as hold out God's appointment. And such we trust, have been our reasonings with you Mr. T. on this 17. of Gen. where we find an affirmative precept for giving the 1. Seal to Believers Infants; but we never found, nor you, nor the Anabaptists for us yet (that we know off) any negative precept that it should be denied to them: though we have seen and heard many of the Anabaptists own reasonings. To that of Mr Ball, Mr Ball himself shall answer in the very same page afore quoted. Circumcision and Baptism (saith he) are both Sacraments of divine institution, and so they argue in the substance of the things signified, the PERSONS TO WHOM they are to be administered, and the order of administration, if the right proportion be observed. As Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant, the righteousness of faith, and circumcision of the heart; so doth Baptism much more clearly. As Abraham and his household, and the Infants of believing Jews were to be circumcised; so the faithful, their families, and their seed are to be baptised. Circumcision was but once applied by God's appointment, and the same holds in Baptism according to the will and good pleasure of God: So far he: Upon which by and by follows the conclusion which Mr T. quoted. By which we may plainly perceive in what sense Mr Ball spoke those words quoted by Mr T. (namely for us not against us) what his opinion is in the Question; and what his sense is of the 17. of Gen. To wit that therein is an institution and precept for baptising believers Infants. CHAP. V. THe Argument from Act. 2.38, 39 may be thus form: Exercitat. §. 4. The Argument from Act. 2.38, 39 for Infant-baptisme examined. To whom the promise is made, they may be baptised; but to the Infants of Believers the promise is made; therefore they may be baptised. The Minor is proved from the words of vers. 39 for the promise is made to you and to your children. That an answer may be fitted to this Argument: 1. It is to be observed, that the promise made, is the sending of Jesus Christ, and blessing by him, as it is expounded, Act. 3.25, 26. Act. 13.32, 33. Rom. 15.8, 9 2. That the Text saith, the promise was made to them he spoke to, and their children; then to them that are afar off, who, whether they be Gentiles, who are said to be afar off, Ephes. 2.12. or Jews in future ages and generations, as Beza thinks, are limited by the words closing the verse, as many as the Lord our God shall call; which limitation plainly enough shows the promise to appertain to them not simply as jews, but as called of God, which is more expressly affirmed, Act. 3.26. To you, God having raised up his Son jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquity: or, as Beza, Every one of you turning yourselves from your iniquities: therefore the promise here is not said to be made but with condition of calling, and faith, which may be confirmed abundantly from Rom. 4.13, 14.16. Gal. 3.9.14.22. 3. That Peter, vers. 38. doth exhort to repentance and Baptism together; and in the first place persuades to Repentance, than Baptism; which shows Repentance to be in order before Baptism. 4. That mention is made of the promise not as of itself, yielding right to Baptism, without Repentance, but as a motive inciting together to Repentance and Baptism. With the 1. Observation of Master T. in this Answer we close, Animadver. that the promise meant here, is that which was made to Abraham, hinted Gen. 12. Enlarged and confirmed, Gen. 17. Illustrated, Gen. 22. According to Act. 3, 25.26. Act. 13.32, 33. Rom. 15.8, 9 provided that Mr. T. take the 26. Verse of Act. 33. duly according to the Exposition of the 25. Verse. The 26. v. is, Unto you first God having raised up his Son jesus Christ, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his Iniquities. The due genuine sense of which words according to Verse 25. is this: These to whom the Apostle speaks were children of the Covenant which God made with their Fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all kindreds of the Earth be blessed. According to Gen. 12.3. Gen. 17.7. Gen. 22.18. which Texts do write it as clearly as the sun beams. 1. That the administration of the first seal of outward confirmation of this Covenant was given to all the natural seed at least of believing Abraham's family, and so downward, Act. 3.25. and Gen. 17.7, 9, etc. keeping within the Church, and not cast out for misdemeanours. Therefore the same administration of the 1 Seal in the New Testament to all the natural seed of believing Gentile parents, is held forth by virtue of this text, Act. 3.25. It comes down to all the kindred of the elect, which could not be in Circumcision which is abolished in the New Testament but in some thing analogical; ergo in Baptism. 2. That the efficacy of this Covenant with Abraham is to his seed in turning them away every one from their iniquities. Act. 3.26. According to Gen. 12.3. Gen. 17.22. Gen. 22.18. That in Abraham, that is in his seed, namely be blessed, even to them his Covenant should be established. And so by a just analogy, Baptism administered to the seed of believers should be effectual, where Christ should come in effectually to turn them from their sins, whether afore, or at, or after Baptism, as he shall think fit. To Mr T. his 2. particular of Act. 2.39. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call: We say with learned Camerarius, Sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haec; this is a short defective kind of expression, wherein by brevity of speech something is left out, to be supplied by the reader; So that the whole verse is to be read thus. For the * Free] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promisiio vel pollicitatio. Neque enim desunt qui i●ter polliceri & promittere hoc discrimen statuunt quafi illud de eo quod ultro promittas, istud vero de mutua stipulatione dicatur. Bezae. Pollicemur sponte, promittimus rogati. Popm. Fris. de diff. verb. Great] Polliceri est res magnas promittere; promittere est res quaslibet parvas, etc. Popm. Fris. de diff. verb. Nihil tibi ego tum de meis opibus pollicebar sed horum erga me benevolentiam promittebam, Cic. pro planc. And Budeus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the free promise of God. And the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the composition with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which increaseth the signification) signifies some eminent great promise is intimated. FREE GREAT promise is [made] to you [Jews * Near or present] For a far off and present or near are here opposed. Ludovicus De Dicu. near and present and your children you now have] and to them that are afar off [distant in * Distant] far off in place or affection. It is not so likely that fare off should signify generations of Jews to come, as Mr T. intimates out of Beza: And Camerarius hath a considerable note to this: Afar off will be understood not only of place, but in mind and judgement; viz. as others, so Gentiles. And it is so said after v. 40. Save yourselves from this untoward generation: For the future generations of Gentiles must not be excluded. And the word children doth intimate succession of generations of Jews, that it shall be to their children's children, if their Parents believe; as it shall now be to their children present, if they the present parents believe. Beza his reason (saith De Dieu) that a far off should signify future generations of Jews, not Gentiles; afar off in place or affection, because Peter here speaking, knew not the calling of the Gentiles till Act. 10. cannot hold good; because an extraordinary inspired Apostle, and acquainted with the Prophets, that are full of the calling of the Gentiles, could not be ignorant of the thing; only he perceived not the time to be so near till Act. 10. Therefore saith De Dieu, I do not unwillingly assent to the great learned men, who refer the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (those a far off) to the Gentiles, remote from the Covenant of grace, but in time to be brought near. Nor am I against it, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to them that are UNTO afar off, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to those afar off, should be all one. For its plain, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preposition, signifying unto is often super-redundant: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, suddenly: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the morrow: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, once: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, three times. And so chrysostom takes them to be all one, opposing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the word (distant) Old Lat. Erasmus, de Dieu, and Camerar supply it. place or affection, jews or Gentiles] whosoever they be that the Lord shall call [ * In place or affection.] For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its proper nature rather signifies distance of place, then of time. And is most oft used for distance in place and affection; so out of Bud. Toss. Const. we omit many instances that might be given, but to cut short this Marginal Note. to, or unto him * Call to, or unto him] So De Dieu, according to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quoscunque advocaverit domin●●. * To justify this supply of the last clause, And to their children, we have many instances, John 7 39 The holy Ghost was not yet (so the Greek) we supply the word given; So 1 John 2.23. We supply all this (which is not in the usual Greek Copies.) But he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. And many such instances may be given (but for haste) which you yourselves may observe by the several different letters in your Bibles. and to their children.] So that it is not plain, much less plain enough (as Mr T. affirms with much confidence) that the words, as many as the Lord our God shall call are a limitation showing the promise to appertain to them simply, not as jews, but as called of God. For the intent of the place is, that the promise runs to believing Jews and their children, as it did to believing Abraham and his children, in the outward promulgation, administration and signing. But made effectual when (as in that Act. 3.26. Mr T. quotes) God so blesseth the children as to turn them from their iniquities. And so just to descend down to believing Gentile parents (the seed of Abraham Rom. 4. Gal. 3.) and their natural born children. But the main thing expected (I suppose) is to prove that to the sentence, unto them afar off whom the Lord shall call, must be supplied this sentence, and to their children. For this, besides all that we have said in the margin, we give these reasons. 1. The former part of the verse runs so, the promise is to you and your children: therefore the latter part must run so too, to wit to all that are afar off that shall be called and to their children: For it were a strange thing if whiles the Lord is pressing the same promise, as belonging to them that are near and a far off, Jews and Gentiles, which God first made to believing Abraham and his natural seed under the promise, Gen. 17. and pressing it so to be taken and applied here, Act. 2. that the Lord should mean two different ways, as that it should belong formerly to believing Abraham and his natural children under the promise; but now to him, and only his children effectually called: Or that it now belongs to Abraham's believing jewish seed, and their natural seed or children under the promise, and not to believing Gentiles (the seed of Abraham, Rom. 4. Gal. 3.) and to their natural children under the promise, I am the God of thee and of thy seed. 2. If the sentence as many as the Lord our God shall call, be a limitation of the whole verse, and so to signify that the promise no ways belongs to children of believing jews or Gentiles, till those children be effectually called, let any rational man give a sufficient reason why the Apostle mentions children: the sentence being full and clearer without that word, if that had been the Apostles meaning. 3. The Apostle names the promise to the parents in relation to them before calling; as being the children of believing Abraham afar off: why then may it not some how much more relate to their children, when they the next parents are called? 4. The Apostle doth endeavour to comfort the parents that they and their children should be in as good a condition, by Baptism, though they had crucified Christ, as they were by Circumcision before they had crucified him. But by Circumcision, the promise and the first outward sign ran to them and their children: ergo so should it now, or else the Apostle had beaten them off with an offence, and not drawn them on with an encouragement. Those places Mr T. quotes out of Rom. 4.13, 14, 16. Gal. 3.9. 14.22. and his assertion upon them they concern the parents to be signed upon their believing, with the first Seal, thereby instating their children, whiles children, to the same; lying under the favour of one and the same promise with the parents: I am the God of thee and of thy seed. To the 3. particular of Mr T. his answer to Act. 2. we say that though order of naming things in Scripture be a very uncertain argument to prove the order of nature of things: yet we grant the thing itself to be true for parents, not for their Infants which Mr. T. here doth not prove. To the 4, particular we say that the reason of that is because it is spoken to them of ripe years, pricked at their hearts. But else the promise itself, I am the God of thee and of thy seed, or the promise is to thee and thy children (according to Gen. 17.) is sufficient to give right to them repenting and being baptised, to convey Baptism to their children. We conclude therefore, 1 That M. T. hath not rightly limited the Minor, nor justly denied it unlimited. 2. That he hath not rightly answered to the Major. To his first reason that the Text is not expressly of infants, but of children indefinitely: We answer, it is meant according to the places where it is quoted. Gen. 17. Gen. 22. But those places, by seed and children, understand as well those but 8 days old, as others. To his 2 reason that the text speaks not of the children of Gentiles at all, we have answered afore in the full reading of the text to be extended to the children of them that are called, though formerly afar off. CHAP. VI THe Argument from 1 Cor. 7.14. Exercitat. § 5. The Argument from 1 Cor. 7.14. may be thus form They who are holy with Covenant holiness, may be baptised; but so are believers infants holy: Ergo. The Major is not true, universally understood, as is manifested from Rom. 11.6. If the first fruits be holy, the lump is holy, etc. That is, Abraham is the first fruit and holy root: the elect Israelites are the branches and lump: so that it follows, that the elect of the Israelites not yet called, are holy in respect of the Covenant, and are not yet therefore to be baptised. For although they may be said to be holy in regard of the Covenant of old entered into with Abraham, and the gracious respect of God to them to be manifested in time, yet in their present state; they denying Christ, neither infants nor men are to be baptised, unless we would have the branches broken off to be grafted in. And therefore though the sense of 1 Co. 7.14. were your children are holy with Covenant holiness; it follows not they are to be baptised who yet manifest no shows of divine grace. 2. The Minor is not proved hence. For it doth not speak of federal holiness, but of holiness, that I may so call it, matrimonial. So that the sense is your children are holy, that is legitimate. So Master Tombs. 1. To the Major we say; That that proposition is universally true de jure in equity, Animadver. though not de facto, in act, when God and man concur to make an exception in practice. It was the jure in right and equity an universal Proposition, That every manchild of the circumcised parent shall be circumcised, Gen. 17. So Ishmael is circumcised being a son of circumcised Abraham; but if Ishmael in matter of fact turn scoffer and persecutor of Isaac (Gal. 4.29.) and so be cast out by God's command, Gen. 21.10. his children are not circumcised, but suspended from the actual practice. So this Proposition they that are holy with federal or Covenant holiness, may be baptised, is by divine right universally true: but if in practise the generations of Abraham, alive at the coming of Christ, will not own the SEED of Abraham, Christ, and so renounce their own Seed-ship; God gives them up in fact to be broken off for certain generations, Rom. 11. Left without the Word and Sacraments of the New Testament, Act. 13. And yet the jus the equity so holds universally true, that when they shall turn to the Lord, & own Christ, the children of them the parents signed with the first Sacrament of the New Testament; I say their children shall be signed with the same too. Affirmative commands universally bind semper, though not ad semper, always, though not at every circumstance of time. To Mr T. his proof of his deny all of the Major out of Rom. 1●. we say: 1. That Mr Tombs cannot make election any footing or ground of the argument of the holiness of the lump, in relation to the holy root Abraham. For that were to put aside the Apostles visible argument, and fall upon another thing secret to God. 2. That would infer, that those Jews broken off, were broken off of the election (which is impossible). But if relation to believing Abraham be the footing and ground of the Argument, then when the Parents come in by faith to own Christ their brother, in Abraham, and so their sonship to Abraham, signed with the first sign appointed at the time of their conversion, namely Baptism, than the practise interrupted goes freely on again of giving the same first Seal to the children of all believing baptised parents. To Mr T. his answer to the Minor, That it is not proved, because the place doth not speak of federal, but matrimonial holiness; we reply, that so Mr T. saith; But in all his tedious Oratorious, not Logical discourse, urging men's authorities, not his own arguments, or confirmed positions, he doth not prove. Mr T. can easily think that Aquinas a Papist (whom he quotes) and we can lend him Stapleton too and other Popish authors (no doubt) that will stand stiffly with him for the advancement of marriage to have in it a matrimonial holiness; that it may be the fit to be a Sacrament according to their interest in the question. And Mr T. can as easily think that if the decision of the question might be made according to plurality of Votes of Protestant Authors, we should soon out-vote him. Therefore we shall pass by his Protestant authors and our own, only with this touch. His; That Camerarius doth not speak so punctually whiles he saith, Sanctificatur in conjugij legitimo usu; not in legitimi conjugij usu. The unbeliever is sanctified in the lawful use of marriage, not in the use of lawful marriage; which latter expression would have better advanced the pretended matrimonial holiness; and prevented that the lawful use of marriage, be not taken for an using it according to the word and prayer, the more likely meaning of this text, by far. Nor doth the same Camerarius hide, or refute another meaning of these Words; viz. a sanctifying by faith; that is to the believers use, as Mr Tombs his Melancthon intimates in his own quotations. For Melancthon and Musculus they come not to hand in my study, nor is it of so much, or have I so much time as to go to them. For our own authors, if Mr T. had but well weighed one only, Pareus, I wonder how he should have so mistaken this Text. The meaning of which to me and others, plainly and candidly is this. You Corinthians (in your Letter to me, 1 Cor. 7.1.) scruple about spiritual pollution, by a believers continuing in the use of marriage and conjugal enjoyment, since conversion, with a yoke-fellow that is not yet converted through his or her infidelity, v. 13. But you need not fear it; for the unbelieving husband hath been already sanctified (so in the Greek) in the believing wife that is since converted since marriage, I say in the believing wife (so is the meaning plain by the Antithesis, and so it is in some Greek Copies). And on the contrary the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband: so the Greek, and the Antithesis and the Explanation of some Greek Copies. That is, the unbeliever is sanctified in the believer to the believers use. That though marriage, as all things are spiritually impure and unclean to them that are defiled (how?) by unbelief; yet unto the pure (that is by faith, as the Antithesis guides it) all things are pure, marriage, meats, all. Tit. 1.15. Being sanctified by the Word (allowing them and promising a blessing to the believer) and by prayer (of faith) ask a blessing. 1 Tim. 4.4, 5. And this I prove (saith St. Paul) by a greater argument: Because your children (though but one of you Parents be a believer) are holy; I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are holy; not only as before of the unbelieving parent that he or she is sanctified and ad hoc to a particular use of the other believing parent; but are holy, which cannot possibly signify less than the federal or Covenant holiness; reckoned generally among the Churches of Corinth to be within the Covenant with the believing parent (though but one of them be a believer). But how doth Saint Paul prove this last proposition upon which all depends? Answ. He lays this, leaves this, on a common known practice of the Churches everywhere, that if but one of the parents were a believer, the children of him or her were brought to Baptism, as to the sealing, that the children were in Covenant; of which more in the XIII CHAP. of our Animadversions. Mean while observe that if the Apostle doth not speak here of the holiness of children, by being reckoned in Covenant, and signed with Baptism, being born of one believing parent at least, as of a known opinion, custom and practice in the Churches, the Apostle had gone about to resolve a lesser doubt, by making a greater. Pretences against this sense of the place shallbe ventilated and confuted by and by, after we have confirmed this to be the sense of this place; thus. This case of the Corinthians must needs be a case not of law, but of conscience; not of civil polity, but of religion, grounded upon some such case as Ezra 10.3. where the Israelites having taken wives not of the same religion with them, make a Covenant with Humiliations, to put away those wives and their children. For the religious Corinthians men of great parts, 1 Cor. 14. Of a famous City and of a most ancient Commonwealth, could not be ignorant of the Law of Nations, That two single persons Legally married, according to the custom or rules of the State, could not be counted adulterers or fornicators, or their children bastards, for any difference of Religion between them. And therefore it being a case of Conscience, about spiritual pollution, satisfies them by showing the privilege of faith under the New Testament, that all wives, infants, etc. are sanctified, or sanctified to the believer, notwithstanding different opinions: To which Beza speaks excellently, Some (saith he) refer this to civil polity, what marriages that makes and accounts as ratified; so as the children are reckoned Legitimate: But surely Paul disputes not of civil polity, but of matter of conscience. And what Argument (I pray you) at last would it be to pacify conscience, that is taken from the civil Laws of Nations. For in these Laws it is well known, how many things are tolerated, which a Christians conscience cannot bear. For neither the Law of divorce, permitted to the Jews by Moses for the hardness of their hearts, could excuse a conscience from the fault of Adultery. As for M. T. and his abettors (by him quoted) in reasoning for matrimonial holiness; and against federal holiness they do not (to me) in any considerable degree hit the nail on the head; and therefore is easily plucked out with ones fingers. Musc. his quotation of Deut. 23.2. doth not show us a place where a bastard is called unclean; or kept out from any Office in the Congregation (as he expounds the place) for any Ceremonial uncleanness; but rather for a kind of civil maimedness; as those of natural maimedness, ver. 1. Nor is Musculus his reason [that if conjugal holiness be not here, 1 Cor. 7. meant, it will bring forth a troublesome dispute, how an unbelieving husband is sanctified] of any weight. For it is not meant or said, That he is sanctified in himself, but sanctified in the believing wife, to her use. As according to Musculus his instance of meat; we say with the Apostle, Tit. 1.15. They are unclean to the unbeliever, pure to the believer. So is an unbelieving yokefellow, unclean to the unbeliever, clean to the believer. For the assertions of Hierom and Ambrose, quoted by Musculus, as Musculus is quoted by Master T. [That the sanctification of the unbelieving Parent, be not attributed to the faith of the believing Parent, but to God's appointment, that marriage should be holy.] We say we well know, that the Fathers oft too much smell of the corruptions of the times in which they lived, in opinions of this nature. Surely the holiness of marriage was never appointed to be holy to any, but to the first and in the second innocent Adam. And therefore so to us only through faith. Of the other opinion of things holy by mere appointment from God, are divers dangerous consequences: one instance is; Some affirm that faith as a quality justifies, because it is holy for that use, by God's appointment thereunto. To Mr. T. his proof. That holy and legitimate are the same, Because (saith he) holiness is pu● for chastity, 1 Thess. 4.3, 4, 7. And 1 Tim. 4, 5. is sanctified signifies is lawfully used. We Answer, That the Apostle calls chastity holiness when it is wrought by the principle of holiness, namely the Spirit and the graces thereof; for he speaks to Saints. But sure enough the Apostle would never call a mere abstinence from fornication or adultery, holiness. For he saith, without faith All is impure, Tit. 1.15. And that 1 Tim. 4.5. signifies more then lawfully used, as a carnal man may use his meat and drinksoberly and for a good end, to fit him for his calling: namely, it signifies thus much; That meats, etc. not prohibited, are sanctified by the Word, allowing them to us, and giving us believing in that Word a right to them in Christ, and by the prayer of faith we sue out a blessing upon them. But Mr. T. Objects, That it is not said, 1 Cor. 7.14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified in or by the believing wife, but in or by the wife. Nor is it said that the unbelieving wife is sanctified in or by the believing husband, but in or by the husband; the Apostle purposely so speaking, that the reason of sanctification may be intimated to be taken, not from the faith of the yokefellow, but from conjugal relation. Answ. The Syr. Text prevents all imagination of this conceit; reading the Text according to the true meaning, thus: That husband which is not a believer, is sanctified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a believer. And that wife which is not a believer is sanctified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the husband 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a believer. 2. There are two Greek Copies that Beza saw, have it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the believing wife. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which Mr. Tombs not forgetting should not slight. 3. Hear reason: The Apostles purpose sure enough is to comfort believers, married with unbelievers. And it is as sure; that the Apostle lays the ground of that comfort of the believing husband in his condition of husband as oppositely distinguished from his unbelieving wife; and the comfort of the believing wife, in her condition of wife, as oppositely distinguished from her unbelieving husband. For (saith he) the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife. What wife? What can we answer, but the believing wife? And so of the husband. Now seeing the Apostle lays it in a proper peculiar privilege, which is sometimes in the husband, to wit, when he is a believer and the wife not. And sometimes in the wife, when she is a believer and the husband not; It must needs be, that the foundation of the comfort intended by the Apostle is laid in faith, peculiar but to one of the couple, and not in marriage that was equally common to both. And that faith doth rather sanctify marriage, than marriage sanctify the married persons. A harsh phrase for a Christian, That civil marriage is a sanctifier; either to sanctify two unbelievers (which by Mr. T. his consequence it must) or to more-sanctifie a condition to one that is a believer. But Mr T. observes further, That ' E● is not rightly rendered by in the old Latin, and our new English Translation; as if the faith of the wife were the cause of sanctifying the unbelieving husband. For no man will say the faith of the believing wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband federally, so that the unbelieving husband should be capable of Baptism by his wife's faith, (which yet, by the good leave of such men be it said, doth as well follow from this place, as that the son is federally holy, and capable of Baptism for the faith of the parent.) Neither can it be said, that the Parent is sanctified with spiritual sanctification, by the faith of the wife. We Answ. To render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by, is tolerable; seeing the Apostles do very oft Hebraize and make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew, which oft signifies by * Sanctification est vir qui infidelis est, in uxore fideli, i●●● est, per. Hebraismus. Sanctificataesi mulier quae estinfidelis in viro fideli, id est, per. Hebraismus. So Tremelius in his Translation of and Notes upon the Sy●. But we regard not whether it be rendered by or in, that is in or through the beleiver his faith, the unbeleiver is sanctified to him; still it will stand good that faith may as well be the instrumental cause of a lesser thing; namely, of sanctifying an unbelieving husband to a believing wife's use, as it is an instrumental cause of a greater thing; namely, of justification, Rom. 5.1. And every one may boldly say, that the faith of the believing wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband federally in this sense, to wit, as all outward things that have no holiness in them, meat, drink, , carnal friends, etc. may be called federally holy to a believer; that is, that they are and shall be for a believers good and comfortable use, by reason of the Covenant she is in with God; though her faith cannot sanctify her unbelieving husband federally for the Sacrament of Baptism. 1. Because the line of the Covenant runs not To thee believing Woman and thy husband; or, To thou believing husband and to thy Wife. But to thee believing parent and thy seed. 2. Because whiles the woman is a beleiver; the husband is said here to be a known unbeliever, And whiles the husband is a beleiver, the wife is said to be a known unbeleiver, according to this, 1 Cor. 7.14. And all unbelievers known to be such, by apparent Scriptures are not to be accounted federally holy, so as to belong to the Seal of the Covenant. 3. Mr Tombs affirms after that the unbelieving husband is sanctified TO the believing wife. The sanctification is not to her (as the Covenant of the father is to the Infant) but to her the believer. Which three Reasons makes me look on Mr. Tombs his comparison as a very strange one, as if not well weighed, before it was uttered, viz. That it doth as well follow, saith Mr Tombs, from this place, that the unbelieving husband is federally holy so as to be capable of Baptism by the believing wives faith; as that the son is federally holy, and capable of Baptism for the faith of the Parent. But let the candid Reader look back on what we have said on this, 1 Cor. 7. or look forward to the Scriptures, and judge whether this be not a very uneven comparison. It is further objected by Mr T. that in this 1 Cor. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IN THE WIFE) is more rightly rendered in Latin in the Dative (as TO THE WIFE. But we ask Mr Tombs in what latin is it so rendered? Not in the old lat. that is by. Not in Vatabl, that is also By. Not in Beza, that is in. Not in the Syr. that is also by. If you mean is to be rendered, or may or might be rendered better in the Dative TO, for which you bring seven instances. 1 We answer that those instances may be tolerably (at least) rendered in the ablative notion IN according to the note there of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In. As Gal. 1.16. To reveal his son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IN ME, that is not only by the sound of the word to me, but by his spirit and the graces thereof, and the effectual illuminations and operations of both experimentally IN ME. So 2 Pet. 1.5. Giving all diligence add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in your faith, or through your faith virtue, that is that the rest of the graces may come in into faith, or through faith, into the soul, or that virtue may be in faith. As it is said Galathians 5, 6. faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inwardly effectually working by love; That is Faith is effectual faith when true heart warming love is in it, breaking forth in act. Jam. 2. Mr Tombs doth know, that virtutes connectuntur moral virtues are connexed, much more when by a higher principle of the spirit, they are made theological graces; and he doth know that there are general directive virtues (justice and prudence) as the eyes to all the rest, as master veins to all the lesser; And therefore all virtues are said to be knit together in prudence; So all graces in faith. If the understanding and the will be (as some learned will) the same faculty really, and the soul infused by the concreation of God at once, yet in order of working the act of understanding is first in nature. So though all the graces be but one habit, infused at first at the same time; yet faith in Christ is first (as the Apostle sets it first in this 2 Pet. 1.5.) in order of acting, or of applying Christ for additional infusion and augmentation of graces, which is Peter's business in hand. And so faith adds virtue: virtue comes into the soul, in and through faith. So Act. 4.12. There is no other name under heaven given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in men, into men (effectually) or extant in the midst of men, among men. So 1 Cor. 7.15. But God hath called us (me and you Corinthiaens) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in peace, into peace settled us in a state of inward peace. So Math. 17.12. Elijah is already come (that is John Baptist) and you have done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in him whatsoever ye would, you have have chopped the axe into his neck; you have exercised your cruelty upon him. So lastly, Act. 7.44. The Tabernacle of witness was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Congregation or Church of our fathers in the wilderness, As they then are said to be a Church v. 38. 2 We answer to Mr Tombs his assertion (upon these instances) that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be rendered, or better rendered To the wife, in (the dative case) it disadvantageth us nothing in the meaning of this text which before we have asserted. But helps us to Mr Tombs his confession, to agree with us now (contrary to his former struggle) in this, that the unbelieving husband is not any how sanctified in himself, or to himself by the believing wife; but is sanctified only to her. And therefore is not sanctified from any thing common to both: But sanctified to her quâ believer as she is a believer, and opposite to his condition of unbelief, and therefore her faith hath the only stroke under Christ and his Spirit to sanctify the unbelieving husband as sanctifying is here meant. Thus we have wearied ourselves and perhaps the reader in a long answer to a large argument. Yet in some sense, Non suns long a quibus nihil est quod demere possis. The rest which Mr Tombs speaks to this argument, is built upon this as to be granted (as he saith) that matrimonial holiness must needs be here meant; which we cannot grant, but can overthrow, and we hope have so done, though we have not said all that may be said. Only one thing Mr T. adds which is not founded upon his imagined supposition: Namely, whereas Beza (saith Mr T.) infers that if matrimonial holiness should be the sense of this place, the Apostle should draw an argument from civil laws to pacify conscience: Mr Tombs answers that the Apostle using his Apostolical authority resolves the doubt in this chapter, and teacheth that according to God's law, and Christ's precept, the marriage is not dissolved by the infidelity of either yoke-fellow, etc. To which we reply, that the Corinthians could not scruple about, not be ignorant of that, which for many ages was notoriously divulged throughout the Gentile World, by their civil laws. They knew well enough who were adulterers and formicators, who not, by their politic laws. But their scruple is whether conjugal companying with an unbeliever did not spiritually pollute the believer. In this the civil or politic laws of men were silent and could not resolve it: And the rules of civil marriage could not satisfy; it being matter of faith. CHAP. VII. THe Argument from Mat. 19.15. Mar. 10.14.16. Luke 18.15, 16, 17. may be form in divers manners: Exercitat. First thus; S. 6. The Arguments from Mat. 19.15. for Infant-Baptism, examined. They are to be buptized, whom Christ commands to be brought to him, being moved with indignation towards his disciples that repelled them. But Christ commands Infants to be brought to him. Ergo. That this Argument may be examined, it is to be considered: 1. Who they were that brought these children. 2. What little children they were that were brought. 3. Upon what motives. 4. To what end. 5. What time. 6. In what place they brought them. 7. For what cause the Apostles did repel them. 8. For what cause Christ being angry with the Apostles, commanded them to be brought. In many of these we have scarce any thing beside conjectures which we may follow, neither have I leisure or books to look into all things which Commentators have discoursed concerning these heads. As for the 1 it is supposed that the bringers were either parents, or other believers, who at lest wished well to the little children; which is probable from the end for which they brought them, to wit, that he might bless them, and pray for them; for this showeth faith and love. As for the second, it is probable they were children of jews, because this was done in the coasts of judea, Mat. 19.1. Mar. 10.1. But whether the parents of the children believed in Christ or otherwise, is not manifest. As for the third, concerning the motive, there is little certain, whether it were upon the sight, or hearing of that which Christ did Mat. 18.2. or from a custom among the jews, of seeking the blessing of Prophets and holy men for their little ones, as Rebekah for jacob, joseph for his sons; or from the fame of things done upon the prayers of Christ; or an instinct from God, that occasion might be given of teaching the things that Christ taught upon this matter; or some other motive. As for the fourth, the end is expressed by Matthew, that he might put on hands and pray; by Mark and Luke that he might touch them, which tends to impart a blessing. As for the fifth, Matthew points at the time, by the particle [then] and both Mark and Matthew, put it after the dissertation with the Pharisees concerning divorce, and the answer to the Disciples exception, which Mark testifies was made in the house; Luke puts it after the parable of the Publican and the Pharisce, but he is wont to relate things out of their right place. But what the holy Spirit doth intimate, by noting the time precisely, I guess not, unless perhaps he would have it noted that an occasion was opportunely ministered of amplifying the argument concerning making a man's self an Eunuch for the Kingdom of heaven, though this reason doth not very much like me. As for the sixth, the place is intimated, Mat. 19.1. Mar. 10.1. in the coasts of judea, beyond jordan, in Mat. By the farther side of jordan, in Mark; about which it availeth not to our present purpose to inquire. As for the seventh, the reason of repelling, is not known, but by conjecture, it is probable this bringing of little children, was troublesome to them, either because it did interrupt Christ's Speech about marriage, and fitness to the Kingdom of heaven, or because they sought rest in the house, or because they did think this bringing would be in vain. As for the eighth, Christ without doubt, was angry with the Disciples, because they hindered the occasion of doing good to men, whereas Christ went about doing good, Act. 10.38. And in this business the faith of the bringers was to be cherished, and the power of blessing in Christ was to be manifested, and the excellent doctrine to be delivered concerning little children's being capable of the Kingdom of heaven, of the quality of them who receive the Kingdom of heaven; but whether Christ would that this fact should remain as a perpetual rule for baptising the Infants of believers, is yet a question. It seems scarce probable it should be so. 1 Because Baptism of Infants, being merely positive, so obscure and doubtful an institution, is without example and reason. 2 Because we find no practice or hint in Scripture, which may expound this fact to this sense. 3 Because, if he had given a command to the Apostles of baptising Infants, he had rather said, bring the little children to me, then suffer them to be brought to me. 4 He had declared whose Infants he would have baptised, and not have spoken so indefinitely, it is certain, before the command, Mat. 28.19, 20. There is no precept extant, concerning baptising Gentiles, much less concerning baptising the Infants of the Gentiles. 5 The words, suffer & forbidden not, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these little children, as Beza reads, show that Christ's words are meant only of those children. 6 If this fact pertain to Baptism, then we must say, that Christ baptised; the contrary whereof is said, joh. 4.2. As for that whic● is objected, that 3 Evangelists rehearse this fact, that thence a perpetual rule may be drawn, of bringing Infants to Christ by an outward Ordinance, which is not done but by Baptism, it is weak: For, 1. Three Evangelists rehearse the bringing of the palsy man to Christ, the access of the leprous person to Christ, and many other things, from which yet no perpetual rule is form. 2. If any rule be hence to be form, that is to be perpetually observed, this relation will serve more fitly to establish Episcopal confirmation, by laying on hands, and praying, then Presbyterial baptism. Secondly, we must distinguish, concerning bringing to Christ; there is a bringing to Christ, by local ad motion, there is another bringing to Christ by spiritual instruction; this bringing to Christ, is the cause of Baptism, not the other: for many were brought by the command of Christ, to Christ, as the blind son of Timaeus, and others, of whose baptism, or conversion we read not; for not all that were corporally healed by Christ, were also spiritually healed, as we are to say of the nine Lepers, Malchus, and others. 3 The Argument supposeth they may be baptised whom Christ commands to be brought; but neither is this true of spiritual bringing, for not those whom he commands to be brought spiritually are to be baptised, but those whom he hath brought. As for that which is said, that they are repelled from Christ, that are repelled from baptism; It is a light thing, for baptism doth not bring men to Christ, unless the persons be first in Christ. Neither is therefore any man repelled from Christ, because he is not baptised, but when he is kept back being sit for baptism. The Argument therefore is answered by denying the major, universally taken. Mr. T. here reports divers forms of Arguments out of these places of Scripture quoted by him, Animadvers. and some of them he represents to us very lamely form, and therefore the easilier put off by him; but among all, not one so form, as was wont among us, where I have been. I will urge therefore one form which perhaps will break the edge of most that Mr. T. hath answered here; and then I will consider what more is considerable in his answers to the forms he hath set down. Our Argument is this. To whom indefinitely as such, heaven, and the blessing of and for heaven belongs, to them as such the seal of conveyance, or confirmation of heaven and that blessing belongs. For if the land be mine, the deeds and seals of conveyance are mine: But heaven and the blessing of and for heaven belongs indefinitely to such little children, more, whiles little children; so the texts here expressly. To them belong, or (which is all one) of such is the kingdom of heaven, and he took them in his arms and blessed them. Therefore to little children indefinitely belongs the seal of conveyance, or confirmation of heaven, and the blessing of heaven, which in the New Testament, according to the time Christ spoke, is Baptism. Obj. Say the Anabaptists, S.D. though it be thus said of these little children, yet not of all. Answ. Therefore we said to little children indefinitely, and so to be applied to all such as these are; as it is said in these texts of such is the kingdom of heaven, etc. even as election, and the promises of the Gospel were indefinitely so and so propounded in the Primitive times but to those then; yet by the same reason as propounded to them, just so to be applied to us. Now doubtless THE, or THAT same seed of Abraham, to wit, Christ, means such little children as agreed with the tenor of the Covenant to his father Abraham: namely, little children whose parents were reputed believers. And therefore these things spoken by our Saviour belong indefinitely to the like little children. As Mr. T. confesseth after that Mr. Beza renders it of these and the like infants. Obj. But, S.D. say the Anabaptists, here is no mention of Baptism. Answ. But our argument infers Baptism. 2 Here is mention of, and doing of an after-higher thing than baptism, namely, confirmation of them by prayer, and imposition of hands * This Mr. T. confesseth in express words after in his answer to the 2 form of argument from these texts, p. 19 of his Ex●rcit. . Now, if Christ speaks of, and doth such after higher things to such little children whiles little children, how much more may that which in nature antecedes and goes before these, namely, baptism be administered to them whiles such little children? For the clearing this of imposition of hands, learned Pareus hath these words on Hebr. 6.2. Some, saith he, conjoin the two heads of Baptisms, and imposition of hands; because as there were two ranks of Catechumeni, catechised persons, so there was a two fold innitiating ceremony. 1 Those of ripe years of the heathen did before their baptism recite the Articles of the Creed, touching the Christian faith. And this was the catechising or doctrine of Baptisms. 2. The Infants of Christians, who by the right of the promise were baptised in their infancy, who being past their childhood, were received into the Church by imposition of hands, where or at which time they first recited the same heads or Articles of faith before the Church. And this was the doctrine of imposition of hands. So Pareus. So Calvin, Bullinger, August, Marlorat, Hoffman, Theophylact, only they spoke more home, if you precisely observe their words, which are [C] these, The doctrine of Baptisms, imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and the last judgement ought to be read conjoinedly, with a certain Apposition (as the Grammarians call it) in this sense; Not laying again the foundation of repentance, of faith in God, of the resurrection of the dead, which is the doctrine of Baptism, and Imposition of hands. Therefore if you include in a parenthesis these two sentences, the doctrines of Baptisms and Imposition of hands, the context will run more fluently. For unless you read it appositively, this absurdity will follow, that the same thing will be twice repeated. For what is the doctrine of Baptism but that which he here reckons, to wit, Of faith towards God, of repentance, of the last judgement, and the like. The solemnities and standing set days of baptising he calls Baptisms in the plural number, [T] otherwise there is but one baptism in the Christian Church. Ephes. 4.5. [C] He joins together with baptism, the imposition of hands, because as there were two orders of catechised persons, so there was a double ceremony. For those that were foreigners without, did not come to Baptism, before they had made a confession of their faith. In them therefore catechising was wont to go before Baptism. But as for the children of believers, because they were adopted from the womb, and by the right of the promise did appertain to the body of the Church, they were baptised when Infants. But being past infanty, after they were instructed in the faith, they offered themselves also to catechising, which in these followed baptism. But another symbol or sign was applied to these, namely, the imposition of hands. [A. M.] of which there was a various use [H.] For by imposition of hands sometimes Christ, sometimes the Apostles cured the sick. Luk. 4.10. Mar. 16.18. Sometimes by imposition of hands the holy Ghost was conferred. Act. 8.17. [B.] Also the hands of the Pastors were imposed upon those to whom, and to whose faithfulness was committed the care of the Church, or the Ministry of the Word, 1 Tim. 5.21. [C] Imposition of hands also was a certain solemn right or manner of praying, of which the Apostle here speaks. (Hebr. 6.2.) For by this symbol or sign (of laying on of hands) they would approve that profession of faith which young youth coming out of childhood, did make. Therefore this place alone abundantly testifies that the original of imposition of hands came down from the Apostles. Thus far these learned men's words reasons and Scripture-proof. See more in Marlo. on 1 Tim. 5.21. But we may not omit Mr. Cotton, because he is in such credit with Mr. Tombs, that he oft respectively quotes him as for himself in his Exercit. Mr. Cottons words on Hebr. 6.2. are these. Way of C●u: of N.E. Chap. 2. p. 27. of 1 edit. There be that conceive, & that not improbable, that in ancient time the children baptised in the Church, were not received to the Lords Supper, nor into the full fruition of all Church-liberties, until that they being grown up to years, did publicly before the Church profess their faith, and ratify the covenant made for them in baptism, and so were confirmed (as they call it) in their Church estate; which was not done without imposition of hands; which some judicious Divines have conceived to be one cause why imposition of hands is reckoned as one of the six principles of the foundation of Christian Religion, Hebr. 6.2. For it could not be a principle of the foundation of Christian faith; it must therefore be a principle of the foundation of Church estate, and order. Now than if all the members of the Church were anciently confirmed in the full fruition of the Church estate by imposition of hands, than there were none of the members of the Church, but had received imposition of hands, much more the Ruling-elders, who over and above the former were ordained to their public office, by imposition of hands; and so having received imposition of hands themselves, they might more freely lay hands on others. So Mr. Cotton. By all this it is clear, that this imposition of hands by Christ on these little children in the texts afore quoted, Matth. 17. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. according to the order set down by the Apostle, Hebr. 6.2. did succeed and follow after their baptism, as supposed and granted to be baptised afore. Obj. But say the Anabaptists, it is in the text, of such is the kingdom of heaven; that is, of men like infants. Answ. 1. We heard afore how Mr. Beza renders it of these and the like, as relating to little children. And his grave and learned pious judgement is as much to be credited as any Anabaptist, in saying it is so or so. 2 The Greek Authors do oft take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such, for hoc, this. Bud. Const. Plaet. 3 If rendered such, it's fare more natural, and not so fare fetched to say of such little children of whom the story is, then of such men. But fourthly, come to reason. Christ, Mar. 10.16. speaks of them whom he took up in his arms, Pass. Vessius. (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an arm. Luk. 2.28. of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ulna. per epenthesin literarum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) But he took up not the men, but the little children into his arms, and laid his hands upon them, and blessed them; therefore of them he spoke, and shown that heaven and the blessing of heaven belonged to them. 5 That by discourse upon this, v. 15. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein, is also for us. For the thing and the comparison must agree in the main scope; but men must as little children receive the kingdom of God. Therefore little children are in a capacity of that kingdom. 6 If we argue but from Christ laying on of hands upon the little ones, according to their intent that brought them, v. 13. and blessing them; this is an argument sufficient that he meant that blessing, and consequently (if but from blessing) heaven did belong to those little ones. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laying his hands in them, must needs agree to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, little children, not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whosoever will not receive the kingdom as a child; by reason of the gender, and number. That objection of some Anabaptists, that Christ took them up in his arms of mercy; not of his body; is too frivelous (turning the naked history into an allegory) and not worthy of an answer. Now let us see what is left considerable in Mr. T. his answer to the first form of Argument out of Matth. 19 Mar. 10. etc. as he reports the Argument. To his position (after his long Analysis of these places) That it is a question, scarce probable, whether Christ would have this fact remain as a perpetual rule for baptising the infants of believers. We answer. That the argument, as Mr. T. presents it to us, doth not say so: but only intends to show all things to have been in them that were necessary to put them into a capacity, to receive baptism. And that they are supposed here to have been afore baptised, before they were brought to this higher addition of imposition of hands, and blessing. To Mr. T. his 1, 2, 3, Reasons of that his conclusion, we likewise say, that the argument doth not drive at an institution of baptising infants here that I can perceive in the words. To his fourth Reason our reply is: It is intimated here that Believers infants should be baptised, as we shown but now, in our form of argument from these texts. And Christ speaks very indefinitely in Matth. 28. (quoted by Mr. Tombs) the grand place of Antipaedo baptists. When Mr. T. saith there is no precept extant concerning baptising Gentiles, I suppose he means not absolutely. For is it not said, Matth. 28. Go baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all the (Gentile) nations, and therefore the Gentiles are not excluded. Or else the Apostles and Evangelists must be condemned for baptising the Ennuch, the Centurion, etc. without a rule. Or if Mr. T. means no rule extant here in Matth. 19 Mar. 10. Luk. 18. we have touched already, that the words of the argument do not extend thither. For Mr. Tombs his other expression in this fourth Reason, That there is no precept extant concerning the baptising the infants of the Gentiles; If he means this absolutely, we have showed the contrary already out of Gen. 17. Matth. 28. Act. 15. and shall I trust speak more. If he means no precept here, Matth. 19 Mar. 10. Luk. 18. he speaks not to the argument. To Mr. T. his fifth Reason, we say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be certainly rendered, those little ones (istos puerulos, as Beza once hath it). For first the article is innumerable times redundant, and supervacaneous. Secondly, that if intended for an emphasis here, it would sound in my ear more harmoniously to the scope of the text thus; suffer those little ones, that you despise, because little ones; for I esteem them; for of such, etc. So that the emphasis relates to their age, little ones, not to their number, just those and no more. It aims at their kind of condition, not individualitie of their persons. Thirdly, for. Mr. T. his authority of Beza, though in Matth. 19.14. he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (istos puerulos) those little ones, of which our best English translation takes no notice though the Translators much regarded him, yet the same Beza, in Mar. 10.16. Luk. 18.15. twice renders the same Greek phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puerulos, little children, without any those or the like term. To Mr. T. his sixth Reason out of Job. 4.2. it is not to any thing in the express of argument, as Mr. T. hath given it us. For that which follows, that some of us should object that three Evangelists rehearse this fact, that thence a perpetual rule may be drawn, of bringing infants to Christ, by an outward ordinance, which is not done but by baptism. To which Mr. T. saith it is weak for three causes he allegeth. Our reply is, we could wish from our heart, Mr. Tombs would have quoted where these arguments be, if in print. For we hardly come by this little time (as dear bought) to give these few Animadversions; and so have none superabounding to look over all the books in Town of this argument to find a clause. Or else that Mr. T●mles would present us with every argument at first in full, that we might know whether it be the same man's prosecutions, or whether Mr. T. picked it up elsewhere. I intent not to justify extravagancies; or to make a substance of every circumstantial expression, that falls from any man's mouth, or pen. Or to say he fights with a bilbo-blade, when it is but a bulrush. But this I may say to the particular now in hand, that it is not nothing, that three Evangelists rehearse this fact of Christ's blessing and promising heaven to little children. That still they were brought to him for an outward ordinance, imposition of hands, that that ordinance given to them, did suppose a former, namely, Baptism (as we have showed). And therefore if a little child be brought for the first ordinance that he as such is capable of (as children were of circumcision) it must be to baptism. And this may be a rule. To Mr. T. his first cause against the objection in his sixth Reason, we say only this, that though 3. Evangelists rehearse the bringing of the palsy man to Christ, yet Christ doth not bid any to bring him, or further him to him; as he did of these little ones when he saw them kept off; as knowing he had imposition of hands and blessing for them, which he had not for many others. Christ did not only cherish their faith that brought them (as Mr. T. affirms) but also cherished that baptism the children had received, and as Mr. T. confessed in the close of his Analysis, further manifested (out of his own mouth) that these little ones were capable of heaven. And yet thus much is to be said of the palsy man, that Christ seeing the bearers of him to uncover the roof of the house, yet neither he, nor the owners for his sake reproving that wrong done, which was a special intimation of invitation, it proved in the event, that Christ had a great ministerial ordinance to be administered to him, namely, to pronounce to him the forgiveness of his sins, Mar. 2.9. And from such instances as these, if Christ were now upon earth this rule might be drawn, that believers children, and poor sinners should be welcome to him. And if they, or by the help of their friends, shown much desire of coming to him, in their special endeavour thereunto, Christ encouraging, or conniving at their crowding toward him; sure it would fairly forespeak that they should get some spiritual good by one ordinance or another afore they returned. To Mr. T. his second cause upon the objection in the fourth Reason, we have only this. First, that if these texts, Matth. 19 Mar. 10. Luk. 18. will form a perpetual rule for confirmation of children by imposition of hands; than it will suppose, that they are first baptised. Secondly, that confirmation as confirmation * You heard of the original and manner of Scripture imposition of hands afore, though after abused in later ages. See Marlo. on Hebr. 6.2. , is not Episcopal, no more than Baptism of believers infants is Presbyterial; but both are Scripturiall (if I may so speak to echo to Mr. T. his distinction.) To the third cause in answer to the objection in this sixth Reason only this; that this argument may well suppose that they had been baptised whom Christ commanded to be brought to him, and so commends this to them, That theirs is the kingdom of God, and blesseth them. Yea can Mr. T. himself suppose less than that they were fit for baptism, than many of the Jewish children for circumcision. And if fit matter (as is the Anabaptists own phrase) why not to have that for which they are fit. Obj. O but there was no manifestation of their fitness. Answ. Christ manifests it of children indefinitely, that of such is the kingdom of God; and to them is the blessing. And if Christ commands them to be brought spiritually, then sure his command prevails to make them to be brought spiritually. And if any be justly repelled from baptism (the first seal) sure they can be no less then repelled from Christ for that, and for so long. Matth. 3. And if baptism (taken in its full latitude) as an ordinance of Christ may not be said to bring any to Christ, to close with him; sure it cannot be properly said to bring them to Christ, after they be in Christ; but rather to confirm them in him. To his denying the major; we say the major is universally true, if taken according to the sense and circumstances of the Scripture upon which it is grounded, namely, that Christ is most willing they should be brought to him, and commands them to be brought, to the end to pronounce them blessed, and tells us they are fit for it, heaven being theirs. But if the Proposition be taken as in the express of the text, indefinitely, there is no universal proposition to cross it, as that no infants may have the first seal. Secondly, saith Mr. Tombs, the argument from these texts, Exercit. p. 19 Matth. 19 Mar. 10. Luk. 18. for baptising infants is this. Those whom Christ embraced laid his hands on, blessed, may be baptised: But Christ embraced infants, etc. therefore. Answ. This argument (saith Mr. T.) supposeth these acts of Christ, to have been all one as if he had baptised. But this is said without proof. In very deed that act of blessing was more than Baptism, Note. and yet it had not the same reason with baptism. Job. 4.2. Christ did not baptise, but his disciples. But that blessing was an act by which he obtained some singular gift from God, by prayers for those infants, upon whom he laid his hands. Nor is this benefit said to be bestowed on them for the faith of their parents, but of singular favour with Christ, as Lazarus with his sisters, John the Apostle, etc. therefore the major proposition is to be denied. For there is no connexion between this fact, which is extraordinary, and the act of ordinary ministry, which is to be fulfilled, according to the Lords prescription. We answer to Mr. T. his preamble before his answer. Animadvers. 1 That it doth not appear by the argument, nor by report, nor by any thing that I have read, that the Author of this argument or any else ever held, that this fact of Christ in blessing the little ones, etc. was all one with Baptism. 2 That this fact doth suppose a fitness in infants for the lesser, viz. Baptisine, that are fit for the greater, namely blessing, as here (which Mr. T. now confessed to be greater than baptism.) 3 This doth suppose that these infants (as Mr. Tombs here calls them) had received baptism before they were blessed thus by Christ. For we find many impositions of hands in the Scripture; but conferred on none that I know, but on such as formerly had been baptised, yea supposed to have grace. See before, in our form of argument on these texts of Matt. 19 Mar. 10. Luk. 18. and the learned on Hebr. 6.2. 4 That their baptism was bestowed on them for the faith of their parents, their parents being by all means to be supposed to be believers living in the Church of the Jews and circumcised; and now they (for who more likely) bringing their children to Christ after the Jewish custom, as to some great Prophet, these children after their baptism have this blessing bestowed upon them. 5 I do not find where or what that is Mr. T. means touching Lazarus and his sisters, and John. But Mr. Tombs will not find us a place or particular where any were blessed by Christ, with this solemn form of blessing, which was not only by lifting up of hands in prayer; but with laying down of hands upon them; but by all circumstances it presupposeth baptism, if not a manifestation of grace too. 6 Mr. T. will not find any imposition of hands for spiritual use upon any in the New Testament but on such as by all means must be supposed to have been baptised. As in the old Testament the Patriarches laid not their hands of blessing, but on those that had been circumcised. Secondly, to Mr. T. his deny all of the major Proposition, as if there were no connexion between this blessing and baptism. We say first, there is a connexion in the things, as between the foundation, and the edifice, as between first and second, the second supposing the first. And there is a connexion in the argument à fortiori. If the greater be done, which is not done till after the lesser; then the greater supposeth the lesser as its introductory. To the touch, that this blessing by Christ by imposition of hands was extraordinary: 1 It was not extraordinary, that is unusual, for it was customary with the Patriarches and Prophets to lay on hands, and bless them that had the 1 seal, circumcision. 2 If extraordinary signifies supernatural, so is every ordinance, both in the institution, and efficacy supernatural. 3 If extraordinary be put here to signify extraordinary gifts, above ordinary saving grace, or the increase of it; there is nothing in these texts to make it out. For here is nothing to represent the same but confirmation of saving grace; other miracularie or supereminent gifts to act withal, were not given to children, that we read. 4 That though imposition of hands did sometimes signify and convey extraordinary miraculary gifts, and callings to offices upon men; yet imposition did betoken usually, ordinary grace and things for men and children as we shown afore, and more might be showed out of Hebr. 6.2. The third Argument which Mr. T. presents to us (as ours) out of these texts of Matth. 19 Mar. 10. Luk. 18. is this. Exerci. p. 19 They may be baptised, whose is the kingdom of heaven. But of infants is the kingdom of heaven. Erge. 1. Mr. T. Answ. The Major (saith he) is true, if it be understood of those whose is the kingdom of heaven, when it appears the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. Secondly, It is not said in the text [of infants is the kingdom of heaven] but of such it the kingdom of heaven. And Christ expounds what he means, Mar. 10.25. Euk. 18.17. to wit, of them who in humility of mind are like little children, as it is Matt. 18.3, 4. but if [of such] be to be expounded as Beza would annotat in Mat. 19.14. [of these and the like] as above, Mat. 18. it is not proved from thence that the kingdom of heaven perteins to all infants of believers, but to them whom he blessed, and to those persons who either are so blessed, or are converted, and humble as little children. Whence we deny, first, the major if taken universally. Secondly, the minor as it is put indefinitely. We answer. To what Mr. T. saith in the first place. Animadverse 1 That Mr. T. his answer to the major is a mere repetition, if not a begging of the question, that none whiles infants are to be baptised? 2 There was a contrary rule in the old Testament, and part of the New, that infants of reputed believers should have the first seal of circumcision. 3 There is no such rule for limitation (as Mr. Tombs mentions) expressed in all the New Testament, That none may be baptised till it appeared the kingdom of heaven belonged to them, as Mr. Tombs means. For he must mean a certainty of appearance, or else he saith little to purpose. For federal right was an appearance in the old Testament. I have no list now to dispute upon the faith, or confession mentioned usually at the baptising of men by John Baptist, and some others: Their words short and general, that Christ was the Son of God; or that they were sinners, and their affections cold, for any good fruits we can find that followed from most towards Christ all his life time, or to his disciples, but many times bad; some called Disciples falling off from Christ. Job. 6.66. Others such, as though called believers, yet Christ would not commit himself to them, knowing what was in them. Joh. 2.23, 24, 25. Ananias, Saphira, and Simon Magus foully falling away anon after their baptism. But this I would fain know of the Anabaptists, all things considered, first, whether there be a rule in the New Testament, in so many words (as they require for infant baptism) touching baptising people of ripe years, and enjoined upon them afore their baptism; as may put it out of doubt, or at least make a close spiritual discovery, that to them did belong the kingdom of heaven? Secondly, whether it be not as good an appearance that the kingdom of God belongs to the infants of a standing professor (manifesting his faith by many spiritual experiences) because it is said by God, I am the God of thee, and thy seed (which I trust Mr. T. will acknowledge to be true in the New Testament to believing parents to apply it to themselves concerning their infants) as is that appearance that the kingdom of God belongs to a sudden confessor of ripe years, that he is a sinner, that Christ is the Son of God, that he desires to be baptised, heard and seen by man's senses but since yesterday, or the day before, or a short time since? I appeal to the general practice of the Anabaptists in their rebaptising, seriously to understand what I say. I know how some would heighten that general confession that Christ was the Son of God; from the opposition made against it in Christ's time. But let them not forget that if this confession by their grant went along with baptism, that then it was entertained as well as baptism. And the chief Priests and Elders of the people durst not say John's baptism was from men, For they feared the people * Matt. 21.25. Mar. 11.29. , lest the people should stone them * Luk. 20.6. . The people were got to such a head, as to hurl away fear of being baptised, according to the concomitants thereof: multitudes coming from all parts to be baptised, Matth. 3. none controlling, that we read, yea the Sadduces and Pharisees also offered themselves to baptism, ibid. Matth. 3.7. And for Christ, the Rulers durst not take him on the feast day for fear of an uproar among the people. Matth. 26.5. Add to all, that at John's baptising the multitudes, there is no mention of any thing, but of confessing their sins; and that they might do without any show of danger of persecution; and many wretched men may do, and have little right to the kingdom of God. Again we answer to that Mr. T. speaks, Secondly, thus. 1 That Mr. T. doth not stand to his exposition of that sentence, Of such is the kingdom of heaven, not to signify infants but humble men. For Mr. T. speaks after, with an [if] if of such be otherwise to be expounded, then so and so he answers. Atque iter explorat. Mr. T. doth but try, which way he may go; which nay I will be driven. 2 Though we have said much already * See before on our form of argument, on these texts, Matth. 19 Mar 10. Luk. 18. for proof that of such must relate to the infants, yet we now add this: 1 That of such is the kingdom of God, is given as a reason why the disciples should suffer little children to come unto him; For (saith he) of such is the kingdom of God. Now this would have been but a strange piece of sense from Christ's mouth; suffer little children to come, etc. For heaven belongs to humble men of ripe years. 2 That therefore the reason may hold good, children must at least be included in such as a part. 3 That little children must be mainly included; because these are propounded as the original as it were; the humble men but the copy. These men do but write after those infants as their sample or pattern. Obj. But Mr. T. saith, Christ expounds the word such, Mar. 10.15. Luk. 18.17. of men who in humility of mind are little children. Ans. Mr. T. must not call Christ's occasional discourses, and allusions, expositions. See Luk. 14.15. For at a civil feast he takes occasion to speak of a spiritual eating in the kingdom of heaven; yet this is not the exposition of that. A multitude of like instances might be given. So when Christ saith here, Mar. 10.15. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein. It is spoken occasional, as in a parenthesis, which may be left out, and the sense of the story of blessing the little children, as to whom heaven did belong, stand full and perfect. Or as that which may be put last, as done last after Christ's whole speech and action to the little ones, and so it is put last, Luk. 18.17. spoken by Christ to quip those that kept off the little ones from Christ (as esteeming them, or the motion of bringing them to Christ, contemptible) as if Christ said to them, you had need look to yourselves that ye be so happy as little children, etc. By all which it appears that this speech about men is not of the body, or substance of the solemnity of blessing the little ones, or of the doctrine why they should be permitted to be brought to Christ, but is only a circumstance, and cause made to the standers by. As for Mat. 18.3, 4. there is not a tittle of Christ's blessing little ones; but the pride of the disciples occasioning Christ to set a child before them for a text, out of which to preach humility to them. Obj. But lest this exposition of such, that is, humble men, should not stand firm, but fall before some such reasons as we have given, Mr. T. provides another exposition: That of such must not signify all infants of believers, but only them whom he blessed, and those persons who either are so blessed, or are converted and humble as little children. Answ. 1. Christ doth not say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of such. 2 Christ speaks indefinitely; who shall presume to restrain him with Ifs and Ands? The Apostle saith, Act. 2. more precisely to you are the promises; yet may not we apply that to us, when we are pinched in heart for sin? being whatsoever things were written afore, (as the Apostle speaks, Rom. 15.4.) were written for our instruction, or learning, that we through patience and COMFORT of the Scriptures might have HOPE, for us and ours. 3 What ever persons else this may be extended to, by Mr. Tombs, that doth not exclude other believers infants. Positâ una affiematione, etc. one affirmative doth not take away another. For Mr. Tombs his denying major or minor, we leave the Reader to judge by that which hath been said. Those on whom Christ laid his hands, must be supposed to have been baptised afore. Or if Mr. Tombs could evince they were not, contrary to the custom of the Scriptures; yet they must be as fit or more fit for baptism then imposition. CHAP. VIII. THe Argument from the place, * E●cercit. Sect. 7. The argument from Act. 15.16. etc. for Infant Baptism examined. Act. 16.15.32.33. Act. 18.8. 1 Cor. 1.16. is thus form: If the Apostle baptised whole households, than Infants; but the Apostle baptised whole households, Ergo, Answer. This Argument rests on a sleight conjecture, that there were Infants in those houses, and that those Infants were baptised, whereas the words of the Text evince not these things, yea, those things which are said, Act. 16.32. He spoke the Word of the Lord to him, and to all in his house; and vers. 33. He rejoiced, believing God with all his house. Act. 18.8. Crispus believed the Lord with his whole house, do plainly prove, that under the name of the whole house, are understood those only that heard the Word of God and believed. Whence it is answered by denying the consequence of the major Proposition. We reply. * Animad. If this be but a sleight conjecture whether there were Infants in these houses, why do the Anabaptists proclaim with such confidence, that for certain there was none; and that there is for certain no instance in the New Testament of any baptised? Me thinks they should leave it at least uncertain, when they say it is uncertain. 2 It is not so slight a conjecture to all, as to Mr. Tombs, whether there were children. For the Syr. in the story, Act. 16. hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He, the Gaoler, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his house, Vid. Schindl. de voce, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & Buxt. Sure enough a son of eight days old, is a son. And if sons of the house, than some sons of the father of the house, what ever notes may be put on the text different from the words in the text. 3 It is not so plainly proved, that under the name of the whole house, children or infants are not understood: First, because when the holy Ghost mentions house, it means children too, if there be no express exception. Gen. 50.22. (for they abounded with children, Exod. 1.) So 1 Tim. 3.5. for there is mention of the children, v. 4. I omit many other instances for brevity's sake. Secondly, where by house, children are not included, they are expressly excluded. Gen. 50.7, 8. And Joseph went to bury his father, and all the house of Joseph went, only their little ones they left in Goshen. Numb. 16.32, 33. And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up and all their houses, and all the men that appertained to Korah. Numb. 26.11. notwithstanding the children of Korah died not. Thirdly, it is distinctly said, Act. 16.32. that Peter spoke the word to the gaoler, and to all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, IN his house, which is more than to all OF his house. The holy Ghost makes some such distinction, Rom. 9.6. They are not all [Israe that are [of] Israel. So that all IN the Gaolers' house seems to be put to include those prisoners at large, and others that were not of his family, but only in his house at that time; by reason of the hurry and noise of the prison open, etc. running together to see what was the matter. Fourthly, He spoke the Word to all in his house, is a speech that may not absurdly in some proportion be extended to children, when something by it redounds to children, (as it is said John leapt in the womb of his mother Elizabeth, And Elizabeth was filled with the holy Ghost at the salutation of Mary. And Act. 2. The promise is to you and your children; for they should be the better for this.) The Word was spoken, was extended to the gaolers children, in that by his faith they were nearer too and in a readier capacity of salvation, than before, when the father was an enemy. What means else that v. 31. Believe THOU and thou shalt be saved, and THINE HOUSE. Can we possibly exclude here some that were not able to hear the Word distinctly? Fifthly, it is said signanter, acuratcly, and by way of distinction for him and his, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And HE was baptised, and all THOSE that were HIS. How can this be true; if those children he had were not baptised? And therefore Mr. Tombs was too bold to speak that latter clause, That it was a sleight conjecture if any infants were here, that they were baptised. If they were in this house, as sure they were baptised, as that they were the Gaolers. Sixthly, to that ver. 34. He rejoiced, believing God ●●●h all his household (which is one of Mr. Tombs his evincing arguments) we say, that the Greek must be accuratly heeded, that we may speak just so as the Spirit spoke. For first, that which divers render confidently with all his house, is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Adverbe; which signifies neither with, nor his, nor house, but throughout, or over all the house or family 2 That the pointing, and placing of the words in the English doth not answer so well to the best Greek copies as it may. For the Greek copies that Arius, Pagn, old lat (which followeth an ancient Greek, and therefore very considerable in its various readings of words and points, saith learned Usher) put away the point at rejoiced, so that no more can be evinced but that which is in the words, which is this. HE joyed with exultation or triumph over towards or throughout all his house or family, HE having believed God. So just according to the true idiom, and propriety, and order of words, in all Greek copies, and according to the pointing in the best; reason assenting, for why did he exult, or skip (as in a dance of a Galliar as the Greek imports) with triumph: but because he believed. He believing rejoiced triumphantly; He rejoicing with triumph, his families joys were raised and lightened; even children smile, when the parents rejoice. Let them therefore look to this, that mash the Text, and un pronounce, unperson, and unnumber the words, and dispoint the sentences, as if it were to be read, the Gaoler rejoiced because all his family actually believed. 7 That though Mr. T. answers to Crispus, yet nothing to Gaius * Consult. 3. ep. of Joh. v. 1. And the new Notes on the Bible upon it. (for sure he had a family as well as Crispus) nor to the family of Stephanas. Is any Anabaptist sure there were no infants in these families? Or that they were not baptised? why then do they put it upon us, as an infallibility, that no infants were baptised in these families, or any else? For that of Crispus, Mr. T. and I must leave it as we find it. It appears not evidently in the Grammar of the words that Crispus was baptised. CHAP. IX. SOme other Arguments occur, Exercitat. which make a number without strength. Why then doth Mr Tombs reckon upon cyphers? Animadver. 〈◊〉, Exercitat. § 5. The Argument from general promises for Infant-baptisme examined. it is argued from general promises made to the godly and their seed, Exod. 20.6. Psal. 112.2. etc. Whence it is gathered, That God makes a difference between the children of the godly and the wicked; that he promiseth blessing to those, not to these; therefore the children of the godly are to be baptised, not the other. Answ. The promises recited, are first general and indefinite: secondly, for the most part concerning corporal good things; thirdly, with the exception of free Election; fourthly, to be understood with the employed condition of faith and repentance, and so they serve not to this purpose. We Reply, to the first: If general and indefinite from God, Animadver. therefore not to be restrained by men from all those God mentions. To the second, If for the mostpart concerning corporals, yet Mr T. dares not say altogether: If some spirituals meant, it is to the purpose: secondly, In Exod. 20.6. The judgements there on sin must needs signsfie those that are spiritual; therefore, by the Antithesis, spiritual mercies must be understood. Thirdly, In that 112. Psal. v. 2. To expound that, The seed of the upright shall be blessed, that is, with outward things, were to say they should have no more than what multitudes, if not most of wicked men's children have; which in Gospell-English were to say, they are cursed. Their table may be made a snare, Psal. 69.22. And these are the ungodly that prosper in the world, Psal. 73.12. To the third: That the promises to men of ripe years also are with the exception of Free Election. So Rom. 9.18. Speaking of them that stood in opposition over against rebellious Pharaoh. To the fourth, we say: first, That promises must be considerable in the eyes of men, so as to come & wait under the pressing them, or else they will not be comfortable means to work actual faith and repentance in them. Secondly, That Mr T. cannot say that Infants are uncapable of faith: For if john Baptist, whiles a child, was full of the holy Ghost; sure he had that fruit of it, faith, in the habit. And those little ones Ghrist blessed, could not be blessed without union with Christ, which is by the spirit of faith. Secondly, Exercistat. § 9 The Argument from Isa. 49.22. for Infant-baptisme examined. from Isai. 49.22. it is foretold that Gentiles should therefore the Prophet foresaw in Spirit the baptism of the little ones of the Gentiles. Answ. First, little ones might be brought for other ends than baptism, as Mat. 19.15. Secondly, I will use the words of Francis junius in his Annotations on the place, All these things are said Allegorically, of the spiritual amplification of the Kingdom of Christ, as the Prophets are wont; they are fulfilled in the persuasions in which the Gentiles exhorted their children to embrace Christ. We Reply. Animadver. To the first: That Infants in that place, Mat. 19.15. were brought for an higher thing than Baptism (as we shown, and Mr T. confessed afore on that Text) therefore might be brought to a lower. viz. Baptism. Secondly, sure they should bring their children to the congregations of the Churches, to which Kings and Princes shall submit spiritually (as Constantine, etc. did) and this the Gentile parents should do, for their children in bringing them, upon the lifting up of God's hand and Standard; that is, the preaching of the Gospel, (as Mr T. his junius note son that place:) And therefore must bring their children whom they were fain to carry in their Arms, and on their shoulders, for somewhat these children might have from the Gospel, (or else as good they had been left at home in the cradle or bed:) And there is no former or lower Ordinance for children then the first Seal, as in the Old Testament, so in the New. To the second: The words of junius: We Reply, first, So the Gentiles might exhort their children; but it must be long after they ceased to carry them in their arms, and on their shoulders; when they could more than go of themselves. 2. Take calvin's words into the balance with junius. The Prophet pronounceth, That the children of the Gentiles should be given to the Church. But how, if not in and by the first Ordinance (if not the least) Baptism? Exercitat. § 20. The Argument from 1 Cor. 10.2. ●isme examined. Thirdly, from 1 Cor. 10.2. All our Fathers were baptised, therefore also Infants. I answer, first, if this verse prove that Infants were baptised, the verses following will prove that they received the Lords Supper. 2. The sense is not they were formerly Baptised with the right of Baptism begun by john, and Ordained by Christ; but that by a like representation, the sea and the cloud signify Salvation to them by Christ, as Baptism doth to us; and that they were in like condition, as if baptised. We have said a little to this Text before in Chap. 3. In reply to Mr T. his Answer to Coloss. 2.11. we add, Animadver. In reply to Mr. T. his first Answer. First, That it was not so necessary, nor so probable that the sucking children, that lived on their mother's milk, and the milk of the Herds driven along with them, should eat Manna and drink water; as it is infallible that they were baptised in the red Sea and in the Cloud. Secondly, It is said expressly, They were all baptised in the cloud and in the sea, but not that they all eaten the Lords Supper, either because the Infants did not eat the Manna, and drink the water of the rock; or that there might be no hint for us to carry children to the Lords Supper; but harken to the rule, Let him that will eat of that worthily, examine himself, 1. Cor. 11. Thirdly, If Mr Tombs could prove that the Jews Infants did eat the Lords Supper in the wilderness; it being then not against the rule for children that could eat flesh and bitter herbs (and therefore were of some age) to eat the second Sacrament, the Passeover; yet this makes nothing for Mr Tombs, that we should be afraid to say They were baptised: For we can say boldly That there is no express command to forbid the Baptising of children; and yet it will not follow that Infants must receive the Supper too under the New Testament, because there is an express rule to forbid it. To the second Answer of Mr T. We Reply, first, That they were really baptised in the cloud and red sea; and with a Baptism instituted by one greater than john; namely, by that Rock that followed them, or went along with them, CHRIST, 1 Cor. 10.4. And this Baptism had the precedency in seniority, and of bringing the first tidings of the New-Testament-Baptisme. Yea the cloud had a capacity to resemble as well the baptism of the fire of the Spirit (of which the Jews were ware, as appears in the Rabbins Commentary) as of water; and the Sea called the red Sea, being so by weeds or other wise had an aptness to sound of, and resemble blood; and therefore no less fit to be the Symbols or Elements of Baptism, than river water now. For the two last lines of Mr Tombs his answer. Namely, [But by a like representation, the sea and the clould signified salvation to them by Christ as Baptism doth to us, and that they were IN A LIKE CONDITION, as if they had been baptised] We need say no more but to thank him for them. For if the Sea and the cloud signified the same salvation by Christ, and that according to the mind of Christ, whose Text the 1 Cor. 20. is; and that they were in the like condition as if baptised with New Testament Baptism, and called baptism by divine authority; and the Jews are said in regard of it, to be baptised; and that it did represent the State of the New Testament: I know not what material thing can be alleged to enervate and weaken the Argument, that as the Jews children and Infants were baptised in the cloud and the red sea; so may the children of converted Gentiles be baptised with water under the New Testament. Mr B. his objection, that it was extraordinary Baptism, makes for us. For if the Jews Infants were capable, and did in the Old Testament partake of extraordinary Baptism; then sure it cannot be denied to Believers Infants in the New. Fourthly, Exercitat. § 11. The Argument from Ephes. 5.26. Examined. from, Ephes. 5.26. Mr T. represents to us our Argument, thus. It is said there that Christ cleansed the Church, with the washing of water, through the word. Therefore Infants either belong not to the Church, and so are excluded from the benefit of Christ's death; or they are to be baptised. Mr T. his Answer is: If this Argument be of force, the thief crucified with Christ, and repenting on the cross, Infants, Catechumeni, Martyrs, etc. dying before Baptism, are excluded out of the Church, and from the benefit of Christ's death. We are therefore to say, That either the Church is taken for the more famous part of the Church, or that purification is to be understood of that which is for the most part. Our Reply is: First, That the process of the Argument is not of an impossibility preventing Baptism; As in the Thief, the Infants of Believers, Catechumeni, (that is, heathens or unbelievers children catechised for Baptism) Martyrs, newly converted, that were prevented by death, before possibly baptism could be duly administered to them. For in such cases, where an Ordinance cannot be had, God doth save without an Ordinance, by his Royal Prerogative: But the Argument proceeds of a voluntary exclusion, upon man's judgement, judging infants of believers unfit to be admitted to baptism; and so these absurdities will follow against such excluders. That Infants of believers belong not to the Church, and so nor Christ to them. For these go together, Ephes. 2.12. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood of the Church-policy, Church-priviledges, not the Commonwealth's policy, or else Commonwealth must be understood as including, or twisted with the Church. To Mr T. his distinction of the more famous part of the Church, we Reply. First, it is a venturous speech to say that any part of the Church is infamous; or to say that Christ hath no Ordinance, as alove expression, and care for his Lambs, his less famous ones, which is manifested in his charge to Poter, john 21. And Mat. 19 Mar. 10. Luke 18. expressed in his welcoming, and blessing little ones; and in that, this speech, Ephes. 5.26. The relative, IT REFERS to the Church in the former verse, Christ gave himself for the Church. Now did not (I pray you) Christ give himself for the Infants of believers indefinitely? To Mr T. his distinction [for the most part] we say: first, That if Mr T. can so easily coin that distinction here, why might he not afore, when he said that all the households, or the whole households heard the word, or rejoiced. Secondly, whether or no the many children, that most believers have, may not be taken in within the most part. For sure Mr T. doth not mean purified for the most part, for than he grants a supposition, That Believers and their children are purified in some part. Fifthly, (saith Mr T.) They argue from 1 Pet. 2.9. Believers are called a chosen generation, a holy nation, Exercitat. §. 12. The Arguments from 1 Pet. 2.9. Examined. which things are said of the Israelites, Exod. 19 〈◊〉, 6. Therefore believers of the Nations obtain the same birth privileges, which the Israelites had, and therefore the children are within the Covenant, and to be baptised, as the children of the Israelites were to be circumcised. Mr T. his Answer is, first, If this Argument proceed, it will follow that there is some Nationall Church among the Gentiles, as of old among the Jews, which is not to be granted, which I would have understood in this sense, There is now no such national-church, as amongst the Israeliets, so as that a person should be accounted a member of a Church, in that he is an Englishman, Sco●, Dutchman, etc. In this speech JOPPOSE NOT THEM WHICH AFFIRM, Note. THE OUTWARD GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO NATIONALL SYNODS. Secondly, Exod. 19.5, 6. God speaks not of a privilege flowing from birth, but Obedience. Thirdly, The Epistle was written to the dispersed Jews, and therefore the Argument lies liable to exception, when it is drawn from that which is said of the Jews, as if it were said of the Gentiles. Fourthly, The sense is, ye which believe, ver. 7. whom God hath called out of darkness, are a holy Nation, whether jews or Gentiles, by spiritual regeneration, as believers are called a family, or kindred, Ephess. 3.15. The household of faith, Gal. 6.10. The house of God, 1 Tim. 3.15. A people, 1 Pet. 2.10. Wherefore in this family, kindred, house, people, are only believers, whom not carnal birth, but spiritual, causeth to be reckoned in that number. We Reply, Animadver. to Mr T. his first particular, thus: The Argument in my eye doth not proceed to suppose some Nationall Church among the Gentiles. For it doth not say [The Nations of believers] but [The Believers of Nations] obtain the same birth privileges. Besides, it recites a text written to the jews who were scattered (from being a formal Nation) throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, Chap. 1. v. 1. And when they were a formal Nation, a person was not counted a member of that Church quatenus ipsum precisely as he was a jew, but as he was circumcised, or the Infant of one circumcised, and so to be circumcised also. A jew was cut off, if not circumcised according to the institution to Abrabraham, Gen. 17. And a Gentile though a Gentile was a member of that Church, if circumcised, Ibid. Gen. 17. Just as an Englishman, as an Englishman, was not reckoned a member of the Church, or Churches in England, if unfit to be Baptised, but kept out; or a damnable Heretic after Baptism, but was cast out; or if one be not the Infant of one baptised. Though Mr Tombs seems to oppose Nationall Churches, yet he sets them up thus far (wherein those of his judgement in the Question in hand, I mean the ANABAPTISTS WILL NOT APPROVE Mr TOMBS) That the outward government of the Church should be SUBJECT to NATIONALL SYNODS. Nor will Mr Tombs please himself with the direct inference that will follow from his express words, which inference is this; That if a Nationall Synod in England, shall determine that Infants of Believers shall be baptised, whiles Infants; Mr. T. must SUBJECT to it, and lay down all his Exercitat. Examination, and Appendix against the baptising of believers Infants, as labour in vain, canceled writings, an old Almanac. For Mr Tombs hath not, in a matter of so great consequence, reserved to himself (by any express here) so much as this exception, That he will not SUBMIT, in case they determine contrary to the Scriptures in his judgement; but that he will have his liberty to stand out against the determination. If any can at the first sight of this, suddenly divine, and Edict by Proclamation, that this exception was supposed, it may be as suddenly and rationally argued back again, that this would have been sooner understood of the vulgar, and readier been believed of the wiser, if it had been here expressed. But if they will have it supposed, than the Question will be, first: Whether Mr T. according to his design, hath prevented all offence to any of whom he would be rightly understood touching Nationall Synods? Secondly, What greater thing hath he said than divers others, with whom yet he doth not (for aught I know) close in point of Church-Government? To Mr T. his second reply, touching Exod. 19.6. That the place being spoken to the parents (suppose upon condition of obedience) doth no way infringe, that the children of those obedient parents, should be counted of that holy Nation, that is, among the reputed holy of that Nation, witness their Circumcision, and their no-capacity of disobedience. To the third particular we reply, That this Epistle being written to the dispersed Jews, leans pronly for application to the Gentile-beleevers, that though they are as a dispersed people among the unchristian. Christian called-nations, yet their Infants with them are to be accounted (indefinitely) holy, as the children of circumcised Jews were counted holy. To Mr T. his fourth particular, we reply, That there is nothing in it that doth evince, that the children of the regenerate should not be accounted federally among the believing Gentiles of the more more glorious New Testament, as among the Jews under the shadowed Old Testament. Sixthly it will be answered (saith M. T.) that the Church of God Exercitat. fails not; § 13. The Argument from the Churches sailing, if Infant-baptsme be not lawful, Examined. But we must say the Church of God hath failed, if Baptism of Infants be not lawful: Ergo. Mr T. Answ. 1. The Church of God may consist without baptism, as in the crucified converted thief, etc. Secondly, neither perhaps, is it necessary to be said, that the baptism of Infants because not lawful, is therefore null. Thirdly, there was in the Church Baptism of persons grown, in all ages: Ludou. Vives in his Comment. upon Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. 1. cap. 27. hath these words; No man of old was brought unto the place of holy baptism, unless he were of grown age already, and when the same person knew what that mystical water meant, and desired to be washed in it, and that more than once; an image of which thing we see yet, in our baptism of Infants; for as yet the Infant, though born the same day, or the day before, is asked, whether he would be baptised, and that thrice; for whom the sureties answer, that he would. I bear in some Cities in Italy, that the old custom, for a great part, is yet preserved. We reply; To the first particular. First doth one converted these continue the church? Animadver. 2 Or if an accident that many by divine providential necessity are bolted and debarred from an ordinance for a certain time, doth not interrupt the Church's succession, when God by his prerogative will continue it; Can at another time wilful neglect of an Ordinance in a right manner, yea the applying of it grossly to the wrong parties (as the Anabaptists pretend both and proclaim thereupon a nullity of Baptism of such persons) justify that then and there is a due succession of the Church? Yet thus hath the Baptism of believers infants ten thousands for one of ripe years, continued in Holland, Scotland, England, and other Churches in France and Germany (and where otherwise) beyond the memory of the oldest man alive: Where then hath been the succession of the Church all that while, according to the principles of the Anabaptists, touching children's Baptism? Sure they will not hold the preaching of the Word an infallible essential note of a Church so long as whiles Infants grow up to be men. For true preaching of the word of God on the preachers part may be to heathens. Doubtless (as M. P. and Vossius distinguish;) Wide is the difference of a Church in the constitution when men of ripe years must receive the first Seal, from a Church constituted, wherein the first Seal descends from the believer to his child for any precept that appears in the Old or New Testament to the contrary. But Mr T. faith in his second particular (which will nothing please the Anabaptists) perhaps it is not necessary to be said, that the Baptism of Infants, because not lawful is not therefore null. Note. We reply, Mr T. speaks but perhaps, and it is not necessary, and to say so. But what perhaps will M. T. say, and how necessarily say Baptism of Infants is all null, by that time he hath fully concocted this principle of the unlawfulness of the Baptising of any Infants; as thousands of others have done and some honest men and scholars who upon the said principle of Antipaedaptists have turned Anabaptists, though they drew their original of Rebaptisme from most scripturelesse Se-baptisme? I may well put the question; For by that time M. Tombs is gone six leaves further: Viz. in the 34, and last page of his Exercitation he gins to be beyond perhaps, and speaks as if it were necessary to say that [The assuming of Baptism in ripe years, by those who were washed in infancy, is not a renouncing of Baptism as some in their gross ignorance conceit, but indeed a firmer avouching of Baptism, according to Christ's mind.] If the Reader will but mark these lines well, and especially those words we have put in another character, he will easily be a Commentator to himself upon Mr Tombs his warping judgement. To Mr T. his third particular wherein he aesserts [That there was in the Church, Baptism of persons grown in all ages] and quotes LUDOVICUS VIVES to prove it. We reply first to his assertion; First that is very general for an answer to an argument; There were persons: How many? In all ages: What means that? In every hundred years, or ordinary age of man: Suppose sixty years or less? What is all this to clear a continued succession of the Church in point of baptising persons of ripe years? Secondly, let us deal plainly one with another in things of this nature. Can M. T. or any else produce proof that in England, Scotland, Ireland, etc. there hath been baptised in either of these at least one of ripe years every year, for these 80 or an 100 years last passed: If not, or if so, where is a sufficient number to continue the succession of Churches we talk of in point of adult-Baptisme, Baptism of persons of ripe years. 2 To his quotation of LORD. VIVES, we say; First he is but of yesterday to say without proof what hath been in former ages. For in all his Notes on August. he citys not one Scripture, not one Antiquity, not one Author, nor any thing that may go for a Reason; but only tells us of a fashion of questions put to humane-devised Godfathers and Godmothers as they call them; and of an hear-say out of Italy; a likely place to preserve any pure truth. 2. Though Lud. Vives were a good Scholar in Arts; yet we must not give credit to him in divine things, when his phrase departs from purity, and his assertion from verity. He saith, Nems olins sacro admovebatur baptisterio, that is, No man of old was brought unto the holy Baptistery, Font, or Vessel to wash in. He puts holiness in or upon the Vessel in which these persons of ripe years were baptised (for it should seem by him they were not baptised in a River) which phrase of Lud. Vives, Mr Tombs covers with a double garment, first Translating Baptisterio by the word [place] that being wide enough in signification to include rivers. Secondly, Translating sacro Baptisterio [the holy place] by [the place of holy Baptism]. LORD. VIVES goes on; Nisi adulta jam aetate, that is unless he were of ripe age already. Now this is a gross mistake, and opposite to the best approved antiquity, that tells us it was a known custom in the Churches, to baptise infants within few years after the death of the Apostle John: And therefore this custom could not totally invade the Churches on such a sudden, without any mention in Antiquity, but flowed doubtless down from the Apostles. So Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory Natianzen, Ambrose, Augustine, and others. For the pretences made by Mr T. against some Quotations of those fathers I doubt not but to take them off and to justify these antiquities; when we come in our XIII CHAPTER to Mr Tombs his fourth Argument against the baptising of Believers Infants. In his Exercitation §. 17. For the present we have no more to say to VIVES or Mr TOMBS upon this argument but only to admire that Mr Tombs would translate VIVES as if he had said [that the person of ripe years desired to be washed more than once in the water of Baptism]; for so it lies fairer in Mr Tombs his Translation to please an Anabaptist; namely [The person of ripe years desired to be washed in the water of Baptism, and that more than once] whereas Mr Tombs following the Latin closer which is, So ablui ill● aquâ pe●eres, nec semel peteres he might have translated clearer that he desired and desired more than once, (what?) to be washed with that water. CHAP. X. SEventhly, Heb. 6.2. Exercitat. § 14. The Argument from Heb. 6.2. for Infant-baptisme examined. The Apostle speaks of the doctrine of baptisms, and laying on of hands; now this is not likely to be understood of laying on of hands in healing sick persons, or bestowing the Holy Ghost, for these were extraordinary or miraculous, and therefore not to be put in the number of the principles of the oracles of God, the foundation, milk for babes; nor of imposition of hands for ordination to special function in the Church, for that, though ordinary, yet not likely to be put among the principles, the foundation, milk for babes, therefore it remains, that it was the laying on of hands on children formerly baptised in infancy, which though corruptly made a Sacrament by Papists, and superstitiously abused, yet being freed from the abuse were very useful, as being an Apostolical ordinance, from this Text, and manifests that there was Infant-baptisme in the Apostles days, which is confirmed, because it is coupled with baptism, and therefore seems to be a consequent upon it. Answ. 1. There is great incertainty, what this imposition of hands mentioned, Heb. 6.2. served for; the reason approve that it could not be either for healing, or giving the Holy Ghost, because they were miraculous or extraordinary, is not cogent; for though they were by more than ordinary power, yet were they frequent in those times, and might well be put among the elements to be in those days first learned: nor is the reason cogent to prove it could not be the imposition of hands in ordination, for special function in the Church; for it is more likely that it should be meant, which it is certain was still in use, and to continue to be used, and therefore it was needful to be taught younglings, as well as the doctrine of baptisms: then laying on of hands for confirmation of baptism, of which there is no certainty, though pretended examples in scripture, be brought to give some colour to it; nor is imposition of hands in ordination unfitly coupled to baptism, both being ordinances for initiation, the one into the profession of Christ, the other into sacred function. 2. But if it were supposed, that this imposition of hands meant Hebr. 6.2. were on the the Baptised; yet this proves not the baptism of Infants in the Apostles days; unless it could be proved, that it was used after the Baptism of Infants only, for a confir, mation either of the Baptism, or baptised. On the contrary, it is apparent out of Tertul. de Corona militis. C. 3. That in the primitive times the baptised did make his confession at Baptism, sub manu antistitis, that is, the Minister laying hands on him. And to save labour in reciting testimonies, Chamier may be seen, who in his Pans. Catholicâ, tom. 4. l. 1. c. 11. Sect. 14. at large proves out of the Ancients that the imposition of hands which after was made a distinct Sacrament, called Confirmation, was either a part or appendix of Baptism; and many passages he citys to show, that it was when the Baptised was to confess the faith, and to renounce Satan. And if HIERONIMUS Tom. 2. in his Dialogue against the Luciferians do assert that use of imposition of hands from Scripture, that he allegeth not Hebr. 6.2. for it, but the examples of giving the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands, in the Acts of the Apostles. To Mr T. his first Answer, Animadver. That our reason to prove imposition of hands for Healing, or giving the Holy Ghost cannot be meant, Hebr. 6.2. [Because those were extraordinary] is not saith Mr T. a cogent reason: We reply, First that Mr T. doth by and by as good as confess it is a cogent reason: For whiles Mr T. goes about to prove that imposition of hands here mentioned is for ordination, because it was still in use, and to continue to be used, he justifies our reason that Healing and giving the Holy Ghost were not to continue because extraordinary, and so not put here among the principles of the foundation. 2 Will any ingenuous man weighing and pondering things, say that Mr T. his answer is cogent; namely, That those miraculary things of imposition of hands for healing, and that kind of giving the Holy Ghost because usual only in that little time of the Apostles, should be joined with and put among the first principles of Christian religion, to be taught young ones to fit them for baptism, or to give an account of their faith after Baptism? Or whether that reason of Mr T. be cogent that little children should be taught as one of the first elements of the christian faith the imposition of hands to ordain Ministers? This rather should belong to the going on unto perfection, as the Apostle speaks v. 1. Nor is Mr T. his reason cogent that Imposition of hands for Ordination should be joined with Baptism, both being ordinances for Initiation (which likes the Papists well that make imposition a Sacrament and see it so well coped and coupled with a Sacrament by Mr T.) For first and first, or Initiation in its great latitude doth not so assimilate. Baptism is the Initiation for all at their first solemn entrance into the Church; that imposition for Ordination doth initiate but few, that is ministers and that into an office, and long after they are members. We may as well couple marriage with the first principles of religion which being to be done by invocation upon God, and instruction out of the word, doth first initiate most single people into the honour and authority to govern children, and families to serve God. Clearly enough to Mr T. his imposition of hands and admission to the Lords supper would better cope together, both appertaining to mature grown Christians. 2 We answer to this first answer of Mr Tombs, that a naked honest explanation of the text blows all Mr T. his mists away and clears the text, and discovers that these answers of his are but shifts. In laying open which meaning I hope learned and pious Mr Pareus, Calvin, Bullinger, Marlorat, Hoffman, which were no Independents, will weigh as much as Mr Tombs, who all tell us the sum of all approved antiquity, to save our labour of pestering the vulgar reader with the gibberish of quotations. Pareus upon Hebr. 6.2. Some (saith he) conjoin the two heads of Baptism and Imposition of hands, because as there were two ranks of Catechumeni, that is chatechised persons, so there was a two fold initiating Ceremony. 1 Those of ripe years of the Heathen, who did before their Baptism recite the Articles of the Creed, of the Christian faith. And this is that the Apostle calls the catechising or Doctrine of Baptisms. 2 The Infants of Christians who by the right of the promise being baptised in their Infancy, after they were past their childhood, were received into the Church by imposition of hands, at which time they rehearsed the same articles of faith before the Church. And this was the doctrine of Imposition of hands. So Pareus. Calvin speaks to the very same effect; whose words we set down at large in our 7. chapter of this controversy. Mr Hoffman, Marlorat, Bullinger, Calvin, speak further that as Imposition of hands was of a manifold use, so among the rest it was a solemn right of praying; by which Symbol also they did approve the profession of faith young youth made. So that the original of Imposition of hands came down from the Apostles; Thus far these learned men, Ye have also before in the same 7. Chap. of this Controversy, the words of Mr Cotton, and his reading out of Antiquity and his Reasons, That though young children were baptised, yet were not received to the Lords Supper, and the full fruition of all Church-liberties, till being grown up they made their profession of faith, and ratified their Covenant made in Baptism, and so were confirmed in their Church estate, by imposition of hands: which imposition of hands is therefore reckoned one of the six principles of the foundation of Christian faith, Heb. 6.2. For it could not be a principle of faith; it must be therefore a principle of the foundation of Church-estate and Order. So Mr Cotton, with much more before recited, Chap. 7. Now let the world judge whether these men's readings and reasons, or Mr Tombs his strained glosses give us rightlyer the meaning of Heb. 6.2. To Mr T. his second Answ. We reply, first: That the learned men afore quoted, gave us the sum of Antiquity * Tertul, de Baptismo. Dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem, etc. Cyprian, Ep. 3. & 70. Nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in ecclesia baptizantur, per praepositos ecclesiae offerantur, & per nostram orationem & manus impositionem spiritum sanctum consequantur. August. Tract. 6. in Joan. Epist. Nuac quidem um loqui linguis quibus imponuntur manus post baptisnum, tamenrevera accipere spiritum sanctum & latenter alque invisibiliter infundi charitatem. That there was an imposition of hands upon believers children, to confirm that Baptism they had received being Infants, upon the confession of faith, when grown up, and to testify the Churches receiving them now unto full membership, and complete fruition of all Church privileges, as to partake of the Lords Supper, etc. And that this the Text here calls The Doctrine of imposition of hands: whereas the recital of the Articles of faith, by those that were past Infancy (being children of Heathens) fitting them for Baptism, is by the Apostle precisely and distinctly (from the other) called The Doctrine of Baptisms. And is not this a proof sufficient, that the common and ordinary imposition of hands was used after the Baptism of Infants only? 2. If Mr T. could prove out of Antiquity (for this Text of Heb. 6.2. hath it not for him) that a ceremony of imposing hands upon the riper aged children of unbelieving parents when the said children made confession of their faith, for Baptisine, crept into the Church; this doth not overthrow other Antiquity, much less the Text of Scripture; That the Doctrine of imposition of hands, that is, that imposing of hands, belonged to believers children after they had been baptised. But thirdly to answer Mr Tombs his Quotation of Tertullian about this De coronâ Militis, c. 3. By the leave of Mr Tombs that doth, if not scorn, so score with the nail in his examen those Antiquities of the Fathers we usually allege, we must tell the world, first, what a piece and place of Tertullian Mr T. hath here alleged, viz. such a one as wherein Tertullian disputes for receiving unwritten Traditions, Quaeramus an traditio non scripta debeat recipi, etc. saith he, Let us inquire Whether unwritten tradition be not to be received? We shall deny it to be received, if it were not prejudged, or fore determined by the examples of other observations, which without the instrument of any Scripture, or Writing, by the title of tradition only, we from thence defend under the patronage of custom. Moreover to begin with Baptism, when we are about to enter into the water, even there, but also too a little afore in the Church, under the hand of a Bishop or Prelate we bear witness, or make serious protestation, that we renounce the Devil, Pomp, and his Angels. After this we are plunged or drenched, or dipped three times, answering something more than the Lord hath determined in the Gospel. Then being [ * Suscepti, which alludes to Godfathers Office, Jun. Note on the place. undertaken for] we take a taste of the compound of milk, and honey. And from that day we abstain from washing in the common laver, or place of washing for a whole week. Thus far Mr Tombs his place of Tertullian. Now let the Reader weigh all the circumstances of the place, and judge whether Turtullian here alludes to any Scripture Authority, or to any approved Antiquity. 2. Such a place of Tertullian, that doth not prove the thing Mr Tombs intends. For he well knows that sub manu, is a phrase that hath so many senses, as it is no ways certain that here sub manu [under the hand] signifies imposition of hands. Haply it may rather signify the Ministers lifting up of his hand in prayer. As Pacianus hath it; we obtain, saith he, in prayer, pardon; and the holy Spirit in Baptism, by the mouth and hand of the Antistes. Touching Mr T. his quotation of Chamier Pan's. Cathol. tom. 4. l. 4. c. 11. Sect. 14. We give the world this account, that we have run over, and that twice, that 14th Section, with as many more following to the end of the Chapter, as make up that 14th to be 59 And we find but four Quotations touching imposition of hands. All which serve little to Mr T. his purpose. The first is in Sect. 23. quoted out of Areopag. and is this [After questioning, and profession he puts his hand upon his head and commands him being consigned to be enroled or numbered among the Priests, & after other ceremonies, puts him into a certain garment and anoints him with oil] were this suppositions Areopagite * Mitto Arcopagiram, Hier. Eccles. Clementem Rom. Constitut. Apostol. Ne libri isti corum sunt quibus tribuuntur vulgo, Jo. Voss. Thes. Theol. & Hist. See also Perkins prepar. to dem. of the problem. an author of credit, and free from the ceremonious fooleries here mentioned: yet the Baptism here mentìoned is of one of ripe years (at which time unbelievers children had the first seal) to whom this imposition of hands was applied rather to make him a Priest, as we conceive by the words, then to accompany Baptism. The second is of the same hogge-sty, Leo the first, and rather against Mr Tombs. [If any, saith he, shall be baptised by an Heretic he is not to iterate that Sacrament, but only that to be conferred which was wanting, that by Episcopal imposition of hands, he may obtain the virtue of the holy Ghost] Here imposition of hands follows baptism at distance; which is for us. The third is out of Cyprian, viz. [It were to small purpose to impose hands on Heretics to receive the holy Spirit, unless they receive the Church's Baptism.] Here imposition of hands presupposeth precedent Baptism, though in men of ripe years. The fourth is out of a false-named * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , or a forged Eusebius (as Chamier calls him) in his first Decretal [Know ye that those that have been baptised in the faith of the sacred Trinity, we receive or undertake for by imposition of hands]. If this fellow be of any credit, he is for us not against us. Thus few doth Chamier quote touching imposition of hands, because his design was chief to pursue the dispute of the other part of confirmation (as he calls it) namely Unction, and to prove that neither Unction or imposition of hands were Sacraments, which though he proves by this argument, that they were only appendices of Sacraments; yet he doth not assert as from himself, or from Antiquity, that imposition of hands was to be conjoined with Baptism, but rather tells us the contrary partly from himself, partly from those authors he quotes. As [that the rule of the Roman Church was that they gave in command that men should be reconciled by imposition of hands.] Sect. 53. That reciliation is proper to repentance. Sect. 54. That though confirmation belongs to the solemnities of Baptism, yet after a while after Baptism. To Mr T. his Quotation of HIERONIMUS Tom. 2. In his Diolog. Adu. Lucif. 1. We reply that if Hieronimus doth confess imposition of hands on them that had been baptised, though he doth not allege all Scriptures for it, and so not that Heb. 6.2. the antiquity holds good, that Imposition of hands was used to be after applied to them that have been baptised. 2. That Hieronimus in that place quotes other places then the Acts of the Apostles, and speaks to our purpose thus [Orth.] Neither can it be that he that is holy in Baptism, can be a sinner, etc. [Luc.] I receive a Lay penitent person by Imposition of hands, and invocation of the Holy Spirit, Knowing that the Holy Spirit is not conferred by Heretics. [Orth.] Seeing that he that is baptised in the name of the father, son and holy spirit is made the Temple of God, etc. it appears that Baptism is not without the holy spirit. And to prove that that place, Acts 19.2. did suppose they had received the saving gifts of the Spirit in Baptism, he brings Math. 3. That John's Baptism was a Baptism of Repentancè into remission of sins: And a little after, if John did not baptise in the Spirit; than not into remission of sins. For no man's sins are remitted without the spirit. So Hieronimus. Wherefore he supposes Imposition of hands may be on them that had the spirit in Baptism afore. So Hieronimus with much more which we omit to avoid tediousness. Thus far of Mr Tombs his first Argument against Infant-Baptisme. CHAP. XI. THe second Argument followeth: Exercitat. That which agreeth not with the Lords institution of Baptism, Argu. 2 § 15. The Argument from the institution of Christ, Mat. 28.19. against Infant-baptisme, confirmed. that is deservedly doubtful. But the rite of Infant-Baptisme agrees not with the Lords institution of Baptism, Ergo. The Major is proved, because Institution is the rule of exhibiting worship to God. The Minor is proved from the words of Institution, Mat. 28.19. Going therefore, disciple ye all nations, baptising them. Whence I gather thus: That rite agrees not with the Lords Institution of Baptism, according to which they are baptised, whom the Lord appointed not to be baptised. But after the rite of Infant-Baptisme, they are baptised whom the Lord appointed not to be baptised, Ergo. The Major is manifest of itself. The Minor is proved: The Lord appointed not Infants to be baptised, Ergo. The Antecedent is proved; Those, and no other, the Lord appointed to be baptised, who have been made Disciples. But this cannot be said of Infants. Ergo. The Argument is confirmed from john 4.2. where it is said that jesus made more disciples; then that he baptised: first it is said that be made disciples, then baptised. Some one perhaps will say that Baptism of Infants is elsewhere instituted, although not here. To which is answered, Let he that can, bring forth that institution, and the doubt will be loosed. But Infants may be disciples, for they may be sanctified by the Spirit? Answ. It is true, Infants may be sanctified by the Spirit of God, purged by the blood of Christ, saved by the grace of God; my mind abhors from the doctrine of them that assert, That Infants not baptised, necessarily perish, or are deprived of the Kingdom of God; nor do I doubt, but that the Elect Infants dying in Infancy are sanctified; yea, if it should be made known to us that they are sanctified, I should not doubt that they are to be baptised, remembering the saying of Peter, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised, who have receined the holy Ghost as we? Then you will say [make disciples] in that place, may be so expounded, as that it may include Infants? Answ. It follows not; but this only follows, that in case extraordinary, we may departed from the ordinary rule: But the ordinary rule is, make disciples, that is, by preaching the Gospel, make disciples, as appears from Mark 16.15. and baptise them, to wit, whom you have made disciples; and in the ordinary course of Ministry, we must follow the ordinary rule. Perhaps some one will except, that Christ teacheth that such disciples should be baptised, but that the speech is not exclusive. Refut. But it is meet he remember, who shall thus except; if institution be the rule of worship, it is necessary that he that shall administer the worship, bind himself to the rule; otherwise he will devise will-worship, and arrogate the Lords authority to himself: Surely the Apostle in the business of the Lords Supper, insinuates this, when being about to correct the aberrations of the Corinthians, concerning the Lord's Supper he brings forth these words, 1 Cor. 11.23. For I have received of the Lord, that which I also have delivered unto you. Besides as Christ Mat. 19.4.8. argues from the institution of Marriage, against Divorce for a light cause, and Polygamy, because it is said, Two, not more than two shall be one flesh; so in like manner it may be here argued, Christ said Baptising them, and not others, therefore these and not others are to be baptised. But as for him who gathers from this place, Infants are to be baptised, because Christ Commands all Nations to be baptised, verily he is faulty, 1. In casting away that restriction that Christ hath put. 2. By determining that all men whatsoever are to be baptised; so that this is not a privilege of believers and their children, but common with them, to all Infidels and their children. And in very deed, however assertors of Infant-baptisme, crack of a privilege of believers and their offspring; not only the usual practice of baptising any little children offered, but also Say prove that men have gone far, not only from Christ's institution, but also from the principles upon which, men at this day are busy to establish Infant-baptisme. I shall prove this by some instances. In the 59 Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus, from which Augustine is wont in his disputations-against the Pelagians, to take his proof for Infant-baptisme, and to which Writers attribute much, although that I may say no worse, without cause, this reason is put why it was not assented to Biship Fidus, who thought that an Infant was not to be baptised, afore the eighth day, according to the Law of ancient Circumcision, We all rather judged, that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none that is born of men. By the answer of Augustine to Bonifacius, Tom. 2. Epist. 23. Enquiring concerning the truth of Sureties, in affirming the unknown faith of little ones, and promising for them, it will appear to the Reader, that the Baptism of any little ones offered to baptism, is defended by him, Although they were not brought, that they might be regenerated to eternal Life, by Spiritual grace; but because they think by this remedy (I use the words of Augustine) to retain or receive temporal health; john Gerhard, Loc. Theolog. Tom. 4. de Baptis. Cap. 7. Sect. 4. defends the practice of the Ancients baptising the Children of unbelievers: And the words of Mr Samuel Rutherford, Scot, in his Book lately put forth in the English tongue, entitled A peaceable and temperate plea, c. 12. arg. 7. seems to me to propend too much to this opinion, The words are these, If then the jews in Paul's time were holy by Covenant, howbeit for the present the Sons were branches broken off, for unbelief; much more seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles, and is become a God to us and to our seed, the seed must be holy, with holiness of the chosen nation, and holiness external of the Covenant, notwithstanding the Father and Mother were as wicked as the jews who slew the Lord of glory. And the grave confutation of Brownists, by Rathband, Part. 3. Page 50. Fourthly, Children may be lawfully admitted to Baptism, though both their Parents be profane, if those who are instead of Parents to them do require Baptism for them, and give their promise to the Church for their religious Education, seeing they may lawfully be accounted within God's Covenant, if any of their Ancestors in any Generation were faithful, Exod. 20.5. Lastly, if this Argument be not of force, Christ commandeth first to Disciple, and then to baptise those that are Discipuled; to exclude Infants from Baptism; neither will the argument be of force, from 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, to exclude Infants from the Lords Supper; for by the like clusion this argument may be rejected by saying, that the speech of the Apostle is not exclusive, and is to be understood of receiving the Lords Supper by Persons grown only; yea, verily, neither will the argument be of force from the institution of the Supper, Mat. 26.26, 27. therefore only believers are to be admitted to the Lords Supper. If any reply. But the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. and 11. hath declared, that the institution is exclusive, the fame may be said of the institution of Baptism, from the following Argument. To this second Argument of Mr T. out of Mat. 28.19. for the Affirmative, Animadver. That men of ripe years only are to be baptised (the other being only negative, to put off Arguments for children's baptism) I say, that I verily expected Mr T. would not have urged it so curtedly, carelessly, or so scatteringly. Curtedly] For he speaks so abruptly touching the business of Bishop Fidus p. 25. That I can hardly divine what his meaning is. I conjecture this answer will serve. 1. That God himself puts the cause, and makes the premises wider than the effect or conclusion, 2 Pet. 3.9. 1 Tim. 2.4. Yet he doth not warrant us to apply comforts or seals to all. 2. That Cyprian in all likelihood speaks to the point in hand: That as circumcision was not denied to any children of Jewish parents that were members of that Church; so Baptism is not to be denied to any so born of men, that is are the children of Parents reputed true members of the Church. Carelessly] for first he saith, p. 24. [john 4.2. Where it is said That jesus made more disciples, then, that he baptised; first, it is said, that he made disciples, then baptise.] So Mr T.) Now we must needs say that here is a gross falsehood. For that text, john 4.2. saith expressly, jesus baptised none at all. Secondly, Mr. T. saith p. 24. [The ordinary rule is, make disciples, that is by preaching the Gospel make disciples, as appears Mark 16.15. and baptise them: to wit, whom you have made disciples] So Mr T. here. Yet in another place of his Exercitation, Mr. T. doth not forget, but confesseth that Mar. 16.15. is not make disciples, but only preach the Gospel. And so Mark makes not more of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples (as the Anabaptists would have it) but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preach the Gospel. Scatteringly] Not only floteing so much paper with the Ink of Syllogism under Syllogism, and Argument under Syllogism; as if Mat. 28.19. did not indeed in any show serve his turn, without much lifting: but also in scattering such speeches to the great disgrace of Anabaptism. For Mr T. saith, p. 25. That Augustine was wont to take out his proof for. In-infant-Baptisme in his disputations against the Pelagians, from Cyprians 59 Epistle to Fidus. So that by this Mr T. confesseth that the Pelagians of old were the men that denied Infant-Baptisme; which brought to mind that great james Arminius was an Anabaptist, who had that and other dangerous principles from that unsound Castalio; Mr G. Philip's, his Reply and to T. Lamb. p. 137 and that of Master George Philip's of Water Town in New-England: That the first that denied Infant's Baptism, and opposed the practice of the Churches in this case was one Auxentius an Arrian with his adherents (that denied the Godhead of Christ) who died about 380 years after Christ, as Mr Philpot the Martyr of Jesus, noteth in an Epistle of his, written out of prison, to a fellow prisoner of his, about the point. So Mr Fox relateth in his book of Martyrs, ad Ann. 1555. Bullinger affirmeth the same. Tom. 3. Serm. 8. Decad. quint. After him the Pelagians and Donatists opposed it, against whom, Augustine beside others, wrote and defended it. The Pelagians denied it upon this ground, That Infants had no Original sin. And in Bernard's time, one Peter Abilaird, among many other gross opinions, wherein he saith, he was Magis Arrius, quam Arrius (rather more than Arrius, then bare Arrius) held this also, that Infants were not to be baptised, Ep. 190. So Mr Philip's. But to come to Mr T. his Argument out of Mat. 28.19. The sum of it is this, Exercitat. §. 15. That Christ's institution is That those only should be baptised that are made disciples, Mat. 28.19. But believers Infants are not disciples. Ergo. To the place of Mat. 28.19. That is, Animadver. the proof of the Major, We have answered somewhat afore, Chap. 1. of our Animadvers. p. 7. which we entreat the patiented reader to ponder over again; more we have answered but now; by comparing, Mark 16.15. who renders it barely preach the Gospel; which the reader cannot but esteem of more weight than all the interpretations, not only of all Anabaptists, but of all men. We add now. 1. That this place can argue no more but that the administration of Baptism began first on the parents, that received the word, and so descended to their children: they being baptised, their children presently were baptised also. For the Jews generally carried their children with them after Ordinances; whereof we have not only some special instances, that Hanna carried Samuel up to Shilo. 1 Sam. 24. and Mary and joseph carried jesus to Jerusalem, Luke 2.22. and thus they carried him yearly at the time of the Passeover, Luke 2.41, 42, 43. but we have ordinary instances. As that when the Jews came to the Passover and followed Christ to hear him preach, and do miracles, they brought their children with them who partook of that they were capable not only of the Passeover, but of the dispensations of Christ: The children partook of the miracle, Math. 14.21. compare Joh. 6.4, 5. The children are offered by their parents and friends that came to hear Christ, to have Christ's hands laid upon them and to be blessed of him, and were blessed Mar. 10. And by the same proportion, children are understood when it is said Math. 3.5, 6. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptised of him (the parents) confessing their sins, and the children accepted under their confession, being put under the same promise, I am the God of thee and of thy seed; even as when Abraham expressed his belief in God Gen. 15.6. from that time forward God proclaimed he was his God, and the God of his seed, and gave them Circumcision for a Seal thereof. Nor is all this to be blown away with the blast of the word [uncertain] unless Mr T. could make out hence an express exclusion of children from Baptism, more certain. 2. It cannot be more than bare presumption to say that children that are ordinarily three parts of All Nations, should be here reckoned as no part of All nations here meant, first seeing All Nations are here put as an opposite member of distinction, to that one Nation of the jews; compare Mat. 21.41. Rom. 11.17. The Gentiles have the Vineyard and were engrafted as the jews: But the Jews and their children had the benefit of the Vineyard, and both partook of the stock according to their capacity and method of God's dispensation. Ergo, so the Gentiles. So that whereas afore, the Word and Sacraments were couched within the confines of the Jewish nation, and them that came into them, now Christ gives a commission to pull down that partition wall; and to send the Word and Sacraments likewise to All Nations of the Gentiles, But to the Jews, the Word and first Seal coming to the parents; that Seal came likewise to their children: Therefore the same proportion is to be kept in the New Testament. 2. It is not nothing that it is said Go teach all Nations, baptising them, and not Go teach and baptise all Nations. And therefore the method and order of the phrase is not so closely framed to make teaching and baptising of an exact equal latitude, that only taught disciples should be baptised; as it might have been if that had been the Intent of the Text. For Christ's institutions are wont to be wonderful plain in all the things it mainly intends. 2 We answer to the Minor; namely [Butler Infants of Believers are not Disciples.] To which we say that it being taken, as here pronounced, that Infants of believers without exception are no Disciples we easily prove it is most false; by two Texts of Scripture: The first we have mentioned afore * Chap. 1. of our Animadv. p. 8. Namely Acts 15.10. Now why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples? This yoke was Circumcision; which was at first by Institution put upon children, at eight days old. Gen. 17. According to which the false teachers out of doubt as the only seeming strength of their Imposition of it did ground it. And therefore pursued it that as the Fathers like Abraham, so the children as Isaac &c. should be circumcised. The second Text is john 9.28. We are Moses his disciples say the Jews. But the only thing that entered them into the school of Moses, that first nominated them to be Moses his Disciples was Circumcision in their Infancy which after tied them to Moses his observations, Gal. 5.3. Therefore the infants of believers are Disciples. Some will say (saith Mr T.) that Baptism of Infants is elsewhere instituted. Exercitat. Let him that can (saith he) bring forth that Institution. We have out of divers texts (as clearly and clearlyer than Mr. T. hath brought forth a prohibition) as out of 1 Cor. 7.14. Animadver. Mar. 10. Heb. 6. Gen. 17. which last text is not so much esteemed of professors of the Gospel, as their profession enjoins them. For though it be not a text in the New Testament; yet it is the grand Charter of the Gospel, I am the God of thee and of thy seed, to bless you through THE SEED Christ; to which as to the original, all the tenor of the New Testament runs, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Acts 2.39. etc. Infant's may be sanctified by the spirit of God, Exercitat. etc. I answer all Anabaptists are not of this mind, Animadver. partly by word of mouth; partly by writings in print. Some say children are not capable of grace, having no faith, etc. others when they are put to it upon this argument; if children may not have grace, and be within the Covenant; then (say we) either all Infants dying are damned, or else they are saved without a Covenant, and so without Christ and grace, or else they have no original sin; they embrace the last member of the argument that Infants have no original sin". Yea if it should be known to us that Infants are sanctified, Exercitat. I should not doubt that they are to be baptised. We Reply, Animadver. first where is that clause in Scripture they must be known to be sanctified? 2 Is not the believing parent as well known to believe as a new Convert, is known to be converted? If so, than Gods promise to me concerning my child, I am the God of thee, and of thy seed, is as sure to me, as man's judgement of the Convert that he is converted. Obj. But some children of believers prove wicked. Ans. So do some seeming Converts. 2 Pet. 2.1. therefore as we must judge indefinitely charitably of Converts, so of believers children; for we have not an infallibility of either. Perhaps (saith Mr. T.) some one will except, Exercit. that Christ teacheth that taught-disciples should be baptised, but the speech is not exclusive. Refut. It is will-worship (saith he) that follows not the rule. And the Apostle in rectifying the business of the Lords Supper, brings out only these words, 1 Cor. 11.23. For I have received of the Lord that which I also have delivered unto you. Besides as Christ Matth. 19.4.8. argues from the institution of marriage against Divorce for a light cause and polygamy, because it is said, two, not more shall be one flesh. So in like manner it may be here argued, Christ said, Baptising them, and not others therefore these, and not others, are to be baptised. We answer. The cases of the Lords Supper, Animadvers. and marriage were far different from this of Baptism. 1. That as there were clear precedent foregoing institutions of marriage and the Lords Supper: So to those institutions the words of Christ and Paul expressly relate. 2. That therefore those repetitions Mr. T. quotes were not the first institutions of those two, but an application of the first institutions unto exact practice accordingly to them. 3. That the occasion of this repetition of the institution of those two were gross abuses in both, expressed by the Apostle and Christ, for which there was no fair pretence; but an apparent offending against the first institution As that a man should for every light cause put away his wife; which was not only against the first institution, Gen. 2.24. Matth. 5. 32.-19.4, 5, 8. but against Moses his dispensation. Deut. 24.1. which was not to put her away, unless he found some uncleanness, that hindered cohabitation according to the intent of marriage. Matth. 19.8. So likewise these were gross abuses, first, that men at the communion should not tarry one for another; but every faction, they of Paul by themselves, they of Peter or Cephas by themselves, and (first come first served, as we say) should partake of the Lords Supper. Secondly, that after their holy Supper, some that were rich made such large feasts of charity (which Christ instituted not) of the collections, that they were drunk; whiles the poorer coming after were hunger-bit, had nothing lest for them. Now for the business of Baptism in this 28. of Matt. it is quite otherwise in all the said three particulars. For as for the first particular: either as we say, in circumcision was a full and sufficient foregoing institution of the administration of Baptism: and then Christ needed not say more here but go teach and baptise, as referring us to the institution of the first seal circumcision in the old Testament. Where after believing Abraham was taught, Gen. 12. Gen. 15. and after circumcised, Gen. 17. he accordingly circumcised his children: and therefore so it should be in the New Testament. The parents being taught and baptised, their children were to be baptised also. Or else (as the Anabaptists say) there was no preceding or foregoing institution of baptism before Christ's time; and that Baptism differs much from Circumcision. But if this be true, how doth this place of Matth. 28.19. agree with those quoted places of marriage and the Lords Suppers there being nothing foregoing this, as there is afore them, to make us punctually understand the meaning of it, at least in every main particular; especially in matters of main difference from the administration of the first seal of the old Testament. And therefore, To the second particular we say, that if this 28. of Matth. be the institution of baptism; First, as it doth not agree with the places of marriage, and the Lords Supper, to be an application of a former institution of Baptism to an exact practice; so our faithful Christ must needs have spoken plainer and fuller in an institution, to have prevented so gross an abuse (if it had been abuse) that men should apply this Sacrament to any infants if to them it should not belong. For how should it be prevented but from the institution at least? And how from the institution, if Christ will not there speak it? So for the third and last particular; as Baptism of believers infants hath, you will yield, at least a fair religious pretence for it out of Gen. 17. so the Lord Christ, or John Baptist, or the Apostles do not in the least intimate any where, that the baptising of believers children was an abuse, as is intimated about that of marriage, and the Lords Supper: and therefore we cannot attend to any such intention of Christ in the least in this of Matth. 28. to prevent the baptism of believers infants. Bat Mr. T. in his Argument afore out of Matth. 28. objecteth, that if any gather thence that Infants are to be baptised because Christ commands all Nations to be baptised, that, first, he is faulty in casting away that restriction that Christ hath put. Secondly, in making the privilege of believers and their children common to all Infidels and their children. We answer to the first. That first, that is the question whether Christ hath here put a restriction against believers children? Secondly, that we extend not this place further than to the children of taught-or-made disciples; understanding it to refer to Gen. 17. where instructed Abraham was to circumcise his children; as we said afore. Yet it is said, I will make thee a Father of many Nations; and in thy seed all the Nations shall be blessed. So here though it be said, Go teach and baptise all Nations, yet we extend it not beyond the children of parents taught and baptised. But saith Mr. T. However assertors of baptism of Infants crack of a privilege of believers, and their offspring; yet by their say, and do, touching baptising all Infants, they go far from Christ's institution, and their own principles at this day, upon which they are now busy to establish Infant-Baptisme. For their do: first, Mr. T. urgeth their baptising all Infants offered to them. For their say he urgeth, Augustine, and his quotation out of Cyprian. Also Mr. S. Rutherford, Scot; and Mr. Rathband. Answ. As we did not appoint Cyprian, August. John Gerard, Mr. Rutherford, or Mr. Rathband to speak for us all: So nor do they undertake it. We know as these men have and do confess, they are men, & humanum est errare, man may mistake. Mr. T. assumes not to himself infallibility. If August. and Cyprian, etc. did err on the right hand in saying all Infants may be baptised; yet this doth not infer, that that is no error in others that say no Infants are to be baptised; which errs on the left hand. And though we might excuse Cyprian and Augustine, etc. thus fare, (and yet be excused of candid men for so doing) that there is not no difference between saying, Grace is not to be denied to any man; and saying, All Infants whatsoever are to be baptised (let them that can, consult the places of Cyprian, and Augustine) yet we say rather that the Fathers had their several naevos, their blemishes in divers things; as Danaeus on Augustine, and Tossanus upon all the Fathers, note them. Augustine was so sensible of this; that he wrote his Confessions to acknowledge the errors of his life, and his Retractations of his errors in opinion. Who knows but that Mr. Tombs, and that other H.D. (that is sharp with Mr. Martial, for stating the question of baptising believers children, his practice and others, as he saith, having been formerly larger.) I say who knows but Mr. T. and Mr. D. formerly have so thought, and so done themselves, or at least have not professed against it; which now they dislike in others. Therefore let me offer to Mr. T. and Mr. D. and others of their judgement, these three considerations. First, who that hath eyes (as they Revel. 4.) as well within as without, may not arreign himself guilty of this encroachment, of extending his practice, beyond the rule? In many practices he throws open all fences, and turns them into common. But if he be questioned by the weakest disputant, he cannot, he dares not justify himself in his sins: but confesseth his way is butted there, and bounded here; and all the rest trespass against the line he ought to walk by. Secondly, who is that professor, especially a Minister living in this Summer of the Gospel, at this time of the assent of Reformation to our Pole, that forgets how in the dark and stormy Winter, he saw less, and stumbled more? Even many of the Antipaedobaptists (whom we own as brethren) if they count Non-baptizing of believers children a piece of further Reformation, a spark of clearer light, must of necessity confess, that not long since they thought not, they did not so, why then should we insult over our brethren's failing? or taunt them for setting nearer their meridian, closer to the rule? that instead of baptising all children, they now state the question, that only believers children ought to be baptised, unless in some special cases, of which after. Thirdly, though merely that second nature custom, and that whirlwind of persecution, did precipitate many of later times to baptise all Protestant professors children, confessing Christ to be come in the flesh, and justification to be rooted in his righteousness alone, yet all Ministers did not the same upon the same principles; But, 1. They knew that very anciently (as appears by Tertullian, living ann. Dom. 195. which was not long after St. John. Helvic. This Tertullian being alleged in this question by H.D.) the Churches did not baptise the children of unbelievers out of the Church, without Sponsores or Susceptores, undertakers (which we call Witnesses) who engaged themselves as parents to look to the Christian education of such children, called Godfathers, as if fathers under God, or for godliness, to see them trained up in sound Religion. Tertullia's words in his Treatise de Baptismo, cap. 18. are these. Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione, ac dispositione, etiam aetate, cunctatio baptismi utilior, praecipue tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse est, si non tamnecesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri. On which words, Junius his note is this. Tria hic distincti proponit Auctor, quae si rectè intelligantur locus est sanctissimus. Conditio personarum baptizandarum est quod sint in faedere, sive grandiores, sive parvuli. Dispositio est quòd credant & obsequantur Evangelio, profiteanturque. Aetate, non qui sunt in faedere (nam & parvuli piorum liberi in faedere sunt) sed qui profitentur fidem recognosci solent. Quum itaque dicit praecipue tamen circa parvulos, id de extraneorum, non de faederatorum, domesticorumque liberis opus est intelligi: ut aetiologia sequente confirmatur. Illud autem sir non tam necesse, etiam sine injuriâ auctoris abesse potest. Not to spend time in construing all this, we now only give you the sum of both, in the point now in hand; for we shall more largely speak to every particular afterwards. That which they both say concerning witnesses to children, that in these ancient times, they were used for children whose parents were without, and not of the faith, not of the Church. We speak not for the using of witnesses or godfathers, etc. in baptising children as the wont was among us. But, Secondly, that this ancient custom (as ancient at least as Tertullian) might possibly have some respect to the Scripture Gen. 17. according to Mr. Cottons observation. His book of the way of the Church, in N. England. pag. 115. Baptism (saith he) may orderly be administered to the children of such parents, as have professed their faith and repentance before the Church. Or where either of the parents have made such profession. Or it may be considered also whether the children may not be baptised, where either the grandfather, or grandmother have made such profession, and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the child. For it may be conceived, where there is a stipulation of the covenant on God's part, and a restipulation on man's part, So M. Grcenham also. See his works, where he saith the children of unbelieving parents are within the covenant by virtue of their believing grandfathers. Or else how is God the God of their seed to show mercy to thousands of generations of them that love him? there may be an obligation of the covenant on both parts. Gen. 17.7. Or if these fail, what hindereth but that if the parents will resign their Infant to be educated in the house of any godly member of the Church, the child may be lawfully baptised in the right of its household governor, according to the proportion of the Law, Gen. 17, 12, 13. So far Mr. Cotton, both his judgement, and his grounds. Now in imitation of this last clause, in all likelihood were Witnesses used (though abusively) in baptising the children of some unbelievers, and strangers from the Church; yet therefore we have not such cause to trample upon any of our brethren about their error in baptising too many Infants; seeing they erred with some antiquity, and some pretence of Scripture before they saw this light, for which God must be glorified, and not man prided. The last thing Mr. T. objects in this Argument on Matth. 28.19. is, that if this place doth not exclude all Infants from Baptism, then nor doth 1 Cor. 11.28, [Let a man examine himself; and so let him eat] exclude Infants from the Lords Supper, saying by the like elusion, that the speech of the Apostle is not exclusive. Yea verily (saith Mr. T.) neither will the Argument be of force from the institution of the Supper, Matth. 26.26, 27. that believers only are to be admitted to the Lords Supper. We answer. And first to that comparison of 1 Cor. 11.28. with Matth. 28.19. we reply two things. First, that there is expressed in 1 Cor. 11. an universal determinating term, singling out all communicants, man by man, that they must be able to examine themselves, before they eat. But there is no such determinating word about Baptisine, in Matth. 28.19. For first, we have already in several places of our Animadversions showed, that there is no certainty at all that the Greek word here must signify to-disciple, or make-disciples. For first, most learned men render it no more but teach. And so the Syriack, and Arabic Translations. * In the best Translations of the French Churches it is Endoctrinez teach ye. Of the High Dutch, Lebret teach ye, of the Low-Dutch, Leert teach. And likewise in Hutter his N. Testament set forth in 12. Languages, in so many of them as I can guess at, it is rendered only [teach ye] His Syr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach ye. Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach ye. Lat. De●●te teach ye. Ital. Insegnate teach ye. Of Germane, Dutch, French, we heard afore. Mark the Evangelist also renders it, Mark 16.15. only by preach. Secondly, it is evident the word in the Greek is taken divers ways; and here is no note of circumstance in Matth. 28.19. to prove that it must signify to make-disciples. Thirdly, the command is for the Apostle to preach to all Nations, though they should not disciple or discipulate all. If it's objected, that if the word in Matth. 28.19. according to Mar. 16.15. signifies but to teach or preach; yet mention of baptising immediately follows teaching or preaching: We answer. So is baptising expressed to follow believing, saying, He that believeth and is haptized shall be saved. But in converting the Proposition, that is in turning it, negatively, it is not said, He that is not baptised shall be damned; because Infants (as Mr. T. confessed afore) though of a day old unbaptised may have the sanctifying Spirit. Therefore may be baptised, Act. 10.47. Our Answer then is, that Teaching and baptising doth not run evenly together. Secondly, we now observe that the Lord having said, go preach to all Nations, he adds, baptising them, indefinitely; not expressing all, or some (for them doth not in the Greek agree Grammatically with Nations) and so must needs leave us to compare this Text with other Texts afore-written. As with Gen. 17. where though Noah, 1 Pet. 3.19.2.2 Pet. 2.5. and Enoch, Judas v. 14. had preached to all the old world; yet so contrary to teaching were they, that but eight persons were left alive by the Flood: and of these that remained alive, even to, or quite to the time of Abraham, but few were taught-men; as Noah, that died the year before Abraham's birth; Shem, alias Melchisedech, and Abraham's father Terah; and Lot, few more about this time (Job was long after about Moses his time) were taught persons. Now among the these taught men, God would to Abraham communicate the first sign or seal; and he being signed, he should sign his children also. Or with John Baptists practice; who (as it is said expressly) baptised the parents, confessing their sins, but doth not exclude (by any expression) their children. So then we must needs conclude that here is no determinating word in Matth. 28.19. to exclude believers Infants. And that this Text doth but give in the two main parts of the Apostles commission, but not expressly all the parts, as the Administration of the Communion, nor all the main circumstances of those two as touching children's baptism. Secondly, we answer to the comparison of that place of 1 Cor. 11.28. with Matt. 28.19. Let a man examine himself, that the 1 Cor. 11.28. relates (as the Apostle there expresseth, v. 23. I have received of the Lord that which I delivered) I say relates to an express institution, wherein Christ gave the communion to his Disciples that were of ripe years, and not to children. But that place of Matth. 28.19. relates to no such express institution of the first seal, excluding Infants, but rather refers to such places as do include them, as we shown afore. Secondly, to that collation or parallel comparing Matth. 26.26, 27. with Matth. 28.19. first we reply, that 1 Cor. 11.28. declares that Matth. 26.26, 27. is intended for an exclusion of unbelievers from the Communion; but there is no place to declare to us that the meaning of Matth. 28.19. is to exclude believers children from the first seal, Baptism. Obj. But Mr. T. saith he will make it appear in the next Argument, that there are places to declare that Matth. 28.19. did intent the exclusion of believers Infants from Baptism. Ans. We shall by Gods leave show that there are none to make any such declaration, when by and by we come to answer that Argument. Mean while we say secondly, that there is no other place to show that apparent unbelievers, whiles such, were admitted to the 2. Sacrament; and therefore that institution, Matt. 26.26, 27. is sufficient to exclude from the Lords Supper. But we have largely shown that there are no places of Scripture to exclude Infants of believers from the first seal, but many for including them as belonging to it; and therefore we cannot take that general expression, go teach and baptise, Matth. 28.19. to intent to exclude them from Baptism. CHAP. I. MR. Tombs his third Argument against Infant-Baptisme, Exercit. Argum. 3. Sect. 16. From John Baptist and the Apostles practise. is from the Apostles, and John Baptist, which (saith he) is the best interpreter of our Lord's institution, from whence this Argument is form. That tenet and practice which being put, Baptism cannot be administered as John Baptist and the Apostles did administer it, agrees not with the practice of John Baptist, and the Apostles. But the tenet and practice of Infant-Baptisme being put, baptism cannot be administered as John Baptist and the Apostles administered it. Ergo. 1. We answer. Animadvers This Argument doth not in terms conclude the thing in question. For make the supposition that John Baptist and the Apostles, the best interpreters of our Lord's institution, had never any opportunity, or occasion offered to baptise any believers Infants; would it therefore follow that the institution did not allow it when it doth not forbid it, but leaves it to be referred to the institution of the first seal in the old Testament? Moses the best interpreter of the Ceremonial Law, and so of the institution of Circumcision given by God, had not any occasion (that we read of to our remembrance) of circumcising any Jews of ripe years; would it follow therefore that he might not have done it according to the institution? 2. We answer. That when Mr. T. is to answer our Argument, that the Apostles baptising whole families, likely baptised some Infants, he makes it doubtful whether they baptised any Infants; and now Mr. T. puts it out of doubt that they baptised none. Or else he would prove one doubt by another. But let us come particularly to the Argument. The minor, namely, [the tenet and practice of Infant-baptisme being put; Baptism cannot be administered as John Baptist and the Apostles administered is denied. For it doth not appear that they baptised no children. But Mr. T. will prove the minor thus. Before the baptism of John even the Jews did confess their sins; the Apostles afore baptism did require shows of faith and repentance. Matth. 3.6. Luk. 3.10. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.12, 13, 37. Act. 9.18. Act. 20.47. Act. 11. 17, 18. Act. 16.15.31, 32, 33. Act. 18.8. Act. 19.5. Act. 22.16. But this cannot be done in the baptism of Infants. Ergo. We answer by limiting the major. That in baptising people of ripe years, de facto in fact confession of sin, etc. did precede and forego; But neither John Baptist nor the Apostles make any such express rule, that the jure of equity none should be baptised by them, but those that could make confession of sin, or profession of faith. Nor doth all the Scriptures brought by Mr. T. prove any such rule. Mr. T. himself intimatedly confesseth, that John the Baptist did not make a rule for confession; but only in practise those Jews of ripe years that John Baptist did baptise, did first confess their sins. And that Act. 2.39. Act. 16. etc. have been already discussed that they shown children were baptised; who could not make confession or profession. But Mr. T. objects, Act. 8.37. If thou believest with thy whole heart thou mayest be baptised. Where the Apostle implies in his speech to the Eunuch that defect of faith was an impediment of baptism. We answer. Mr. T. afore confesseth, p. 24. Infant's may be sanctified. If therefore he means the defect of manifestation of faith, we answer. It is true in men of ripe years. For there it is known that they are worse than Infants. So was it in circumcision. If Ishmael be a known scoffer, he is cast out, and so his children are not circumcised, unless perhaps after at years they gave good testimony of their due subjection to the Law. So that to the whole argumentation we say, that here is mention of the manner of the practice of that first administration of baptism to the parents, with confession and profession by many examples, and intimations, but not a rule set down that thus it must be in the succession of believers children. We list not to speak any thing more of this major Proposition, and the proofs; only wonder that among the crowd of Scriptures Mr. T. quotes, he would thrust in that of Act. 19.5. for baptism of water, which was only a conferring of the miraculary gifts of the holy Ghost, by imposition of hands; as many arguments from the place can evince. But Mr. T. objects this for a confirmation of his Argument. That if it be rightly argued from 1 Cor. 11.28. that the Lords Supper is not to be granted to Infants, because self-examination is pre-required; by like reason we may say, Baptism is not yielded to Infants, because repentance and faith are pre-required. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.37. and that of those that descended from Abraham, and to whom the promise was. Besides what we said afore, we answer to this Argument (great in show) that there is not the like reason between those places for Baptism, and that for the Lords Supper. For, 1. That of the Lords Supper speaks of every Communicant viritim, as counting one after another; Let the party whosoever it be enter into self-examination before eating. But that Act. 2.38. speaks in the gub, or general to the parents. And that Act. 8.37. is spoken to one only man, and in that phrase that cannot be found elsewhere on that occasion. 2. There is no intimation in the New Testament of children admitted to the Lords Supper. But in that Act. 2. presently in the next verse, v. 39 there is an intimation of their Infants admitted to Baptism; as before we have evinced. That clause of descending from Abraham, and the belonging of the promise, is of no weight in this Argument. For, 1 The parents by putting to death Christ, had made themselves in wickedness worse than Gentiles. 2 That confession and profession is expressly called for, only from them that were so apparently wicked. 3 That if they did come in by repentance, the promise (saith the Apostle) presently runs to their children. CHAP. XIII. THe fourth Argument (saith Mr. T.) is taken from the next Age after the Apostles. Exercit. Sect. 17. The 4. Argument against Infant Baptism from the practice in the next age after the Apostles. That tenet and practice is doubtful, of which it cannot be proved, that it was in force or use, in the next age after the Apostles: But it cannot be proved, that the tenet or practice of Infant-Baptisme was in force, or use, in the Age next after the Apostles. Ergo. The major is of itself manifest. The minor is proved by the testimony of Lodovicus Vives above-recited, to which Vossius in the sibus Historico-Theologicis of Infant-baptisme joins the testimony of Walafridus Strabo, and by the examining of places brought to that purpose, and by the continuation of questions propounded to the baptised in Ages following, and others tokens from Councils and Ecclesiastical Writers, which in historical business are wont to beget credit. The words of Walafridus Strabo, who lived about the year, 840. in his book Derebus Ecclesiasticis, Chap. 26. are these; We are also to note, that in the first times the grace of Baptism was wont only to be given to them, who by integrity both of body, and mind, were already come to this, that they could know, and understand what profit is to be obtained in Baptism, what is to be confessed, and believed, what lastly is to be observed of them that are born again in Christ. Thus fare Mr. T. and his quotation of Walafridus. 1. To Mr. T. his major we say, Animadvers. that it is not of itself manifest. For what if we cannot produce any Records of Antiquity for the use and practise of many things in the Age next to the Apostles; are they therefore doubtful, when as we have the Word of God for them? Therefore the mere failing of the Votes of humane Writers do not make a thing doubtful: though the Papists urge us with the like Argument, that the Protestant Churches are not true, because we cannot produce Histories, etc. to show their succession in all Ages. If we fail in Records of Antiquity, we may thank the Papists chief, who, as we may say, martyred by fire, and otherwise, as well good books, as godly men: and yet the Truth according to Scripture stands where it did. To Mr. T. his minor we say, In general. 1. That Mr. T. tells us beside of Lodovicus Vives, and Wal. Strabo, of places brought to that purpose, of the continuation of questions propounded to the baptised in ages following, of other tokens from Councils, and of Ecclesiastical Writers, but quotes them not; which is not the way to beget credit in the judicious Reader. It were too much to believe every Author upon his bare word, without other circumstances; and therefore by much more too much to believe Authors not produced but only intimated by Mr. T. 2. Mr. Tombs gives us in, two late-men in comparison of the stream of ancient Antiquity, which is contrary to those two. 3. If those two had been a considerable number, or had produced to us any considerable Reasons, or quotations of Antiquity higher than themselves, or any fair probabilities, or circumstances how they gather it, they would sooner have begot credit, then as they are now proposed. In particular, first, to Ludovicus Vives, we answered afore in our Reply to Mr. T. his 13. Sect. touching the Argument of the failing of the Church's succession; in the 9 Chap. of our Animadversions. And we add now, that both he and Walaf. Strabo speak as if they had not been acquainted with Antiquity in this point, as will appear by and by from that we shall be able to quote. 2 To Walafridus Strabo, who is but of yesterday in comparison (by Mr. T. his confession) to barely assert against higher approved Antiquity, We answer; that if Mr. T. would but have gone on in the place he quoted out of the 26. Chap. of that Wal. Strabo, de Rebus Ecclesiasticis, and translated a line or two further, the world might have better seen what an acurat Antiquary that Strabo was. We will therefore translate onward immediately where Mr. T. left. For the venerable Father Augustine (saith W. Strabo) reports of himself in his books of his Confessions, that he continued Catechumenus, a catechised person almost to the twenty fift year of his age, namely, to that intent, that by this delay of time, he being well learned in every particular, he might be led by his own free accord to choose that which he liked. Thus Walaf. Strabo. Upon which, Ger. Joh. Vossius his observation is this. Thus far Walafridus (saith Vossius) in whose words, instead of the twenty fift year (as he is in printed copies. Bibl. p. p. T. 6. Ed. 2. and cited of learned men, Joseph vice come. observ. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 1. etc.) we ought to read the thirty fift year. For Augustine as appears by his books of his Confessions was converted in the thirty first year of his age. For the two years following he continued under catechising, in which time he wrote against the Academici, and wrote his Soliloquies. At thirty four years old he was baptised by Ambrose at Midain; which declare with how weak an argument Walafridus doth contend. Thus far Ger. J. Vossius. 3 To Mr. T. his manner of quoting Vossius, as if Vossius added another testimony to that of L. Vives, out of Walaf. Strabo against Infant-baptisme. We answer, Mr. T. doth but hereby neatly occasion, if not cause the unlearned to fall into a mistake; as if Vossius were against Infant-Baptisme, when as he is altogether for it, with many Arguments, wherein is showed much divine learning. He that hath but Latin may read them at large. Ger. Joh. Voss. Thes. Theolog. & Histor. Disput. de Paedobapt. Thes. 3. etc. 4 Mr. T. intimating a referring himself in this cause of the ancientness of Infant-baptisme, to Antiquity, Councils, Ecclesiastical Writers, etc. doth but reach down a rod for his own opinion, and a confutation of his minor Proposition he pretended to prove by Antiquity. For the best antiquity of the Fathers, etc. are for us against Mr. T. that Infant-baptisme was in the next Age to the Apostles, and so downwards: which (to follow Mr. T. in his own we are forced to produce, and to refel Mr. T. and Mr. D. exceptions against some of them (as alleged by some of us) that we may leave things clear as we go. 1 Justin Martyr * Justin Maryr, saith Bucholcerus, apologized for the Christians, in the year 141 after Christ's birth. And was converted to Christianity before that, in the year after Christ's birth, 130. saith Helvious. He was a professor of Philosophy, before his conversion, and therefore in all likelihood was at least 20. years old, if not 30, at his conversion, and so lived very near the time of John the Apostle, who died not till about Ann. 200 after the birth of Christ. And therefore Justin Martyr mu●● needs know the customs in the Apostles days. in his books unquestionably his, in some things we cast our eye upon (for we had not time now to read over Pamphlets of this question, much less volumes) seems to hint something towards Infant-baptisme, in his Dialogue, Cum Tryph. Jud: Have ye not read that, that soul should be cut off from his genoration which shall not be circumcised the eighth day. And this is equally established concerning strangers, or those bought with money. This Covenant therefore or Testament you despising, you neither have any regard of the Commandments following; and then adjoins. There is now need of another circumcision, etc. And in his 2 Apol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, After washing in that manner, we bring him that hath believed, and is joined to us, unto the biethrens as they are called, where they are gathered together, and make prayers and supplications in common, both for themselves, and for him that hath been eluminated (that is baptised) etc. Again in his Dialog. cum Tryphone, he opposeth baptism with water to baptising with sin; but we are baptised with sin when children. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Again one in a Treatise which goes under the name of Justin Martyr, namely, in the Questions to the orthodox. Question and Answer 56. disputes the different condition of children dying baptised, EXAMEN. Perk. prepara. to the Demonstrat. of the Problem. Rivet. Crit. Sacer. R. Cook of Leeds, Censur. patrum. Exercit. & unbaptised. Therefore children were baptised in his time. Mr. T. in his Examen. objecteth, that it is proved by Mr. Perkins, by Rivet, and by Cook, that the Quest. ad orthodox were not Justin Martyrs, for as much as they mention not only Irenaeus, but also Origen, and the Manichees. We answer. Although we will not peremptorily pronounce that those Questions and Answers ad Orthodoxos were Justin Martyrs, nevertheless it doth not yet appear to us as infallibly proved by Mr. T. his Arguments, that those Quest. ad Orthodox. were none of his. 1. For the mention of the Manichees there is a mistake. The place where the Manichees are mentioned; is not affirmed by divers learned men * Cook. cens. patr. Rivet. Crit. Sacer. Possevin. App. to be in the Questions to the orthodox, but in Quaestiovib. & Responsionib. ad Graecos, there we find them often mentioned ** Resp. ad Qu. primam, etc. often. Perk. . For mention of the Manichees in the Questions ad Orthodoxos, once, in some copies, in Quaest. 127. Mr. T. hath it but out of one Author. And very likely it was thrust in to the Quest. ad orthod. in latter times by the Scribes. For the sense is perfect without it. And the inserting is but in manner of a quotation, to explain how in those times Justin Martyr met with some opinions then arising, which in aftertimes grew infamously famous, got an head, and a Name of Manicheisme: which being known to the Scribes of latter times, they might put in the name Maniche, as answerable to the thing disputed, and for the information of the Reader. Who that is a Scholar doth not know that Marginal notes on books at last have crept into the Text? Many instances might be given of books of many sorts. So then this reason is not a certain evincing Argument; that the Qu. ad. orthod. are not Justin Martyrs. 2. To the mention of Irenaeus we say, Resp. ad Qu. 115. ad orthod. that this Argument is weak also. For, first, Justin Martyr is put in Anno 130. after Christ. And they say he was martyred not till Anno 165 * Helvic. . yea some say not till 169 * Buchol. . And Irenaeus was a Bishop Anno 170; and therefore must needs be famous many years before Justin Martyrs death; and therefore well might they quote one another in their books. But to allow more then Mr. T. objects, namely, as some object, that Justin Martyr in the said place calls Irenaeus martyr, when as he was martyred long after Justin Martyrs death. We answer, that if that word Martyr were not put in by some late Scribe since, for the honour and distinction of the man, however in the English the word martyr be taken, yet usually in Latin, and more constantly in the Greek, it signifies only a witness. And Irenaeus was a famous witness to the truth by pen and profession in Justin Martyrs time, though not by blood. Again, if Martyr be taken for a sufferer, yet not always for a sufferer by death: Isaac is said to be persecuted by Ishmael only mocking him. Gal. 4.29. Gen. 21.9. Which kind of oppositions, and worse, Irenaeus no doubt met with in those persecuting times of his, and of Justins, as forerunners of the effusion of their blood. 3. To the mention of Origen, in his Qu. ad orthodox. Resp. ad qu. 82. & 86. we say, that Chronologers and Historians (those few we could cast a look upon) are so uncertain about the life and death of these two Fathers as is wonderful. Bucholcer. It is confessed by some, that Origen and Justin Martyr were within some 14 or 15 years one of another. And we heard afore that some made Justin Martyr far longer lived than others did; now if indeed (as who knows to the contrary) either Origen was born sooner, or Justin Martyr lived longer, but a few years; Justin Martyr might well hear of Origen; who was a great Scholar, very young, even before he was 18 years old: and wrote soon, and much, in all 7000 books, as Hieroni reports. I confess for my part (I speak my conscience) if that be all the objection, I should sooner believe men's writings quoting one another, as sufficient testimonies that they lived some years at the same time when it is near confessed by Authors, then to doubt of such because some Chronologers or Historians cipher or say them to be 14 or 15 years after one another. But where doth these Questions ad orthodoxos quote Origen? we can find but two. One in the Answer to the 82. Quest. on which let any ingenuous man look and observe how he is named (if he,) in the last close of all, and the fullness of the Answer, without mention of the supposed Origen, and he will say, verily this was but some marginal Note since Justin Martyr, thrust into the Text. The other place is in the beginning of the Answer to the 86. Question, and therefore very likely to be thrusted too into the text. For let a man put out the first words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It is expounded by Origen, and yet the sense will be full thus: That to a man that is skilful in the Hebrew tongue, there is an interpretation of all the Hebrew names in the Scripture. Which is further strengthened, because in the close it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, if you consult that interpretation, not that Origen (if he). Besides, a man that is critically skilled in the Greek, which I profess not, he would haply examine, if Origen be here quoted, first, why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 man is needlessly put in. And whether it be so proper to construe the verb passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is interpreted by Origen, there being no preposition, according to the usual rule. And lastly, whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not some other word signifying some other thing then a proper name to signify Origen. We could give instance but for haste. But to give Mr. T. an Objection which he doth not make: to wit, that the Qu. ad orthodox. are not thought to be Justin Martyrs, because in them there is such contradictions contrary to what is said in Justin Martyrs works (as Mr. T. his R. Cook observeth) as that in the 52. Qu. ad orthodox. it is said the Witch, 1 Sam. 28. did delude the eyes of all the beholders that they might think it was Samuel. But in his Dialog-cum Tryphone, the contrary is affirmed. Qu. 142. ad Orthodox. it is said, that it was a created Angel, that talked with Jacob; but in his Dialogue cum Tryphone, he proves him to be an uncreated Angel. To which we answer. That so learned Tossanus observes upon Augustine, that he sometimes contradicts himself in those books which he accounts the very book of Augustus. M. T. knew learned Mr. P. who would say, Can any mere man writ much, and not in any thing contradict himself? And for the instances they are not of moment. As one Angel talked with Jacob, so he saw many more. There might be a material body patched up by the devil, according to the sphere of angelical power, and yet he must delude the eyes of the beholders too, to make them think it was samuel's real body. Mr. T. goes on against those Qu. ad orthodox. Now (saith he) what doth this Bastard Treatise say? Answ. These are sesquipedalia verba, high words. For, first, by this we have said; it may appear that it is not yet so out of doubt that the Qu. ad Orthodoxos are not Justin Martyrs. Secondly, there are failings enough in the other Treatises of Justin Martyrs, by which these Questions are judged. Thirdly, that there are not wanting men of great learning that think the said Questions may be accounted of like Authority with the rest of the Treatises, though they were not truly Justin Martyrs. And Scultetus saith, that though this Treatise be not Justin Martyrs, yet not to be rejected, there being many Gems, though mixed with some chaff. And H. Grotius on Matth. 19.14. quotes them with as great respect, as other Fathers, yea so quotes this 56. qu. Well, and what doth Mr. T. say to this Treatise which he so calls Bastard? This: He translated all the whole 56t. Question and Answer, named Justin Martyrs add Orthodox. * The Qu. and Answer, of the named Justin Martyr, in full as Mr. T. translates it, is this. Qu. If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works, what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptised by others, and have done nothing, and of those that have not been baptised, and in like manner have done nothing? Answ. This is the difference of the baptised from the not baptised, that the baptised obtien good things (meaning at the resurrection) by baptism: but the unbaptized obtain not good things. And they are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their Baptism, by that faith of those that bring them to Baptism, So Mr. T. ●is translat. and then Mr. T. makes these observations upon it. 1 That In those times they did not baptise Infants upon Mr. Marshal's ground, namely, upon the Covenant of Grace, made to them and their Infants. 2 But they baptised them, because they thought the not-baptized should not obtain good things at the resurrection, but the baptised should. 3 That those baptised Infants obtained those good things by reason of the faith of the bringers, what ever the parents were. 4 That therefore they baptised the children of unbelievers, as well as of believers if they were brought. Mr. T. hoping by this translation, and these Notes, to bring the Author, and his words into disgrace, as he himself hints it to us. But we answer in general, that Mr. T. hath likewise quoted Authors, and among them even his much esteemed Ludovicus Vives that have had their harsh expressions and worse, as before we have noted. 2. The intent and manner of quoting the Quest. to the orthodox, was only to testify that the baptism of Infants was a known custom in those times. In particular, we answer, first to his first observation, that the said 56. Question, was not urged by myself, or Mr. T. to prove baptism of Infants upon the ground of the Covenant. But the question being whether in point of Fact, the Churches used anciently to baptise Infants? to that the quotation of those Questions named. Justin Martyrs was alleged, and to that it serveth fitly and fully. For he was a very ancient Author, in the judgement of divers learned men. Sylburgius thinks that he was a Justin that might write about the time of Theodoret. But Photius thinks that it might be justin Martyr, interlined by some other justin or other after; as Ruffinus dealt by Origen, as Mr. T. confesseth. To Mr. T. second observation we answer. That as we that are believers (as it is in the Answer to that 56. Question) cannot applaud, nor comfort ourselves in a willing neglect of baptising our children according to the Gospel institution (as we now stand to maintain) so doubtless we are to expect good things on God's part to our children according to the intent of Baptism. We find it so on earth in their comfortable application of baptism at ripe years; and why not then to believe the fruit of it in heaven, if they die in childhood? Why may not Baptism as well comfort the supposed justin Martyr, and us, as Circumcision did the Patriarches concerning their children's receiving the first seal. This expression in this 56. Question and Answer is esteemed by Grotius on Matth. 19.14. (whom Mr. T. so oft quotes) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. To his third observation we answer. That there is no such clause or intimation in the said place of the 56. Quest. ad orthodox. as Mr. T. here inserts, namely, [what ever the parents be]. The contrary is more probable; the Author calling the bringers of the Infants [believers]. And who so likely to bring the children, as the parents. And therefore the parents here most probably are those believers. And whereas Mr. T. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [worthy] worthy of good things, he might by warrant from the Gospel * As Matth. 10.11. inquire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who is fit, or meet, that is to receive you, as it is expounded in v. 14. have rendered it by a more orthodox and fit term, viz. [meet] or [fit]. And lastly, it being more probable than any thing Mr. T. can bring to the contrary, that the children were brought to baptism by their believing parents, and so made meet for good things as the fruit of it, let the Reader judge whether all this doth not imply that respect here might be had to the Covenant of grace as the ground of baptising children; which Mr. T. but now so peremptorily denied, as if it were infallibly contrary to the Text of the Author. To his fourth observation we need say no more but that Mr. T. speaks it without all warrant, or such probability from the text of the Author, as there is in it to the contrary. Now let the world judge whether the words of the Author, considering his time, are so vain, or so impertinent, as Mr. T. would meek them, had they been alleged in full, and beyond that the quotation extended to. Thus for Justin Martyr. Next we come to Irenaeus, IRENAEUS. who lived in the same century, namely, in the next age to the Apostles, and not at the last end of that age neither. For Bucholcerus (one of the most approved Chronologers by Usher) puts him in the year after Christ, 178. And Helvicus puts him higher, namely, in the year, Testis. D. H. secum enutritus. 170. And both of them put him down as Bishop at that time (of Lions, saith Bucholcerus) and therefore was famous not doubt divers years afore, and an observer of the customs of the Churches. Having this advantage for that purpose, that he was the Scholar of Polycarp, as Polycarp was Scholar or disciple to some of the Apostles, as divers Chronologers tell us. That which Irenaeus hath to our purpose in the point in hand, is in his 2 Book, 39 Chap. about the middle. His words are these. Magister ergo existens, etc. that is, Therefore being a teaching Master, he had also the age of such a Master, not refusing, or going beyond a man, nor dissolving the law of humane kind in himself, but sanctifying every age by that similitude that was in him to it. For he came to save all men by himself; All I say, who by him are BORNAGAIN unto, or, into God, INFANTS and LITTLE-ONES, boys, and young men, and elder men. Therefore he went through every age, and was made an Infant, to Infants, sanctifying Infants. Among little ones, a little one, sanctifying them that have this age: being also made an example to them of piety, and justice or righteousness, and subjection. Among young men being made a young man, and sanctifying them to the Lord; so also an elder, to the elder, that he might be a perfect teaching master, not only according to the exposition of truth, but also according to age, sanctifying the elder, being made also an example to them. And then he went also unto death, that he might be the firstborn from the dead, holding the primacy in all things, etc. So Irenaeus. Whom we have translated above and beneath the place we are to use, that there might be the less exception by any, that they could not see the coherence and scope of the place. The words we stand upon in which Irenaeus intimates the baptism of Infants in that his time, next after the Apostles, are, [All I say, who by him are BORN AGAIN unto, or into God, or according to God INFANTS, and LITTLE ONES, etc.] The word Renascuntur, that is, regenerated, or newborn, or born again, signifying, or implying Baptism. So the Scriptures, so Irenaeus, and the Fathers mean by Bornagain, new born, or regenerated, though Mr. T. denies it. Scriptures. The first Scripture is in Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit. Where the Spirit signifies the inward work, accompanying or following (where God converts) the outward sign, seal, and conveyance of Baptism; as we have before discussed this place, where we have given you the general consent of orthodox Authors, and some Reasons, that the water of Baptism is here understood. We now add, first, the water of baptism must be here meant, because of the order: water is put first, the Spirit next. Now where a metaphorical epithet, or word is put to set forth the nature of the Spirit, the Spirit is put first, and the metaphorical term or word after. Matth. 3. Baptised with the holy Ghost and fire, that is, with the holy Ghost which is like fire. Secondly, Christ is speaking to Nicodemus one of the Pharisees, who did put much in outward, legal, and ceremonious washings, Mark 7.1, 2, etc. Therefore doubtless Christ would apply his speech suitable to the condition of Nicodemus, to take him off that washing, by propounding to him the Gospel washing of Baptism, already begun by John Baptist, on which usually followed an inward effectual work of washing by the Spirit. Both these Reasons are hinted by Beza, who by all means would rather have an external washing here meant, beside the inward of the Spirit. And prevents an objection; that grace is not here tied to the Sacrament of Baptism, the peculiar Sacrament of regeneration (saith he) no more than it is to the Lords Supper. joh. 6.53. Besides, saith he, there is mention after of the Spirit without water. Thirdly, regeneration is attributed to the outward and more common means of preaching the Word, 1 Pet. 1.23. why not therefore to Baptism the peculiar Sacrament of regeneration? And so Nicodemus hath here for the business in hand which is his conversion, all three means completely represented to him, Christ's word, Baptism, and the holy Spirit. We list not to abound in proof of a thing so plain, and commonly received. If one or two think otherwise, it is not of weight to say so without proof. Nor do I know any reason why any should descent, unless for a dream of tying grace to Sacraments which (Beza and others excellently take off) or for fear of men's private interests in an argument which is not considerable. The second Scripture is, Tit. 3.5. According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost. Where washing (according to divers learned orthodox Authors) signifies or implies Baptism. The reasons that evince our consent is, 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for washing, signifies not so much the act of bare washing, as the place where the water is, and the action is done. For it signifies a Bath or laver of water; and therefore cannot be so fitly applied to the inward washing of the Spirit, as to outward baptism. 2 The spiritual working of the Spirit follows in the next clause, The making of us new by the Spirit. 3 It is usual with the holy Ghost to call the whole work by the name of the outward sign of baptism. Gal. 3.27. Col. 2.12. even as Circumcision is called the Covenant, Gen. 17. though but the sign or seal of the Covenant. Thus of the Scriptures, that by the words, born again, new born, or the like, is signified or employed baptism: suitably to Scriptures. Secondly, Irenaeus takes his own word Renascuntur, that is, born again, or new born, to signify baptism. Compare that place of Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 18. where speaking of the corruptions by Heretics touching redemption, and Baptism, etc. he hath these words in the beginning of the Chapter. This kind (that is of Sect) was sent by Satan for the denying of the Baptism of regeneration, or new birth towards or according to God, and for the destruction of the whole faith. This place clears the thing, and Mr. T. his exceptions; which are, 1 possibly this might not be Irenaeus his words. 2 That Irenaeus is corrupted by the Latin Translation (we wanting the Greek copy.) To which we answer. That this quotation out of the first book and 18. Chap. of Irenaeus takes away both objections. For Mr. T. his Rivet confesseth, That the first 27. Chapters of the first book of Irenaeus are inserted in Epiphanius his Panarium, which we have in Greek. And so much of Irenaeus entirely is to be had in Greek in Irenaeus his works. And accordingly Epiphanius saith, that That circumcision continued serving to the time, till the greater circumcision came, which is the laver of regeneration. So Epiphan. lib. 2. cap. 28. We have not time to seek more; though he speaks often of baptism; sometimes calling it the great circumcision, sometimes only the laver, etc. But Mr. T. objects, Mr. T. EXAMEN. Sect. 4. that Voss. Thes. Theolog. de Paedobapt. intimates that the proper acception of renascuntur, that is, born again, or newborn, is to signify sanctification. We answer. Vossius doth not speak so much for Mr. T. but against him in this point, Animadvers. as we conceive. Whether we conceive aright, let the Reader judge. Vossius his words are these. We can prove by apparent testimonies of them that lived before the Pelagian Heresy, that Infants were baptised. Such a testimony is Irenaeus. lib. 2. cap. 39 Where he saith Christ came to save all by himself, all I say, who by him are bornagain, or newborn by him, towards God, infants and little ones, etc. where by the word born again, or new-birth, is set forth Baptism according to the common form of speech of the Ancients. Although if we take the word bornagain curiously, yet in as much as Irenaeus saith, regeneration is in Infants. It sufficiently refuteth the opinion of them, who endeavour by this Argument to prove that because regeneration (as they think) may not be in Infants, that therefore they may not be signed with the outward sign. So Vossius. But Mr. T. objects again, M. T. EXAM. Sect. 4. that Irenaeus his scope is to confute the Gnostics that hold Christ did not exceed 31. years of age, against whom Irenaeus allegeth that Christ lived in every age, that by his age and example he might sanctify every age. We answer. Animadvers. But Irenaeus lays the foundation of his sanctifying all sorts of ages in this, that they are newborn by Christ to Godward both Infants and little ones; and then follows, he was made an Infant to Infants to sanctify them: having before regenerated them; whereof what sign is there to us, but God's institution and act that Infants should have the first seal? But Mr. T. yet further objects, Mr T. EXAM. Sect. 4. that Irenaeus speaks not of baptism, because he saith, Born again by him, that is by Christ. We answer. Animadvers. That Mr. T. well knows subordinate things are not contrary. Christ regenerates therefore doth he not do it by his Ordinances, Word, Baptism, & c? We have heard afore that though Christ be the Author of our salvation, yet it is said we are born again by water and the Spirit. And that for the conjunction of the sign and thing signified, the thing signified is called by the name of the sign. We add, Ephes. 5.26.1 Pet. 1.23. where it is said, that we are sanctified by the washing of water by the Word; And we are born again by the Word of God; and yet we know Christ by his Spirit, is the Author of these. 3 Others of the approved Ancients as Commentators on Irenaeus call baptism, by the name of regeneration. Nazianzen calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the laver of regeneration, or of the new-birth. Nazianz. Orat. 402. in Sanct. Bapt. Augustine saith, As by the first man, men are born in sin and death, so by Christ [renascuntur] they are born again in or into righteousness and eternal life, in or through baptism. Aug. lib. de Bapt. & hab. & Cons. Ambrose saith, God the omnipotent Father who hath regenerated thee of water, and the holy Spirit. Ambros. de Sacram. Hieronimus. The bloody bodies of Infants are washed as soon as they are born; so the spiritual generation stands in need of the saving laver. Hieron. lib. 4. Ezek. ca 16. More might be alleged, but these enough to clear the business in hand, that Irenaeus meant by being bornagain, or regenerated; Baptism. But Mr. T. objects, Mr. T. EXAMEN. Sect. 4. p. 7. that Irenaeus saith, Christ was fifty years old, a● he had received it from those that conversed with John the Apostle; and thereby Mr. Tombs would blemish Irenaeus his testimony. We answer. Animad. First, men have their mistakes, else they were not men but as Angels. Secondly, Mr. T. referred us to far worse Authors, full of superstitions, in Scham. before. And his Ludovicus Vives, and his Walafridus we and Vossius too have noted before, for their gross expressions and mistakes. Thirdly, which is mainly to the point, Irenaeus saith, Infants may be born again, that is baptised, as from himself; though he reports the whole age of Christ from others, who if they wrote his age by cyphers, in aftertimes fifty might easily be mistaken for thirty. The third and last Author we will urge from this first age, TERTULLIAN. or first hundred years or century next following the Apostles time, is Tertullian. Whom Helvicus puts in the latter end of the age afore said, namely, in the year after Christ 195. which was as about the 95 year after the death of John the Evangelist. But the same Helvicus saith this of him (put in that year) out of Eusebius and Hieron. That he put forth his book of Prescriptions, and that he was the third Latin Writer. And Bucholcerus mentions him as famous about the year after Christ 208, that is 108. after St. John, that is but about thirteen years after the time set down by Helvicus. For he saith that about that time, Hieron. in Catalogo. Cyprian (as Hieron testifies) did ascribe so much to Tertullia's writings, that when he called for one of his Authors or Writers, he would say, Da Magistrum, that is, Give me my Master, when he meant Tertullian. Therefore he wrote divers years afore. The words of Tertullian to the point in hand of Infant-Baptisme, Lib. de Anim. cap. 39 & 40. are these; Hinc enim & Ap●st. etc. that is, For hence also the Apostle affirmeth that of either sex sanctified are procreated those that are holy, as by the prerogative of SEED, so by the discipline or rule of institution. But they were born unclean, as if by this nevertheless he would have it understood that the children of believers are [designatos] the designed one's of holiness, and thereby also of salvation; that these pledges of hope might patronage those marriages, which he had judged to be kept (undissolved.) Otherwise he had minded the Lords determination, Unless one be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God, that is, He shall not be holy. So every soul is counted to be in Adam till he be recounted to be in Christ; and so long to be impure, till he be recounted. Thus Tertullian. Whence note first by the way, how the opinion of Antiquity touching that place, 1 Cor. 7.14. is contrary to Mr. Tombs his opinion. Secondly, directly to the point in hand of the Baptism of the children of believers, he holds forth these Notions. First the birthright of believers Infants, the parents and children being both under that promise, I am the God of thee and thy seed. They are (saith Tertullian) by the Sanctification of one of the Parents, procreated holy, partly by the prerogative of the SEED (I am the God of thee believing Abraham, and of thy seed, Gen. 17.7.) partly by the discipline of Institution (THEREFORE thou shalt keep my Covenant to give the first seal to every male of thy seed, Gen. 17.9. Or Act. 2. The promise is to you, and you being called, to your children also.) So that Tertullian means that the children of believers are reputatively and federally holy: Which is the more plain by that which follows, of counted in Adam and recounted in Christ. Secondly, The capacity of children, of grace and Salvation (and consequently of the seal, for the deeds and their seals follow the right of the inheritance; so all along the Scripture, as we have showed in part) I say Tertullian shows children's capacity of grace, 1. In mentioning their being holy. For it's in vain to talk of accounting holy, if none may be holy; yea therefore God will have believers children indefinitely accounted holy, because he hath made some holy in their childhood, Isaac, jacob, Samuel, john Baptist, those Mar. 10. etc. 2. In mentioning that place, john 3.5. in relation to children; Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, etc. From all which we may perceive, that Tertullian grounds Infant-Baptisme upon Scripture, not upon unwritten Tradition. Nor is it my opinion only, that this place of Tertullian is for Infant-baptisme, but of learned Vossius too, (whom Mr. T. so oft quotes with respect:) For Vossius by this place proves that it was the mind of Tertullian in that noted place of Chap. 18. H. D. M T. in his 10th Argument. of his book De Baptismo, That Infants should be Baptised; which some allege against Infant-baptism, but is indeed for it. Tertullia's words are these. Itaeque pro cujusque personae etc. Therefore according to every persons condition, disposition, and age, the delay of baptism is more profitable; but especially concerning little children. For what necessity is there [ * Those words between [] Junius saith may be left out: Mr T. in his 10th Argument leaves them out. But in the best Editions of Tertullian they are in. Vossius takes them in and allegeth them. If it be not so much a necessity] as to have witnesses also in the danger? The Lord saith indeed, forbidden them not to come unto me; let them come therefore, when they grow up to youth, etc. So Tertullian in the aforesaid book concerning baptism. Upon which place Vossius * Thes. Theolog. & Hist. de Paedob. saith thus; We think that nothing is here denied but only the necessity of baptism, when there is no danger of death; for that's the meaning of those words [What necessity, if there be not so much necessity as, etc.] but in no case did he deny that Infants might be baptised; yea and if there be danger lest afterwards they be not baptised, its plain they ought to be baptised, which we do not obscurely discern by that which Tertullian writeth in his book of the soul, and the 39 and 40. chapter, and then recited the words, which before we quoted and translated to you. Thus Vossius. Give us but leave to give you learned and pious junius his note too on this place of Tertullian, and we shall have done with Tertullian. The words of junius are these: Tria hic distinctè proponit Auctor, Notae Franc. Junii, ad Tertul. de Baptis. etc. that is, The Author propunds here three things distinctly, which being rightly understood, the place is most holy. 1. The CONDITION of persons to be baptised is that they be in Covenant, whether they be of age, or little children. 2. DISPOSITION is when they believe, and obey the Gospel, and make profession. 3. They are not accounted to be OF AGE which are in covenant (for the little children of Godly men are in Covenant) but who so profess the faith. Therefore when he saith ESPECIALLY CONCERNING LITTLE CHILDREN, that must needs be understood of the children of strangers or Foreigners, not of the children of those that are in Covenant, and so domestic or of the family of the Church; as is confirmed by the following aetiology or GIVING THE CAUSE, namely what necessity is there, if there be not so much necessity as for witnesses or Godfathers and Godmothers etc. For we know that the first invention of witnesses was for the children whose parents could not be accounted members of the Church. Mr T. his objections after against Tertul are prevented here, and further answered in the 14 chap. of our Animadversions at the word CYPRIAN in the Margin. That this was the mind of these Authors, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian in this age next after the Apostles, will further appear by the consent of the most approved Ancients that followed them in the next succeeding ages, which we have thought most proper to defer to the next chapter of our Animadversions upon Mr T. his fifth Argument. CHAP. XIIII. THE fifth Argument: That which in succeeding Ages, in which it was in use, Exercitat. Argu. 4. § 17. The Argument from the wrong original of Infant-Baptism, confirmed against it. was in force, 1 as a Tradition not written; 2 Out of imitation of Jewish Circumcision; 3 Without universal practice; 4 Together with the error of giving Infants the Lords supper, and many other humane inventions, under the name of Apostolical traditions; That is deservedly doubtful. But in some ages after the first from the Apostles, the tenet and practice of Infant-Baptisme was in use, 1 as a tradition not written, as appears from Origen, Hom. on Rom. 6. Of which book nevertheless let me add the censure of Erasmus on the Homilies of Origen upon Leviticus, But he that reads this work, and the enarration of the Epistle to the Romans, is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus. And the testimony fetched from these books for Infant-Baptisme, is so much the more to be suspected, because Augustine, Hierom, etc. rely (so far as yet is manifest to me) on no other testimony, then of Cyprian and his fellow-Bishops in the Council, of which mention is made Epist. 59 ad Fidum. Secondly, out of imitation of Jewish Circumcision, as the doubt of Fidus, in the 59 Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus, intimates, though there were also other reasons of Infant-baptisme; as the opinion of the necessity of Baptism to salvation, and the greediness to increase the number of Christians, and perhaps the imitation of heathenish lustration of little ones; and some other. Thirdly, without universal practice: for it is manifest that Constantine, although borne of Helena his mother, a Christian, was not baptised till aged, as Eusebius in the life of Constantine written by him. The same is manifest from the book of Confessions of Augustine, concerning Augustine himself, whose mother Monica was a Christian. The things which may be drawn out of Theodoret, Augustine, and others, concerning Theodosius, Alipius, Adeodatus, and many others (although my books and notes out of them are wanting to me, by reason of the injury of the times) unless I be deceived, will evince that (though in the Churches of those times, little ones were baptised, yet) many were not baptised, whose baptism its likely the Church would sooner have dispatched, if the opinion of Baptism that now obtains, had then obtained. Fourthly, together with the error of giving the Lords supper to Infants, as is manifest out of the book of Cyprian de lapsis, and others. And that many other Inventions of men, under the name of Apostolical tradition, out of a wrong liking of Judaisme did then prevail, as the Paschall solemnity etc. is so obvious to him that reads Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Writers, that no man will need proof. Ergo. And in very deed, as of old, because the right of Infant-Baptisme seemed to be of so great moment against the Pelagian heresy, and for the authority of the Council under Cyprian, the Council of Milevis, Augustine, Hierom, and others, rather then for any solid argument out of Scripture in former ages, Infant-baptisme prevailed; so in this last age, some modern men seem to embrace this tenet of Infant-Baptisme out of horror of mind, lest they should go headlong into the pernicious errors of former Anabaptists, and their mad furies, or lest they should seem to desert the leading-men of the reformed Churches, or move troubles in the Church; rather then from perspicuous foundation in the Scriptures; which they will think that I have not said as one that dreams, who shall read what Robert Lord, Brooke hath in the end of his Treatise concerning Episcopacy; Daniel Rogers in his Treatise of Baptism, and others elsewhere. We Answer. Animadver. 1. To the major; Take away the captain or leading particular to wit [A tradition not written] and all the souldiary of the other particulars with the great Rear [to wit, Many other humane inventions] are not strong enough to make a true major proposition. For what if according to Mr T. his ad particular of [jewish] that Baptism be an imitation of the jewish passing through the red sea, 1 Cor. 10.1. etc. And the Lords Supper an imitation of the jewish , 1 Cor. 5. and of the jewish Manna, and water out of the rock, 1 Cor. 10.1. &c is therefore all Baptism, and is therefore the Lords Supper deservedly doubtful, whether they may be used? Yea, why doth Mr T. without any limitation call circumcision jewish; as if it had been merely so, when the Apostle calls it, Rom. 4.11. The signs and seal of the righteousness of faith. Note. It had been too much for Mr T. to have called it mere Old Testament or ceremonious circumcision, seeing it is the first seal of the covenant with Abraham which was Gospel being the main hinge upon which the New Testament moves, in the main point of salvation by faith in Christ. Act. 2. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. where the Apostles in sending us to Christ by faith, urges God's Covenant with Abraham. Circumcision therefore annexed to the covenant, must be in divers respects of the same nature; as under the notion of the first seal; in regard of the spiritual signification, inward sanctification; and too in respect of application, to teach that still the first Seal, as now baptism, is to be applied as to the believing parents, so to their Infant seed; unless Mr T. could have all this while showed us an exception. And what if, according to Mr T. his third particular of [Not universal practice] Moses neglected the circumcision of his child at the due time, and circumcision was not exercised upon the Jews born in the wilderness for 40 years; and many parts of worship could not be used in the times of the Church's persecution; but Churches and their worship were hid in corners as Revel. 12. And we have not records to tell us what they did for many hundred of years, but intimations how they were abridged of their liberties. Now doth this make any of these things doubtful? See Vossius. Thes. Theolet Histor. De Paedobapt. And our quotation after Ambros. following. No more doth the want of universal practice detract from the authority of administering baptism to believers Infants; especially seeing the Pelagian faction and other Heresies, before that so ancient, and so over spreading the Christian world, being also opposite to the baptism of Infants, might be a great cause that, it was not universally practised. And it is no handsome Argument in the mouth of an Anabaptist to urge the Non-universall practice of Infant Baptism, when many of their fellows have been the cause of it. Nor is it enough to wave that we have said to these two particulars, viz. the second and third; by telling us there was an institution of Circumcision in scripture, an institution of Baptism of men, and of the Lords Supper in the Scripture; for so we have proved there is of Infant Baptism; and we may as well assert this, in this our Answer, as for the Anabaptists to beg the Question in the objection; as if Infant-baptisme were not instituted in Scripture. For the fourth particular with its great & caetera; namely, That together with the baptism of Infants some error, and many humane traditions have gone along in the company, as giving Infants the Lords Supper, etc. It needs no long nor careful answer. For first we know that all the Ordinances of Christ have been for many hundreds of years for the general, daubed with many traditions, and darkened with many errors, by the Papists; doctrines mixed with Legends, Note. Baptism be-spitled, greased with oil, brined with salt, the wine of the Lords Supper mixed with water, etc. yet this doth not infer that therefore the Ordinances themselves are doubtful. 2. That though you Mr T. Vltrò nos provocasti have voluntarily provoked us here to rip up all the abominable opinions, and dangerous errors and practices that have in all ages accompanied the opinion of Anabaptism, and antipaedobaptisme out of Mr Bullinger; Sleidens Commentaries in his 5. and 10. book: Lambertus Hortensius of the Anabaptiss of the Low Countries, john Gastius of the Anabaptists of Zuitzerland, Melancthon, Ch. de Nielles, Pontanus, Osiander, etc. * All which will more than furnish the Reader with a full answer to the 2 part of Mr T. his EXAMEN, the title or sum whereof is set down by Mr T. That Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Commonwealth, which Authors aforesaid have too many sad instances of both; we forbear to name them as having no delight in Catalogues of sins. Yet if we should do so, you would not take that for a proof of the doubtfulness of Anabaptism, or Antipaedobaptisme; you would say we did rather endeavour to disgrace it, then to confute it; as it is your complaint against Mr M. in your first Section of the second part of your EXAMEN; why then do you here labour to dazzle the eyes of men against the Lawfulness of baptising believers children, with an aspersion that some odd opinions and traditions have attended it? 2. To Mr T. his minor, we answer according to the particulars he recites, But in some ages (saith he) after the first from the Apostles the tenet and practice of Infant-Baptisme was in use, first as a tradition not written. But why doth Mr T. (we wonder) speak of some ages after the first (100 years) from the Apostles? For unless he could prove Infant-baptisme to be an unwritten tradition, in the first age next after the Apostles, all is to no purpose. If it were not an unwritten tradition in that age; it is not an unwritten one, though all the ages following to the world's end say so, and swear it. Nor do the words [was in use] help him. For if it be not proved it was an unwritten tradition in the first age after the Apostles, though it was not then in use, this is nothing to make it then an unwritten tradition. Now to the first particular wherein Mr T. saith Infant-Baptism was in use as an unwritten tradition in some ages after the first from the Apostles, witness Origen. First we will bring our proofs of antiquity to the contrary; and then secondly answer to Mr T. his quotation of Origen. 1 For proof out of Antiquity, that Infant-Baptisme was not in use after the first age from the Apostles upon mere unwritten tradition; we will take our Authors according to order of time. 1 ORIGEN, ORIGEN. Flourished about the very beginning of the second Century, or age after the first from the Apostles times: For he was borne * So Butholcer out of Hieron. in the first Age or 100 years after that of the Apostles, about the year of Christ 186. And he being the Disciple of Clement, in the 18 year of his age, and about the year after Christ 204. opens his school ** Helvic. ou● of Euseb. . Therefore he could not be ignorant of the customs of the Apostles about Infant-Baptisme, etc. First his words in his fifth book upon the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans are: The Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism also to Infants: For they to whom the secrets of divine mysteries were committed, did know that there was in all, the very filth of sin, which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit, etc. In which words we have no mention of an unwritten Tradition; But of a tradition from the Apostles: that is the Doctrine of the Apostles in the Scriptures: Tradition being taken in the Scriptures, and Fathers [not * So our orthodox schools distinguish. passively for an unwritten doctrine of tradition, but actively for the act of tradition, or delivering the holy Scriptures from hand to hand in succession of ages, to our fathers and so down to us] in these instances: 2 Thess. 2.15. Therefore brethren stand fast, and hold the TRADITIONS which we have been taught whether by word or our Epistle. So in Epiphanius * Contra Haeres. l. 3. T. 2. Contra Haer●s ●0. cumpendiarver. doct. . But (saith he) other mysteries as concerning the laver (of baptism) and internal mysteries are so performed as the TRADITION of the Gospel, and the Acts hath them. So Augustin, as we shall see after in the Quotations of him. And that Origen takes Tradition in this sense, appears by the ground he lays upon the Scriptures, which tell us a sinner must be born again of water and the holy spirit. That sin is taken away by the blood and spirit of Christ, and that this is sealed to us by Baptism in respect whereof we are said to be baptised into Christ. Rom. 6. Now that cannot be called an unwritten tradition that hath footing upon the Scripture, as baptism hath; and baptism of believers infants, as we have proved and are still upon the proof. 2 origen's words on Levit. Hom. 8. are (speaking of the spiritual uncleanness of man by sin) It may be asked what cause is there of giving Baptism also to little children according to the observation of the Church, seeing if there were nothing in little children the which remission did concern, and indulgence (of pardon) did belong unto, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous? Here again Origen lays the ground work of the washing by Baptism upon the spiritual pollution of children held forth to us in the Scriptures. Thus Origen. 3 origen's words in his 14. Hom. on Luke are; Little children were baptised into remission of sins. Of what sins? Or when did they sin? Or how can any Consideration of the Laver of washing be in little children, but as we said a little afore? no man is pure from uncleanness, though he lives but one day on earth. And because by the Sacrament of Baptism the filth of birth is put away, therefore little children are baptised. All this he speaks of Baptism as putting it in the room of Mosaical purifications; And first saith, for spiritual cleansing; Parvuli baptizabantur, that is Little children WERE baptised, as relating to the practice of the Churches in former ages. And then secondly saith in the present tense Baptizantur parvuli, that is little children ARE baptised, as noting the continuance of that practice, and that upon Scripture grounds, viz. for remission and sanctification from sin (Sacramentally and Instrumentally) instead of Ceremonial washings and purifications, which had their Gospel meaning, as the Apostle expounds in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Thus Origen. But Mr T. hath some objections against Origen in his EXAMEN of Mr M. Sermon which we must answer to keep things clear as we go, Animadvers upon Mr T. his EXAMEN §. 7. so much as concerns the Common cause. Object. Perkins and Usher, EXAMEN. saith Mr T▪ put Origen in the year 230. We answer indeed Origen then abouts succeeded at Alexandria his Master Clem. Animadver. Alexandrinus in the Chair of catechising and composed his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Bucholc: . But for his birth and first opening his school, we set the reckoning right according to divers learned Chronologers and Ecclesiastical Writers; to which we now add the words of Bucholcerus, in Anno 186. About this year (saith he) was born Origen the Ecclesiastical Writer, at Alexandria; which depends on the year after Christ 203. in which, Hieronymus writeth Origen was about 17 years old. Object. The Works of Origen, EXAMEN. saith Mr T. as of old were counted full of errors, and dangerous to be read, so, as now they are, we can hardly tell in some of them what is origen's, what not. For the Original being lost, we have only the Latin Translation, which being performed in many of his Works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus, and the Epistle to the Romans, by Ruffinus, it appears by his own confession, that he added many things of his own, in so much that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus, saith, That a man cannot be certain whether he read Ruffinus or Origen: And Perkins puts among origen's counterfeit works his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus. 1 As we confess there are some Errors in Origen (and in whom not?) so there are many learned, Animadver. pious and most spiritual things, precious Gospel truths, such as I have admired, when I read, them considering those dark times; in so much as many now called Preachers of the Gospel, may go to Origen (if they have but the spirit of discerning) to learn to be Gospel-preachers. 2 If Mr T. makes these exceptions against Origen, why, I say, why doth Mr T. urge Origen for himself in his fifth Argument, in his Exercitation, as we heard afore? Truly a man can hardly with patience enough, look upon Mr T. his dealing in this: When we urge three places out of Origen (which you had before quoted and translated, and formerly urged by Mr M.) for the ancient practice of the Church in baptising Infants, than M. T. bespatters Origen as you hear, and Origen is not Origen with him. But if Mr T. urge but one only place of Origen, to blast Infant-baptisme with the scar of tradition, and to contradict all approved Antiquity afore: then Origen must be received. Or else to what purpose did M. T. allege him, urging no other, by which to pretend Infant-baptism to be a tradition? 3 M T. hath nothing to say against Origen on Luke, and therefore he intimates an acknowledgement of one place urged by us from Origen, to stand good. 4 We gave you all the places out of Origen as translated into Latin by Hieronimus, as the best Editions promise us. 5 Perkins his noting origen's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as not faithfully translated by Ruffinus, doth not conclude it to be a counterfeit work. 6. If Ruffinus did say, he added many things of his own in the translation of Origen on the Romans and Leviticus (for there is nothing said of Luke) sure he would not confess he had destroyed the sense of Origen, or made him speak that he never meant. This were to suppose Ruffinus would disgrace himself under his own hand. But Mr T. objects that if we read the passages themselves we cite, EXAMEN and consider how they are brought in, and how plain the expressions are against the Pelagians, we would quickly conceive, that those passages were put in after the Pelagian heresy was confuted by Hieronimus and Augustin, who often tells us, that the fathers afore that controversy arose, did not speak plainly against the Pelagians. And of all others Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing. We answer: Animadver. First for our parts, we have read the places we quote out of Origen, with the coherence of the preceding and succeeding words, as Mr T. may perceive by our touches of observations on the places: Some hints there are (we confess) against some piece of Pelagianism, which might be conceived by some few in his time; which others in after ages might confute plainly, when borne, named, and grown up to a sturdy fellow. Secondly, for Origen to hint in some places against Pelagianism, & in others to Pelagianize a little, is not such a contradiction as is not found in divers fathers that wrote much, and struggled with contrary Errors, as Augustin etc. we think Mr T. himself clasheth sometimes against himself. Thirdly, however Origen in all the places constat sibi, is the same man for Baptism of Infants. But Mr T. objects further that Vossius saith; EXAMEN For Origen we will the less contend, because what we cited out of him, is not extant in Greek. We answer, Animadver. 1 Then we were best cast away almost all worthy Irenaeus, because we have but a little piece of him in Greek. 2 That Mr T. quoted out of Origen for his turn is not extant in greek. 3 Vossius shall heal the wound Mr T. gives by the hand of Vossius. First saith Vossius [Although some think origen's Commentaries on Levit. to be Cyrils, yet they savour of origen's phrase, and mistakes.] Secondly, saith Voss. [You may read (gemina) this, and his 14. Homilies on Luke as Twins] that is, they both speak alike to the same purpose of Infant-Baptisme: which place on Luke Mr T. excepts not against. Lastly, EXAMEN Mr T, objects that if origen's testimony be accepted, yet he calls Infant-baptisme a Tradition, and an Observation of the Church. To this we have sufficiently answered a little afore in our quotations of those three places out of Origen; Animadver. that ORIGEN cannot mean unwritten Tradition or mere Custom. See more after at our quotation of Augustin, in which you have a full answer to Mr T. his note out of Aug. l. 10. c. 23. De Genesi. The next witness is CYPRIAN, CYPRIAN. who flourished about the 248. year after Christ * Helvic. , and so also was in the second century, 100 years or age after the first from the Apostles (according to Mr T. his language) others ** Bucholc. put him higher, to wit, about 222. after Christ. His testimony (as Vossius notes) for Infant-Baptisme in his time, and higher, is beyond all exception. His words in his Epistle to Fidus in his third book and eighth Epistle * Alias, Ep. 59 are these. As concerning the cause of Infants, which thou saidst ought not to be baptised being within the second or third day of their birth, and that the law of ancient Circumcision ought to be regarded, so that thou shouldest not think that one born should be baptised and sanctified within the eighth day; it seemed far otherwise to all in our council. We all of us (that is, in a Council of 66 Bishops) have judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no son of man, or to none born of men. And by and by after he saith; There is among all, whether Infants or those that are elder, one equality of the divine gift. And a little after that he adds. For as God is no excepter of persons, so nor of Ages, seeing that he holds forth himself with an equal poised evenness [Parem as some read] a like, [patrem as others read) a father to all, for the attaining celestial grace. And a few lines after he hath these words: If remission of sins be given to them that have more greivously sinned against God, when afterward they have believed, and so none of them is kept back from Baptism, and grace; how much rather ought not an Infant to be prohibited and kept from baptism, who being lately born hath not sinned at all, but as born of Adam according to the flesh, he contracted the contagion of ancient death in his first nativity? And therefore, my dear brother, this was our judgement in the Council, That from baptism and the grace of God who is merciful, and bountiful, and pitiful to all, no man ought to be debarred. So with much more, Cyprian (repeated by him again, tom. 2. l. de lapsis) This Epist. of Cypr. to Fidus is a Famous place (saith Goulartius) concerning the Baptism of Infants, against the Anabaptists. And so we find it accounted among the pious and Learned Ancients, by their frequent and respective quotation of it. * Cyril or Johannes Hierosolymit. Catechis Mystag. 1. Greg. Naz. Orat. 3. in sanctum lavacrum. Chrys. Hom. ad Ne●phyt. Hom. in Gen. & in Ps. Ambros. in Luc. Hierom. sub ●inem l. 3. Dialog. contra Pelagian. August Epist. 28 ad Hi●●●n. & lib. 3. de pec. merit. & remissic. 7, 8, 9 Ubi totam fere have Epistol. citat. lib. 2. contra Julian, cap. 3. & lib. 4 contra duas Epist. Pelag. c. 8. And (saith Vossius) the judgement here given in, about Infant Baptism, is so much the more to be esteemed, in that it was the Decree of so famous a Council, and that the adversaries durst not deny it, but only doubted, whether Baptism should be given the eighth day? And now give us leave to add our observation; namely, That the learned Ancients did look to the Covenant made with Abraham (whose seal was circumcision) as to a ground of Infant Baptism; as appears by Fidus his Argument from Circumcision (only he looked then too much at the circumstance of such a time of childhood, as the Anabaptists now do at such a time of ripe years.) So that it appears by this, and the Argument of Cyprian, and of that Council (according to their light) that, that age held not Infant-Baptism from unwritten tradition, as Mr T. asserts. Now we must turn to Mr T. his EXAMEN, EXAMEM Sect. 7. where he hath somewhat to say against most of the Fathers usually alleged for Infant-Baptism, and so against Cyprian. 1. He Objects that though Cyprian ●e placed at 250 by Usher, or at 240 by Perkins, (and consequently though at 248 by us) yet Tertullian was before him, and counted his master. Now in Tertullia's time, It appears (saith Grotius in Mat. 19.14.) there was nothing defined concerning the age in which they were to be baptised, that were consecrated by their Parents to Christian Discipline, because he disswader by so many reasons (in his book of baptism chap. 18.) the baptising of Infants. And i● he did allow it (as Mr T. adds) it was only in case of necessity, as may appear by his words in his book De Animâ. Chap. 39 We Reply to this. 1. That both these places of Tertullian are before alleged, translated, and discussed, Animadver. to be for Infant-baptisme, chap. 13. of our Animadvers. at the word TERTUL. in the Margin, which we desire the Reader to peruse over again: where you may see, that Tertullian hath nothing of allowance of Infant-baptisme only in case of Necessity; but (if the places be well weighed) he saith, that which he saith, for Infant-baptisme, without any such limitation: which Infant-baptisme among other passages is asserted by Tertullian, in those words, That the children of either Parent-sex sanctified, are holy, partly by the prerogative of the SEED, partly by the RULE OF DISCIPLINE: Which, what can it be but Baptism? And in those words, Those children are Designati sanctitatis, the designedones of holiness, or, the marked one's of holiness. It is more like that Mr T. meant, that Tertullian restrained Infant-baptisme to necessity. lib. de Bapt. cap. 18. But we have abundantly cleared this also afore, in the 13. Chap. of our Animadvers. at the word TERTUL in the Margin: and that not out of our own thoughts only, but out of learned Ju●ius and Vossius. Let the Reader have patience to peruse that we have there said. We add now, That the most of Tertullia's dispute against hastening baptism (chap. 18. of his book concerning Baptism) is against sudden baptising men of ripe years; For his words are, Give not Baptism rashly, Give not holy things to dogs, (he counts not Infants of believers such as you heard out of his book De anima, and here by and by calls them, The INNOCENT age) If the Eunuch were suddenly Baptised, yet the Spirit commanded Philip to go to his Chariot, If Paul were suddenly baptised, yes he was soon known to Judas his Host, that he was a chosen ●essell: So Tertul etc. It is true that after Tertullian speaks of Infants, but what saith he? Quid festina● innocen●a● a● ad remissionem peccatorum? [Why doth innocent age hasten to forgiveness of sins] (meaning Baptism.) Is this a good reason, a Scripture ground to defer the Baptism of Infants? He saith himself in his said book and 8 chap. De animâ, That children are not holy, till they be counted so in Christ. And how in Christ? When they be by means of one of the holy Parents, under the promise, of being a holy seed, and by the rule of Discipline, which for children, while such, was only Baptism. And whereas Mr T. brings in learned Grotius as countenancing him, in relying upon Tertullian against Infant-Baptisme, we have largely and plainly laid open, after, in our Animadversions in this Chap. upon the sixth Section of Mr T. his EXAMEN (see the margin there:) 1. That Grotius rejects Tertullia's opinion, as nothing swaying him, against Infant-Baptisme. 2. That Grotius by many Arguments is for Infant-Baptism. 3. We now add, that it is true Grotius doth say, Tertullianus de aetate quâ baptizandi essent qui Christianae disciplinae a parentibus cons●crabantur nihil definitum fuisse suis temporibus, hoc ipso docet, etc. That Tertullian showeth that in his time, The set time of Baptising them that were CONSECRATED BY THEIR PARENTS to Christian Discipline, was not determined. But what is this to prove that in those times believers children must not be baptised, till they are out of their Parent's guardianship, and of ripe years? 2. Mr T. Objects against Cyprian, EXAMEN. Sect. 7. that indeed he handles Infant-Baptisme at large in his 59 Epistle ad Fidum, and saith in that Epistle enough for it, and more then enough, unless he had spoken to better purpose. The truth is, the very reading of the Epistle, upon which Hierom and especially Augustine rely, for the proving of Infant-baptisme, is sufficient to discover how great darkness there was then upon the Spirits of those that were counted the greatest Lights in the Church. You say, * upon this occasion Fidus denied not the baptism of Infants, Mr T. speaks to Mr M. but denied that they ought to be Baptised before the eighth day. But you might have observed that Fidus alleged, That the Law of ancient circumcision was to be considered. And That the footstep of an Infant being in the first days of birth, is not clean. Whence it plainly appears, that there was a relic of Judaisme in him, and that he did not well understand the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law. And the truth is, the contentions about Easter, near that age, do plainly show that Judaisme was not quite weeded out of the minds of the chief teachers among Christians: Thus Mr T. We answer. 1 That however Mr T. despiseth here Cyprians testimony: Animadver. yet the renownedst, pious, learned, esteemed it; as cyril, or John of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, chrysostom, Ambrose, Hierom, Augustine. The places where, in their works, we quoted a little afore in the margin, over against the end of the testimony of Cyprian. Nor do ancienter writers only esteem it (on whose spirits Mr T. saith there was such darkness, and on whose spirit is there not some at this time of great light?) but also later learned pious writers; even Mr T. his beloved Vossius & Grotius so oft quoted by him. Vossius saith, Vossius Thes. Theolog. & Hist. de paedo bapt. Thes. 9 Grotius in Mat. 19.14. that this testimony of Cyprian is above or beyond all exceptions. Grotius saith, That the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of baptising Infants etc. 2 When Mr T. urgeth the fathers in the least, as one place out of one Origen, or etc. in a point of great doubt, we must entertain it (by Mr T. his intendment,) but when we urge many places out of many; then saith he they are this and that. 3 Better men than these fathers may have some darkness: John Baptist was greater than the prophets; and he that is least in the Kingdom of the Church now, is greater than he. 4 Many men may in these days hold a solid truth, yet not upon the best grounds of it, for want of knowledge of them. 5 That Fidus thus far expressly held the ceremonial law to be abrogated, that Baptism was come in the room of Circumcision, and might be administered at least as soon as Circumcision was to children. Act. 21.20. Gal. 2. 6 We know that many Christian Jews in the time of the Apostles, and Peter himself did too much Judaize; shall not we therefore receive that true light that was in them? 7 For that of Ester, we know the controversy too far and too long about that time invaded Christian England, shall not we therefore be regarded in any truth? Mr Fox book of Martyrs. Yea did not the observation of Ester reach down to Mr T. yet he would be believed in his Exercitation. 8 What is all this that Mr T. hath said, to the point in hand? For we allege not Fidus his Epistle to Cyprian, but Cyprians to Fidus, relating their judgement and reasons for Infant-baptisme of which afore largely and fully. And now observe, that Cyprian saith, in the name of the rest, in that his Epistle to Fidus, that concerning that opinion That the footstep of an Infant in the first days of his birth is unclean, and so not to be then baptised. It seemed far otherwise to all of us in the Council; and then reasons against it. 9 Hierom and Augustine did not so rely on Cyprian, but that they had many reasons of their own out of scripture, to prove Infant-baptisme, of which after. 3. Mr T. objects against Cyprians Epistle to Fidus, EXAMEN. Sect. 7. you (saith Mr T. to Mr M.) say Cyprian assures Fidus that by the unanimous consent of 66. BPP. in a Council, baptism was to be administered to Infants etc. and not to be restrained to any time; (which is true saith Mr T.) but you add (saith he to Mr M.) and proves it by such arguments as these; They are under original sin; they need pardon, are capable of grace and mercy, God regards not age. But (saith Mr T.) the resolution of Cyprian with his colleagues is not so lightly to be passed over, seeing the determination of this Council, as far as I can find by search, is the very spring head of Infant-baptisme. To conceive it aright, it is to be considered that you are mistaken about the proof of their opinion; the things you mention are not the proof, but are produced in answer to objections. The proof is but one, unless you will make a proof of that which is in the close of the Epistle, which is; That whereas none is to be kept from Baptism and the grace of God, much less newborn Infants who in this respect do deserve * ●he words ●●erentur de, ●ight have ●in translated ●ore favourably by Mr T. ●or 1. Mercor ●●gnifies sometimes only to ●●et, attain, or 〈◊〉 receive. 2. ●n opposition ●●o merit, Cypri●n saith, nihil●liud faciunt, ●ot agunt. 3. ●e saith, de ●pe nostra. Now what can ●n Infant merit of a man. 4. There is a difference between mereri ●liquid, and mereri de aliquo which latter oft signifies to owe to one. As Infants own more to God's mercy. 5. It is said God's MERCY. more of our aid, and of God's mercy, because in the beginning of their birth they presently crying and weeping do nothing but pray. The only proof is this, the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none that are borne of man, for the Lord saith in the Gospel, that the son of man came not to destroy men's souls, but to save them, and therefore as much as in us lies, if it may be, no soul is to be lost, and therefore all Infants at all times to be baptised. Animad. We answ. That in much of all this, Mr T. rather seems to pursue a man then the matter. I shall rather pursue the matter then Mr T. for so doing. Therefore I animadvert; First, the Matter is not of consequence whether there be one or two or three proofs. Doubtless the ingenuous reader may see in that Epistle, that Infant-baptism is argued for, out of Scripture first and last, & in the middle, & according to the light of the times. And let us bless God for that of their records we have, to show us the practice of ancient Churches, in many material points. Had we lived in their times, it is a question whether we should have seen as much as they did. If we now see more its because we dwarves are set upon the shoulders of those Giants. Secondly, that Cyprians Epistle is not the springhead of Infant-Baptisme. First, Because that Council, of which Cyprian speaks in that Epistle, did not first coin that opinion as merely their opinion, depending upon their Votes, but as arguing it (according to their Light) out of the Scriptures. 1. That it is a part of God's favour that sent his Son to save; and that is by Ordinances. 2. The equality of God's divine gift to all Infants, and men, as in Elisha his fetching the child to life. 3 God is no exceptor of persons, and so not of ages. 4 That by that law which is now established spiritual circumcision is not to be hindered by the carnal circumcision, (that is as he had said afore in that Epistle, by restraining baptism to the eighth day, and not under) but to admit all (that is of all ages) and to count none unclean as Peter speaks, Act. 10. with other Reasons there urged. Secondly, because that Fidus afore the advice of this Council (as it seems come) was for baptism of Infants no doubt, from the ground of circumcision, only he stuck too much on the ceremony of the eighth day. Thirdly, before Cyprian or that Council, were Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clem. Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Origen; all for Infant-baptisme, in many passages; all which we have before translated, alleged, and discussed, excepting Clem. Alexandrinus; See in the margin after CLEM. ALEXAND. whom we allege by and by after this. Therefore Mr. T. how ever it seem to you, it cannot seem to us that the resolution of Cyprian with his Colleagues was the springhead of Infant-baptisme. To the last clause [therefore all Infants at all times to be baptised] we shall speak to in our Answer to the next objection. Secondly, EXAMEN. Sect. 7. Mr. T. objects against Cyprian out of that we have translated, that his testimony contains some gross things, as, first, that they thought baptising, giving God's grace; and the denying it, the denying of grace. Secondly, they thought that the souls were lost, that were not baptised. Thirdly, that therefore not only Infants of believers, but all Infants were to be baptised. Whence Tossanus in his Synopsis notes this for Cyprians error, that he taught, that Infants were strait ways to be baptised, lest they perish, because that the mercy of God is not to be denied them. We answer. 1. In general. If we should grant all this to be true, Animadvers. yet this doth not overthrow, but that in Cyprians time the Churches held Infant-Baptisme, and that is the main point in hand. Secondly, in particular we answer. To the first particular we say, that what error or hurt is it to say, that baptism gives grace instrumentally; and that without warrant wittingly to deny baptism, is to deny God's grace. Even as it is said in the Scripture, The word of life, The washing of regeneration, The bread we break is the communion of the body of Christ. So on the contrary, Where there is no vision the people perish. Unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. All which are meant instrumentally, and according to God's ordinary dispensation (allowing him his prerogative roy all to save without means.) And therefore Cyprian and his Colleagues cannot be justly blamed for speaking no more than that the Scripture speaks, and in the like phrase. To the second particular the same answer will serve; where also we have somewhat out of Cyprian to justify that to be his meaning, viz. instrumentally not absolutely. For he saith [seeing Christ came not to destroy men's souls, but to save them] therefore quantum in nobis est si fieri potest nulla anima perdends est, & idcirco ● baptismo, & gratiâ Dei, qui omnibus misericors, & benignus, & pius est, neminem per nos debere prohiberi. That is, [As much as in us lies if it may be] no soul is to be lost; and therefore from baptism, and the grace of God who is merciful, bountiful, and pitiful to all, no man is to be prohibited [by us.] So that as the Scripture saith, 1 Pet. 3.21, 22. that eight souls were saved in the Ark; by water; that is, instrumentally, the like figure or antitype whereunto baptism now saveth, meaning too instrumentally, for otherwise there is no name under heaven whereby we must be saved, but Jesus Christ; Act. 4.12. Just so Cyprian speaks. To the third particular, [that not only Infants of believers, but all Infants were to be baptised.] I find no such passage in all Cyprians Epistle, that All Infants are put as the opposite member of the distinction, to believers Infants. This only I find, first, that all Infants are put into opposition to Infants above eight days old: that is, that not only Infants above eight days old, but those under eight days old may as well be baptised. As we heard afore in the quotation of Cyprian in answer to Fidus, whilst Fidus thought that before the eight day Infants might not be baptised. Secondly, that all Infants are put in opposition to believers of ripe years (and therefore most likely all believers Infants are meant) For saith Cyprian [if greater sins cannot hinder men of ripe years from baptism, after they believe, much less may original sin only, hinder an Infant from baptism.] So Cyprian, which Mr. T. after quotes in this his 7. Sect. of his Examen. God himself he would have all men to be saved, yet commands not all ordinances, no nor baptism to be given to all men. So Cyprian may speak generally in the premises, yet intent only a particular conclusion, that only some Infants are to be baptised, suitable to the case he had in hand. Lastly, we answer to that of Tossanus, first, that there is no such sentence in all that Mr. T. hath translated, out of this Epistle of Cyprian. And therefore Mr. T. needed not to annex Tossanus his words to that he had translated with a WHENCE, saying, whence Tossanus notes this for Cyprians error, that Infants must be presently baptised lest they perish, etc. Secondly, that there is no such sentence in all Cyprians Epistle, as Tossanus reports; nor to that effect; But only this, as we translated afore upon another occasion: That Cyprian speaking of baptising Infants though they were not eight days old, because the mercy and grace of God is not to be denied to any born of men, argueth thus. Seeing the Lord saith in his Gospel, the Son of man came not to destroy the souls of men, but to save them, as much as in us is, if it may be, no soul is to be destroyed. See here candid Reader, Cyprian doth not say Infants perish if they be not baptised. But we should not by wilful neglect of baptism, as much as in us is cause them to perish. The rest that is in Mr. T. his Analysis of Cyprians Epistle, is only against Mr. M. about quirks, and nothing to the point in hand; and therefore needs no answer from us. Yet thus much we say; that whereas Mr. Tombs would not have it, that Cyprian doth at all put in original sin among his Arguments for the baptising of Infants; This is clearly intimated by Cyprian, That as men of ripe years believing, are baptised to put away their many greater actual sins; so Infants are baptised to put away their lesser, original sins. And for Mr. T. his calling this Epistle of Cyprian, an absurd Epistle; it is somewhat boldly spoken, and with too much disrespect of so famous a man and Martyr in those times; we might have more justly have said so of divers of the Authors Mr. T. hath quoted; but have forborn it, knowing that such words are not confutations, but revile. I am confident that the intelligent Reader hath seen that the allegation of Cyprian hath not been absurd to the main point now in question; to wit, whether Infant-baptisme was in use and practise in the Churches in Cyprians time; which so to have been, Cyprian hath fully held out unto us; and so Mr. T. his absurd is nothing to the purpose. GREG. NAZIAN. The next witness for the same is Greg. Nazianzen, who lived about the year after Christ, 375. * Helvic. His words are ** Orat. 40. quae est in sanctum baptisma. Baptism is a seal for them that enter into the course of this life. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And therefore (saith he, speaking of baptism) we must with all care and diligence provide that we want not this common grace or favour. Some man may say, let these things be so as concerning them which require baptism, but what will you say concerning them which yet are of a tender age, and perceive not ●urt, or grace, shall we baptise them also? Yea by all means, if any danger presseth thereunto. For it is better to be sanctified without sense or feel, then to departed this life without the seal and innitiation. And of this thing, circumcision is a reason to us, which was wont to be done upon the eighth day, which after a sort did represent a figure of baptism, and was offered or given to them, which yet had not the use of reason. After the same manner also that anointing or sprinkling given to the doore-posts * Exod. 12.7.13. , which were things void of sense, did bring salvation to the firstborn. Concerning others, I thus judge, after expectation or waiting three years, or somewhat less, or a longer space of time (for then they are able to hear some mystical, or spiritual thing, and give answer, and if they understand not so fully, and exactly, yet they are instructed, and informed) at length they may sanctify their souls and bodies by means of the great Sacrament or mystery of Baptism * Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But Vossius, Bill. Prun. Mich. in Erem. render it Baptism. And they that are acquainted with the use of the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, among Ecclesiastical Writers, Fathers, and the Septuagints, do well know that commonly by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant Baptism. And so here without all peradventure it being the business in hand discussed by Nazian or else h●s conclusion had not answered to the premises, who before expressly named baptism: and joins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together. Consecration, or sanctification. Thus, Greg. Naz. on whose words learned Vossius speaks my sense. Non igitur, etc. Therefore (saith Vossius) Nazianzen doth not deny the baptism of little children, whom, if there be any danger of death, he commands also to be baptised; but only judgeth that otherwise, it may not unprofitably be deferred to the third or fourth year. Which is only one Doctor's opinion, and not the common judgement of the ancient Church. Thus Vossius. Take we in also the Note of Vincent. Lirinens. cap. 39 Quicquid unus vel alter Patrum quam●is ille sanctus, etc. that is, Whatsoever one or other of the Fathers, albeit he be holy, and learned, etc. shall think, besides or contrary to all the rest, let that go among his own proper, hidden and private opiniols or conceits, as different and severed from the Authority of that common judgement, etc. And lastly, give us leave to add our observation. 1 That (according to the design in hand) Nazianzen holds the baptism of little children that have not yet the use of reason, not as an unwritten tradition, but according to his judgement (as well as others) rightly grounded on the Scriptures in the institution and administration of circumcision; and that of the sprinkling of the Paschal blood on the doore-posts, Exod. 12. Had baptism of Infants been held in his time only as a Tradition, he had not argued it from Scripture. 2 That for deferring of baptism of some till three years old, or less, (as he saith) what did this conduce more to that which some of the Anabaptists require at Baptism, as manifestations of true grace; then to baptise them at eight or ten days old, upon God's Covenant with the believing parent. Here to clear things as we go, we must answer some objections made against what we allege out of Nazianzen. First, Mr. D. in his Antichrist unmasked. Objections of H. D. against Nazianzen cleared. 1. Obj. Nazianzen (saith he) restrains baptism of Infants to danger; but there is no danger if they be not baptised. Ergo, Nazianzens' mind is not that Infants should be baptised. Answ. This Argument plays with an equivocation of the word danger. H. D. means there is no spiritual danger, if an Infant dies before it be baptised: But Nazianzen means danger of bodily death; and therefore gives it as a precept or command, that in case there be danger that the Infant may die before it be sealed with baptism, let it be baptised; according to the figure thereof circumcision, etc. See before. Obj. 2. Nazianzen (saith H. D.) was not baptised till he was 30. years old; as it is said, In his life. Answ. If that in Nazianzens' life say this truly, yet this might be by reason of the persecutions of those times, or indisposition of his parents, or other pressing necessities; and therefore doth infer no more, than that circumcision ought not after the Israelites came into Canaan to be administered till men were forty years old, because so long it was deferred in the wilderness. Christ himself was not baptised till thirty years old, yet the Anabaptists will not make a rule of this, that only those of just that age must be baptised. Sure enough if Nazianzen his baptism was deferred past childhood, it was not intended by him for a regulating example, but oft in that Oration forequoted in several places exhorts to hasten Baptism * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Hast an Infant? lest improbity snatch away the opportunity let him be sanctified from his infancy, meaning baptism, having spoken in the very next preceding words against delay of baptism. Naz. Orat. ●0. p. 648. See also p. 646 Think all time to be certain & determined for baptism. , and not to defer it after the example of Christ not baptised till thirty years old * Ibid. p. 658. Edit. Paris. Graec. & Lat. . And you heard in the place quoted, that he mentions deferring in any case but till 3 or 4 years old, or less sometimes; which is all one in effect with baptising believers Infants at three months or three weeks; unless the mathematical consideration of words, spoken without knowledge (as Persius his Parrot spoke Greek) * One of the Anabaptists in a book called, The character of the Beast, saith, If one confess his sins, though there be no sign of grace, he ought to be baptised. prevails with some. Secondly, Mr. Tombs objects in his EXAMEN against Nazianzen. EXAMEN. Sect. 6. 1. He objects, (with an interrogation) but doth Greg. Nazianzen (saith Mr. T.) seem only to restrain it to the case of necessity? The words (saith he) are plain, that Nazianzen gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they might not miss of the common grace. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He gives his opinion of others, that they should stay longer, that they might be instructed, and so their minds and bodies might be sanctified. Thus Mr. T. Animadvers. We answer. First, if Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why Infants should be baptised, in case they are not likely to live to be of riper years, it is so much the better for us. Secondly, he doth give another reason, beside that of partaking of common grace, namely, 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For it is better they should be sanctified, without a feeling of it, then to departed without the seal. So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancy, as well as at riper years. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A reason also of this to us is circumsion, that was wont to be done on the eight day, etc. Thirdly, we answer, that all three Reasons stand in force as well for all believers Infants (God putting them under the promise, Gen. 17.) as for those Infants that are in danger of death. Fourthly, that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine Reasons (to him evincing) for the baptism of Infants not in danger of death: but for the delaying of others not in danger of death, he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I give my opinion. He calls it his opinion. And what is it? that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such children should stay till three or four years old, more, or less? And what is to be expected from children of that age? more then from Infants, towards baptism? For Nazianzen himself confesseth, that though they may then hear and answer some spiritual things, yet they understand imperfectly. But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing? None. Doth he give any Reason? Even in effect the same as for baptising of Infants in danger of death, to wit, that they may be sanctified in mind and body. Secondly, EXAMEN. Sect. 6. Mr. T. objects (upon our alleging Nazianzen) against all the Greek Fathers, in effect that we have alleged, and the custom of the Greek Churches touching Infant-baptisme, first thus; It is wonder to me, (saith Mr. T.) that if it were so manifest as you speak, you should find nothing in Eusebius for Infant-baptisme, nor in Ignatius, nor in Clemen. Alexandrinus, nor in Athanasius, nor in Epiphanius. Animadvers. We answer. 1. Mr. T. brings but one place out of one Origen, to prove (as he pretends) that Infant-baptisme is but a tradition. We bring four for the contrary, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, and Nazianzen, and yet these are not sufficient with him, unless we hear Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, etc. say so too? 2 A non dicto and non factum, not valet consequentia. Many things have been done in the Church, which those Authors may not mention. 3 They may speak of Infant-baptisme in some of their works which long since were lost. 4 Mr. T. saith, that YOU should find nothing in Eusebius, Ignatius, etc. for Infant-baptisme. And we say, it is wonder Mr. T. did find nothing in them to the contrary, in his 7 or 8 month's time to write his EXAMEN, which we not having much above 8 weeks for our Answer, and so have not time to ransack every book. But fifthly, CLEM. ALEXAN. li. 3. Str●m. p. 461. He flourished about the year of Christ, 193. Buchol. Helvic. this we cast our eye upon in Clem. Alexand: (which makes me think somewhat might be found in him towards Infant-baptism if we had time) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Neither doth God's divine providence now likewise command, 〈◊〉 of old, that he that hath risen from the conjugal bed should be washed. For the Lord doth not necessarily take off from procreation of children those that are believers, whom he hath by one Baptism washed in all respects according to his wont; who by one baptism comprehends all the Baptisms of Moses. Therefore the Law of God by carnal generation foretelling our regeneration, did for the seminal faculty of generation hold forth baptism, Vide Graecum textum. not loathing humane generation. Thus Clem. Alex. with much more, which for haste we cannot stand to translate. Give us leave to add a note or two. 1. Let me observe with Hervet. Aurelianus, that this place relates to Levit. 15, 16, 17, 18. If any man's seed of copulation shall go out from him, than he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the evening. And every garment, and every skin whereon is the seed of copulation shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the Even. The woman also with whom the man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. This is the LAW, and these are the BAPTISMS of MOSES, of which Clem. Alexandrinus speaks here. HESYCHIUS 2. Take the note of ancient and learned Hesychius * He flourished about 402d. year after Christ. Helvic. on this place, which is this. The Lord himself (saith he) showeth that mankind must have the necessary regeneration of baptism, saying, Unless a man be born again, of water, and the holy Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Joh. 3.) The untowardnasse of which filth in us, was transfused from Adam. Whence David saith he was born in iniquity, and conceived in sin. (Psal. 51.) not accusing his mother, but intimating his sinfulness, which ran down from his progenitors. And now the Lawmaker commanded him, out of whom proceedeth the seed of copulation, that is, ●e that hath effused his seed for procreation of children, yea also the woman that hath received it, to wash the body, because she hath received it; by which is described this whole temple of ours, that is the whole man consisting of soul and body. In that Adam was made filthy by disobedience, he made his seed to be filthy, and so necessarily the body to be filthy which is of the seed, in which he is unclean until the Even, that is the end of the time wherein Christ coming shows the water whereby our generation should be cleansed; And that till than we remained unclean, is proved from thence, that they also that had not yet sinned (actually), that is, were in their tender age, have necessarily the seal of baptism, lest by death preventing, they die unclean, etc. Thus Hesychius with much more. Thirdly, If it pleaseth Mr. T. he may read Gentinus Hervet●● Aurelianus his note on the place of Clem. Alexandrinus (who is careful to set forth the sense of Clemens, though we heed not all his own excursions.) Therefore Clem. Alexandrinus (saith, Gent. Hervet. Anrel.) intimateth that many were the Baptisms of Moses anciently, which were figures of our regeneration by Baptism, by which original sin is washed; which one only Baptism indeed is necessary, for by it, it is that the seed is no more unclean, though after to be further cleansed. So Gent. Herv. with much more. Thus you have a touch out of one of Mr. T. his five Gr. Authors, which he saith have nothing of Infant-Baptisme. We will give you another touch out of another of his silent Authors (as Mr. T. intimates) and so dismiss the rest, as not having all the Authors, nor time to go look after them. EPIPHANIUS. contra Haeres. 30. p. 52. Epiphanius in his second Book 2. Tom. contr. Haeres. speaking before of the Circumcision of Christ, that he was circumcised, to dissolve or abrogate that Circumcision to bring in a greater. And that the Circumcision enjoined Abraham was not perfect, but a sign of grace given, and for the instruction of them in future times, and thence wisheth Ebion not to imitate Christ in Circumcision of himself or others, at last he speaks in these very words, For the Lord (saith Epiphanius) hath removed the time of this (Circumcision.) For he came, and fulfilled it having given the perfect Circumcision of his mysteries, and that not in one member only, but in the whole body sealed and circumcised from sins; and saving not one only part of the people, that is men only, but also all the people of Christians indeed, signing or sealing men and women, and liberally for the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven; and not in exhibiting the seal defectively to one rank or state (virorum) of men, in the time of their imbecility, but to all the people etc. Thus far Epiphanius writes there of Infant-Baptisme, and I am confident more might be found in other places touching it (had we time to seek,) though Epiphanius says nothing of it (as Mr. T. weakly objects) in lib. 2. Haeres. 46. vel 47. in his disputation for Infants inheriting Heaven, against the Hieracites. We are not to teach other learned men what to speak; nor when to speak, nor to say they speak not at all of such a point, if they do not speak where and when we expect. 2. Mr. T. objects against the Greek Fathers alleged by us, EXAMEN. Sect. 6. and in them against the custom of the Greek Churches touching Infant-Baptisme; thus. But besides, the continuance of the questions to baptised persons, and answered by them, in many Authors mentioned, this is to me and it seemed to Hugo Grotius Annot. in Matth. 19.14. no small evidence, that Baptism of Infants many hundred years was not ordinary in the Greek Church. Grotius adds that the Canon of the Synod of Neo-Caesarea in the year 313. determines that a woman with child might be baptised, because the Baptism reached not to the fruit of her womb, because in the confession made in Baptism each one's free choice is showed. We answer. First, that this seems not otherwise to me, but, as the confessions of sin, Animadvers. and profession of Faith in the New Testament by them, that at the first Institution of Baptism were baptised at ripe years; doth not imply but that Baptism descended to their children whiles children; yea so much the rather because the Parents were baptised, the Promise then being actually instated on them, Acts 2. the Promise to you, and to your children; even just so may we say of those questions put to the baptised, and answered by them, in the Greek Church. For though, being Gentiles the Parents at first were to make confession, as a token of their conversion from Hethenisme, before their Baptism; yet this doth not in the least argue that their children must be able to make confession before they were baptised. No more than the Circumcision of Abraham, and the strangers are bought with money when they were believers of riper years, did infer that all Christ's children from age to age should not be circumcised till they were so too. 2. Touching Grotius, we answer four things. 1. That he in discussing the point (on Matth. 19.14.) touching Infant-baptisme, allegeth divers things to show that some in the Greek Church, in several ages did not baptise their Infants; but hath no such passage, as that Infant-baptisme was not ordinary; in the Greek Church. 2. In all he allegeth touching this, he saith not to the contrary, but that the Non-baptizing of some Infants might be, because their Greek Parents were not converted from Gentilism. 3. For that Neocaesarian Synod * Of which there are many Editions varying one from another. the cause and intent of it, in part at least might be as was intimated afore out of Clem. Alexand. (a Greek, who flourished long before the Neocaesarian Synod, and therefore likely this Synod would have respect to him, ** And to Tertullian, of the same time with CLEM. who hath to the same effect as CLEM. Tertulli. Lib. de Anima. chap. 39 40. of which afore chap. 13. of Animad. vid. in marg. TERTUL. ) to wit, that though by the Baptismal washing of the Parent (by virtue of the Promise, I am the God of thee and thy seed, and the Promise is to you and to your children) the seed of that Parent was accounted holy, yet so, as not to anticipate and prevent the baptising of that seed when it was borne. 4. Grotius himself intimatedly confesseth, that Interpreters do take the words of that Synod otherwise then to intent against Infant-Baptisme. 5. For Grotius his own opinion, it is clear and full for Infant-baptisme upon that 19 of Matth. ver. 14. who allegeth and asserts these particulars. 1. That it was grateful to Christ that little Children should be brought to him, as the designed one's of holiness, and so of salvation, according to Tertullia's expression. 2. That (according to Irenaeus) Christ passed through every age, he became an Infant to sanctify Infants, a little child to sanctify them of that age, etc. 3. That upon this text of Christ receiving little ones, etc. among other grounds, doth (saith Grotius,) lean the practice of baptising little one, and Infants. 4. That in Augustine's time (saith he) it was a common neceived practice to baptise Infants as is clear by this, that when the Pelagians (holding some how against Infant-Baptisme) were pressed with this Argument of the practice of all Churches in baptising Infants, they durst not deny it to be true. 5. That by Hieroms and Augustine's quotation of Cyprians Epistle to Fidus it is clear, (saith Grotius) that it was not doubted in Cyprians time whether Infants might be baptised, but only some stuck at this, whether they might be baptised afore they were eight days old. And it was determined in a Council then, whereof Cyprian was one, that Baptism should not be denied to Infants newly borne, if they were offered thereunto. 6. Grotius saith; that in an ancient book entitled the Constitutions of Clement, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Baptise your Infants also, then train them up in the instruction and nurture of the Lord. 7. Grotius having quoted somethings out of that Synod, of Balsamo and Zonanas, Walafridus Strabo, etc. that in many ages, all Infants had not been baptised; he concludes, but (saith he) as those things hold forth a liberty, antiquity, and difference of custom; so they bring nothing to prove why Infant-baptisme should be rejected, when their Parents etc. offer them to be consecrated, with the prayers of the Saints, and vows of pious education of them, which among other things, is not unfitly signified in Baptism. Neither ought that to be any hindrance to the Baptism of Infants, that all things which in like manner are signified by Baptism, cannot agree properly to that age. For Repentance also, which we know is signified in Baptism, and indeed had a greater place in them that having long lived a most impure life, testified their purpose of changing their whole conversation then in others, had no place at all in Christ when John baptised him; who as Tertullian saith was not baptised as any debtor to repentance. 8. Grotius quotes the Author of the Qu. ad Orthodox (whom Mr. T. hath so be-bastarded afore) I say Grotius quotes him as a worthy Author; citing these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Infants are counted meet for good things by Baptism, by means of the Faith of them that brought them. 9 In that Christ saith of Infants, Of such is the kingdom of God, that Christ did in that say thus much (saith Grotius), by so much the less is that age to be despised as profane, by how much men of ripe years that yield themselves up to my government must become children again. Lastly, to Mr. T. his objecting that Constantine the great, and Greg. Nazianzen were not baptised till they were of age. I answer 1. That Mr. T. hath ill urged Constantine a Latin, for an instance that baptism of Infants was not ordinary in the Greek Church. 2. To Constantine's and Gregory Nazianzens baptism we have answered afore. The next testimony is of Ambrose, AMBROSE. who flourished about the year 381 * Helvic. . He in his 2. book of Abraham, Chap. 11. saith: Neither the old Proselyte, nor the Infant Native is excepted, because every age is obnoxious to sin, and therefore every age is meet for the Sacrament. For unless one be born again of water and the holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, for he excepts none, nor Infant, nor, etc. * So Basil long afore. Ann. 372. In his exhortat. to Baptism. To Ambrose, Mr. T. answers nothing in his EXAMEN, but only takes notice that Mr. M. quoted him. But makes no exception against him. All these Ancients that we have translated, were before the rise of Pelagianism a Pelagius was about An. 104 Helvic. or 413. El. Reusner. , whose abettors were for the general, great sticklers against the baptism of Infants. And before them the Arrians opposed the same b Arius was about the year 315. Helvic. or 319 El Reusner & Bucholc. . Of these see somewhat before, in our Animadversions on Mr. T. his 2 Argument in his 15. Sect. Next let us touch those Ancients, who after the rise of Anabaptisticall-Pelagianisme, or Peleganian-Anabaptisme wrote for Infant-baptisme, none of them urging it as only the custom of the Churches; others of them arguing it from the Scriptures, and therefore took it not up as an unwritten tradition. chrysostom (who flourished about the year after Christ, chrysostom. 382. as Helvicus reckons, was Bishop of Constantinople about 389. as El. Reusner computes) upon those words, 1 Tim. 3. Not a Novice, that is, a new tender plant, saith, the Apostle means not one so in regard of age, for many such of the Gentiles or Nations came to the Church, and were baptised. There are other passages in chrysostom, but I promised but to touch these last Authors. Hierom who flourished about the year after Christ, HIERONIMUS. 384. (so Helvicus) about the year 392. wrote his Catalogue of famous writers (so Bucholcerus) saith thus of Infant-baptisme in his Epistle to Lata: The good or evil of a child is much to be imputed to the parents (meaning education) unless (saith he) thou thinkest that the children of Christians in case they have not received baptism, are only guilty of that sin, and that the sin is not to be laid upon them that would not give it them, especially at that time, when they that were to receive it, were not able to oppose. As on the other side, the salvation of Infants is the gain of the parents or ancestors. So likewise Hierom in his third book of Dialogues against the Pelagians. Thus. CRITO. Tell me, I pray thee, and so deliver me from all questioning why Infants may be baptised? ATTIC. That their sins may be done away in baptism. CRITO. What sin have they committed? Is any man loosed, that is not first bound? ATTIC. Dost ask me? The Evangelicall Trumpet, etc. shall answer thee. Rom. 5. Death reigned from Adam to Moses even upon them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, etc. He that is a little one is loosed in baptism from the bond (of sin) of the parent, etc. And lest thou shouldest think that I mean this in an heretical sense, the blessed Martyr Cyprian, in his Epistle he wrote to Bishop Fidus concerning baptising Infants minds us of these things. And there Hierom transcribes a great part of that Epistle of which you heard afore. And then adds, Eloquent Augustine (saith Hierom) wrote long since to Marcellinus, etc. two books of baptising Infants against your (that is, the Pelagian) heresy, by which you will assert that [ * NOTE how the Pelagians opposed Infant-Baptisme Infants are baptised, not into remission of sins, but into the kingdom of God] according to that, Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born again of water, and the Spirit, be cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. He wrote also the third to the same Marcellinus against those who say as you (Pelagians) do, that it is possible for a man to be void of sin without the grace of God. He wrote also a fourth to Hilarius, against thy doctrine (Pelagius.) Also he is said to have written other books in special to thee by name, which are not come to our hands, etc. I will only say this, that I may end my speech. That either thou (Pelagius) must make a new form, that after ye have baptised them into the Name of Father, Son, and holy Ghost, ye baptise them into the kingdom of God: or if you have one and the same baptism in little ones, and men, than Infants must be baptised into remission of sins, etc. Thus Hierom. To all this of Hierom in this last quotation, Mr. T. answers in his EXAMEN, that the same answer will serve as to Augustine. Well, therefore let us come to Augustine. Augustine flourished about 391, after Christ; AUGUST. Helvic. and hath abundance concerning Infant-baptisme, in his 28. Epistle, in his book of original sin, Chap. 40. In his second book of Marriage and Concupiscence, Chap. 20. In his third book of sin, merit, and remission, Chap. 7, 8, 9 In his second book against Jul. ca 3. In his fourth book of Baptism against the Donatists, Chap. 24 * So hath THEODORET. epit. divin. dogmat. ca de Baptismo. He flourished about the year 422. And so GENNADIUS de Ecclesiast. dogmat. c. 31. He flourish about the year 458. . In his fourth book against the two Epistles of Pelag. Chap. 8. It were a tedious business to translate all these places, (for me that intended more brevity, having too much other business, and too little time for this work, and for many Readers which delight no more in reading these, than I in quoting of them, but that Mr. T. leads me to them) therefore (and because I shall translate somewhat of Augustine by and by) I will only note particularly of Augustine these two things. First, that Augustine in that place of his 7, 8, 9 Chapters of his third book of sin, merit, and remission quotes almost all Cyprians Epistle to Fidus. Secondly, that Augustine doth not build his judgement only upon Cyprian, because in his fourth book of baptism against the Donatists, he proves Infant-baptisme by many Arguments from the Scriptures. Now all these especially the last we only touch, that we may not toil ourselves, and the Reader. There are of the Anabaptists that can tell whether those Authors be not for us, or no. We shall only add some observations upon them, and so pass on. 1. That these five last Authors, Chrysost. Hierom, August. Theod. Genn. wrote for Infant-baptisme after the rise of Pelagianisme * See also Voss. Thes. Theol. & hist. : Though some of the men were afore it, yet those things afore quoted were written after it. 2. That they wrote those things at least 300 years afore Mr. T. his Walafridus was a Writer to tell us that tale against Infant-baptisme; of which you heard afore, & we gave our Answer to it. 3. That these did argue out of Scripture, and no otherwise determine the question, that Infants ought to be baptised, then as the pious learned Ancients had held in former ages long before * See before in the notes in the margin on Cyprinan. . Augustine shall here (for brevity's sake) speak for them all; who being one of the youngest, and learnedst, and most orthodox and pious, knew well the last generation in which they lived. His words are very considerable in his tenth book. De Genes. ad literarum, cap. 23. The custom (saith he) of our Mother the Church in baptising little children is by no means to be despised, nor altogether to be reputed superfluous, nor by all means to be believed, but that it was an Apostolical tradition. Where he means by Apostolical tradition the Apostles Doctrine delivered brought down to us in the book of the New Testament, by tradition or handing of it from one generation to another. So to be his meaning is plain. 1. Because Augustine in his dispute against the DONATISTS for Infant-baptisme, Li. 4. de Bap. cap. 21. prove it from the Scriptures. 2. Because in his first book, De pecc. mer. & remiss. cap. 26. saith thus. Some of the PELAGIANS do grant under some notion that little children are to be baptised: who cannot go against the Authority of the universal Church, which without all doubt was delivered to them by the Lord Christ and his Apostles. 3. In his tenth Sermon of the words of the Apostle, speaking of the Baptism of little children, saith; let no man whisper unto you strange Doctrines. This the Church always had, always held. This it received from the Faith, or Faithfulness of our Ancienters. And this it keeps with perseverance to the end. 4. These things to be most truly spoken by Augustine, we do know (saith Vossius) by this that the Pelagians (some of them) durst not deny them. For Augustine writes in his second Book against Coelestius and Pelagius, that Coelestius himself in a book which he put forth at Rome confessed in these words Infants are baptised into remission of sins, according to the rule of the universal Church, and according to the SENTENCE OF THE GOSPEL. But observe his cunning, in what sense he meant that Infants were baptised into remission of sins: to wit, into future remission, if they lived to commit actual fins, and thereby stood in need of pardon; not into present remission of sins whiles Infants, as not standing in need of pardon, or else they, that is Pelagius Coelestius and their Sect said only in words that Infants were baptised into remission of sins, but thought otherwise in their Principles they held. This is plain out of the African Council, held under Boniface and Celestinus; in the 77. Canon whereof it is thus. Item placuit qui parvulos recentes, ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat, etc. that is, It pleaseth the Counsel that whosoever denieth that little ones newly borne from the mother's womb are to be baptised, or saith that they are baptised into remission of sins, but they contract or draw nothing of original sin from Adam, which need to be expiated by the laver of Regeneration; whence it follows that by them the form of Baptism into remission of sins, is not truly, but falsely understood, let him be Anathema. Thus the said Counsel. By the plaster made by this Counsel, you may perceive the disease of Pelagius, etc. And in the Epistle of the Council of Carthage (Anno 416. Bin.) to Innocentius, which is word for word the 90. among Augustine's Epistles, there is this mentioned, that Pelagius, and Coelestius deny the Baptism of Infants, because (say they) Infants perished not, neither is there in them that that needs salvation, or to be redeemed with so great a price; for as much as in them is nothing vitiated, nothing is held captive under the power of the Devil, neither is it read that blood was poured out for them unto remission of sins. Albeit Coelestius in his Book hath already confessed in the Church of Carthage that Infants also are redeemed by the Baptism of Christ. And then to explain this, how many, and how or in what manner, confessed this with Coelestius, the following words fitly serve. But many who are represented to us, to be, or to have been their Disciples, do not cease to affirm these evils, whereby they endeavour by all the craft they can, to overthrow the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith. So that if Pelagius and Coelestius be corrected, or if they say they never thought those things, and deny those writings to be theirs, what or how manysoever they be that are brought against them, yet is there not whereby to convince them of a lie. So the Epistle of the Council at Carthage. Mr. T. EXAMEN. Sect. 8. But Mr. T. hath many things to say against Augustine in his EXAMEN. That the Authority of Augustine was it which carried the baptism of Infants in the following ages almost without control, as may appear out of Walafridus Strabo, placed by Usher at the year 840. who in his book De rebus Ecclesiasticis, chap. 26. having said, That in the first times, the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to them only who were come to that integrity of mind and body, that they could know, and understand and what profit was to be gotten in baptism, what is to be confessed, and believed, what lastly is to be observed by them that are new born in Christ; confirms it by Augustins own confession of himself continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptised. But afterwards Christian's understanding Original sin etc. Ne perirent parvulisi sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur, statuerunt cos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod et S. Augustinus in libro de bapismo parvulorum ostendit, & Africana testantur Concilia, & aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima. And then adds how Godfathers and Godmothers were invented, and adds one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these words; Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem ut sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem & carnalem; Quod si casu evenerit, non habebunt carnalis copule deinceps adinvicem consortium, qui in communi filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant. To which I add that Petrus Cluniacensis, placed by Usher, at the year 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis, who denied Baptism of Infants, says of him, that he did reject the Authority of the Latin Doctors, being himself a Latin, ignorant of Greek, and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas, therefore he runs to the Scriptures: he allegeth the examples in the New Testament, of Christ's curing of persons at the request of others, to prove Infant's Baptism by, and then adds, Quid vos ad ista? Ecce non de Augustino, sed de Evangelio protuli, cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis, aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite, aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis, negate. From these passages I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedobaptism the authority of Augustine and the Latin Doctors, So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures, and the Greek Church: Now the reason of Augustine's authority was this, the Pelagian heresy being generally condemned, and Augustine's works being greatly esteemed, as being the hammer of the Pelagians, the following refuters of Pelagianism, Prosper, Fulgentius, etc. the Counsels that did condemn it as those of Carthage, Arles, Milevis, etc. did rest altogether on Augustine's arguments, and often on his words, and Augustine in time was accounted one of the four Doctors of the Church, esteemed like the four Evangelists, so that his opinion was the rule of the Church's Judgement, and the schools determination, as to the great hurt of God's Church Luther and others have been of late. Now Augustine did very much insist on this Argument to prove original sin, because Infan●s were baptised for remission of sins, and therefore in the Council of Milevis he was adjudged accursed, that did deny it: But for my part I value Augustine's judgement just at so much, as his proofs and reasons weigh, which how light they are you may conceive. August. tom. 1. Confess. lib. 1. c. 11. & Signabar signo crucisejus & condiebar ejus sale jam inde ab utero matris meae, quae multu●● speravit in te. And then follows, how being young and falling sick, he desired, and his mother thought to have him baptised, but upon his recovery it was deferred. First, In that whereas he makes it so Universal a tradition, his own baptism not till above thirty, though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica, the Baptism of his son Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius, if there were no more, were enough to prove that this custom of baptising infants, was not so received, as that the Church thought necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptised in their infancy. And though I conceive with Grotius annot. in Matth. 19.14. that baptism of Infants was much more frequented, and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa, then in Asia, or other parts of the world, for (saith he) in the Counsels you cannot find ancienter mention of that custom, than the Council of Carthage. Yet I do very much question whether they did in Africa, even in Augustine's time baptise children, except in danger of death, or for the health of body, or such like reason: I do not find that they held that Infants must be baptised out of such cases, for it is clear out of sundry of Augustine's, Tracts, as particularly tract. 11. in Johan. that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptised, and the use of Catechising afore baptism, still continued, yea and a great while after, insomuch that when Petrus Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis, he said only, that there had been none but Infants baptised for 300 years, or almost 500 years in Gallia, Spain, Germany, Italy, and all Europe, and it seems he denied not the baptising of grown persons in Asia still; whence I collect, that even in the Latin Church, after Augustine's days, in sundry ages the baptising of persons of grown age did continue as well as baptising of infants, till the great darkness that overspread the Western Churches, spoilt by Barbarous Nations, destitute of learned men, and ruled by ambitious and unlearned Popes, when there were none to Catechise, and therefore they baptised whole Countries upon the baptism of the King of that Country, though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity, but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still, which hath been the great cause of the upholding of Papacy, and corrupting of Christian Churches, I mean this great corruption of baptising, making Christians, giving Christendom (as it is called) afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was, or if they were taught any thing, it was only the ceremonies and rites of the Church, as they called them. 2. You may conceive how light Augustine's judgement was, Rivet. tract. de Patrum auth●ritate, c. 9 Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudic at Infants sine badtismo morientes by considering the ground upon which Augustine held, and urged the baptism of Infants so vehemently; which was, as all know that read his works, the opinion he had, That without baptism Infants must be damned, by reason of original sin, which is not taken away but by baptism, yea, though he wanted baptism out of necessity; urging those places, Joh. 3.5. Rom. 5.12. continually in his disputes against the Pelagians, particularly tom. 7. de natura & gratia, c. 8. And tom. 2. ep. 28. he saith, Item quisquis dixerit, quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli, qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt, hic profecto & contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit, & totam condemnat ecclesiam. And in the close of the Epistle, calls it, robustissimam & fundatissimam sidem qua Christi ecclesia, nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit, nisi per gratiam domini Christi, quam in suis Sacramentis commendavit, posse liberari. And this, Perkins in his Problem, proves, was the opinion of Ambrose, and many more: And hence, as Aquinas, so Bellarmine, proves baptism of Infants, from Joh. 3.5. And this hath been still the principal ground. The ground that you go on, that the covenant of grace belongs to believers and their seed, I cannot find amongst the Ancients. Yea, as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleged, although Ambrose and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas', c. 22 yielded, that either Martyrdom, or the desire of Baptism, might supply the defect of Baptism, and some of the Schoolmen, Biel, Cajetan, Gerson, do allow the desire and prayer of parents for children in the womb, in stead of Baptism: Yet we find no remedy allowed by them, but actual baptism for children borne into the world: So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptism for Infants born. 3. You may consider, that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants receiving the Lord's supper, from the words, John 6.53. as is plainly expressed by him, lib. 1. de peccat. merit. & remis. c. 20. And accordingly, as in Cyprians tim, the Communion was given to Infants, as appears by the story which he relates of himself, giving the Communion to an Infant, in his book de lapsis, mentioned by August. epist. 23. So it is confessed by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first, Bishop of Rome, held it necessary for Infants; and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 years in the Church, though it be now rejected by the Roman Church in the Council of Trent. 4. You may consider, that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptism, that not only he puts usually regeneration for Baptism, but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants, though they that brought them, did not bring them with that faith that they might be regenerated by spiritual grace to eternal life; but because by Baptism they thought to procure health to their bodies, as is plain by his words, epist. 23. ad Bonifacium. Nec illud te moveat, quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt, ut gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam, sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem: non enim propterea illi non regenerantur, quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur; celebrantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria. By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter, so as to excuse, if not to justify their fact, who made use of Baptism in so profane a manner, as to cure diseases by it: which is no marvel, if it be true which is related, of the approbation that was given of the Baptism used by Athanasius in play amongst boys. 5. You may consider, that in the same Epistle when Bonifacius pressed Augustine to show how Sureties could be excused from lying, who being asked of the Child's faith, answered, He doth believe, (for even in Baptism of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before) He defends that act in this absurd manner: Respondetur credere propter fidei Sacramentum, and thence he is called a believer, because he hath the Sacrament of faith. Which as it is ridiculous playing with words, in so serious a matter before God, so it is a senseless answer, sigh the interrogation was of the Child's faith before it was baptised, and the answer was given before, and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the Sacrament of faith, which came after. 6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle, that Infants were then admitted to baptism, whether they were the children of believers, or not; it was no matter with what intention they brought them, nor whose children were brought; yea it was counted a work of charity to bring any children to baptism, and in this case the faith of the whole Church, was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith: So that whereas the present defenders of Infant-Baptisme pretend Covenant-holynesse a privilege of believers, it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients, but they baptised any Infants, even of Infidels, upon this opinion, That Baptism did certainly give grace to them, and if they died without Baptism, they did perish. And thus I grant, that it is true, the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Augustine. But neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it; nor doth it advantage your tenet, that you have cited his citation of it: Thus far Mr T. his long answer to Mr M. short quotation of Augustine. We answer, and, Animadver. First to that [That the Authority of Augustin was it, which carried the baptism of Infants in the following ages, almost without control] we answer three things. First, that Augustine flourished not till long after the first age from that that was next after the Apostles; which was the time Mr T. said afore wherein baptism of Infants began to be in use as an unwritten Tradition. For Mr T. saith, Augustine flourished not till 405 or 410 years after Christ. So that his authority prevailed not but in his and the times following him. But what was it that carried the Baptism of Infants the 300 or 400 years afore Augustin? For all that time it was frequent as we have abundantly showed out of good Antiquity. Secondly, if any after were carried by Augustin to hold Infant-baptisme; sure they heard or read Augustin arguing the thing by Scripture and divine reason * As against the Donatists & Pelag. etc. . And then doubtless they were carried by the Scriptures and Reasons he urged; and so not by the authority of the man ** Mr T. himself confesseth in a matter of 40 lines after, that Counsels etc. that did depend on Augustine, depended on his Arguments. . Augustin himself had taught them better, who in his works professedly rejects some of the Fathers when he thought they went not along with the Scriptures. Thirdly, It cannot be said that Augustine's authority did in his time carry Infant-baptisme in a manner without control; seeing he had so much bickering with the Pelagians about it who under some notion did contend against it, as we shown afore. 2 To Mr T. his quoting of Walafridus Strabo, we answer first, That seeing that author is in such credit with Mr T. in that he quotes him so oft, we expect he should be believed as well for as as against us. Now Walafridus is for us, against Mr T. in these things. 1. About Imposition of hands, that it did suppose baptism, which Mr T. denied upon the discussion of Heb. 6.2. in his 14. Sect. of his Exercitation. But Walafridus affirms it, De rebus Ecclesiasticis, chap. 26. sub initium: Saith he * Primis temporibus impositione manuum baptismum confirmari solere. . In the first times Baptism was wont to be confirmed with Imposition of hands. 2. About Athanasius, that in Athanasius his time, to his knowledge there was Baptism of little children. Mr. T. doubts of it in his Examen, Sect. 6. But Walfride shows us that Legitur quoque in ultimo Ecclesiasticae historiae libro Athanasius adhuc puer, etc. That, saith he, we read in the last book of Ecclesiastical history that Athanasius being but a little child, did act the imitation of Baptism among his childish companions, which being done with recital of the words that the baptizer did ask, and the baptised answered, when those able to speak were baptised: Alexander the chief Minister of Alexandria knowing the same, judged they should not be rebaptized, but ratified with confirmation. Thus Walafridus. 3. About Infant Baptism; which Mr T. denies, but Walafridus Strabo quotes many authorities and antiquities for it. As that it In concilio Gerundensi unius diei infans si in discrimine sit baptizari jubetur. In that Council it was commanded that an Infant one day old, if in danger of death, should be baptised. Divers passages he hath to the like purpose. 2. We answer to the Quotation of Walafridus Strabo, that he falters and is much faulty in the thing he is quoted for. For first, He calls the times of Augustine who is but of late in comparison of many Ancients we have quoted Prima tempora, that is, the first times, for Walafridus quotes Augustins' practice, that was not baptised till of ripe years, to prove, that in the first times (as Walfridus calls them) men were not baptised till able to know well and make profession, when as Augustin himself, as we have showed, and Mr T. hath confessed, did refer himself to ancienter times a great deal, as to Cyprian that was almost 200 years afore him, for the practice of baptising Infants. 2. Walafrid saith, illis solummodo, etc. that is, To them only the grace of Baptism was wont to be given, who were of integrity or ripeness of body and mind, etc. but gives not proofs or reasons, but only one single instance of Augustine himself, for an universal proposition. 3. As we noted afore, that Walfrid grossly mistake in the alleging that one instance of Augustine. For Walfrid saith in his book De rebus Ecclesiasticis (which we have under our eye) that Augustine reports in his confessions of himself that he continued a Catechumenus a chatechised person, till he was 25 years old, before he was baptised; when as Augustine saith of himself in his books of confessions, that he was not converted till about the thirtieth year of his age, after which he continued a Catechised one about two years, in which time he wrote against the Academians, and wrote his Soliloquies, and in his 34 year of his age, he was baptised at Mellain of Ambrose. You see then how little credit is to be given to dreaming Walafrid in this point of Augustine. 4. Walafrid confesseth that upon the increase of diligent search into divine Religion, men of understanding in Christian doctrine finding that peccatum originale Adae. etc. the original sin of Eve did hold guilty, not only those that had committed actual sin, but those that had not; according to the 51 Psalms, in sin did my mother conceive me, and Rom. 3. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that from Adam we had all sinned, etc. That upon these grounds of Scripture they, that is, those religious men, baptised their Infants into remission of sin. And this practice of Infant-baptisme Walfrid judgeth a token of the growth of Religion. And allegeth Augustins' book of baptism of Infants, and the African Councils, and the Fathers in general for Infant Baptism, against that of Augustine's practice, baptised at ripe years; and withal Walafrid saith, That thus those wise Christians did Baptise their Infants into remission of sins, and for regeneration; and not as some Heretical persons contra-opposing against the grace of God, contend that Infants are not necessarily to be baptised. And now I hope I have given Mr T. enough of his Walafrid (upon his so oft and confident alleging him) and have satisfied the Reader touching him. If Mr T. speaks of Walfridus his mention of the invention of Gossips (as they call them) following upon Infant-Baptisme, and spiritual kin of Gossips following upon that, as thereby to blemish Walafridus, than Mr T. breaks his own shins. For Mr T. did go upon the legs of Walafridus to fetch us an antiquity against Infant-baptism; If Mr T. doth but use Walafridus his antiquity of the invention of those two things: We Answ. 1. Gossips were long before Augustine's time, even in Tertullia's time many hundred years afore. Superstitions of divers sorts, crept into the Church soon after Constantine's time. And spiritual kin of Gossips, is but a novel late dream of yester night (in comparison) of the Church of Rome, falsely so called. 3. That neither of these inventions necessarily depend on Infant baptism, more than a rope of sand, or pebbles in a With: for as much as if believers practised the baptism of their children, it was seldom, 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 itself in the Institution and substance of it, but only 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 Heresy 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 denied all the Scriptures, especially in the New Testament excepting the four Evangelists. Evangelium at supra dixi vos suscipere. Epistolas Pauli etc. cur non suscipitis? Respondetis quia non adeo certa nobis earum authoritas est. And for this cause Cluniacensis spends too 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 colleague. But to come to the point in hand of paedobaptism. 1. Mr T. tells us that Peter de Bruis denied Baptism, but tells us not the rest that Peter de Bruis denied in that very point. Mr T. shown us fairly the green grass, but not the snake lurching in it. Truly 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 infants, 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 believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. Hence it is apparently demonstrated (saith Peter de Bruis) that none unless he believe and be baptised, that is, hath Christian faith, and receives and perceives Baptism, can be saved. For not one of these alone doth save, but both of them jointly, (see the Margin ** Neither could baptism without ones own proper faith be ableto do any thing, nor one's own proper faith without baptism. For neither of them without the other saveth. So doth Peter de Bruis after explain himself. ) Therefore (faith De Bruis to Cluniacensis his party) though Infants be baptised by you, yet because through the hindrance of their age they cannot believe, by no means are they saved. We (saith De Bruis) do not rebaptize, but baptise, because he is never to be said to be baptised, who is not washed in the Baptism wherewith sins are washed away. Thus was the Tenet of De Bruis, as it is in Mr T. his Cluniacensis. Whence observe, 1. That De Bruis did hold, That no Infants, while Infants, can have any faith. Contrary to that, That john the Baptist was filled with the holy Ghost, from his mother's 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 confirms their grace. And all graces go together. 2. De Bruis did hold, That all, whether believers Infants, or believers of ripe years, dying unbaptised, are damned. And so condemns many of the Martyrs to hell. 3. By this opinion of De Bruis, he falsifies the Text he quotes. For though it be said in the affirmative jointly. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; yet it is not said jointly in the negative, that unless One de both believe, and also be Baptised, he shall be damned; but only singlely, he that believeth not shall be damned. 4. De Bruis holds, that God the principal agent, cannot work or doth not work (he wants power or will to work) the work of man's Salvation without the Instrument Baptism. So that God is stripped of his Prerogative, and tied to means. 5. That if a man be baptised at ripe years, and that by De Bruis or his companion Heinricus, they conceiving him to be a believer, yet if it prove after he was not a believer, at that baptism he is not to be said to have been baptised. So that if after indeed that he believes, he be baptised, that is no rebaptising, because his former baptism was nothing. By this the Intelligent Reader may see: 1. That ill might Mr T. allege De Bruis for the Antipaedobaptisme he contends for. 2. That well might De Bruis refuse not only 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 profess 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 himself a Latin, ignorant of the Greek. To this I Answer, That I have run over with mine eye De Bruis his proposition of Antipaedobaptisme, and Cluniacensis his answer, and proof; but find not that sentence, nor sense, that De Bruis was a Latin ignorant of the Greek. This I find that Cluniacensis confesseth of himself he was a Latin, and not skilled in Greek, as we shall show 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 allegeth against De Bruis the examples in the New Testament of Christ's curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infant baptism 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 nearer to Salvation, by the faith of the Parents, and so a fortiori urgeth as from the non parentall-kin, to the believing 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 allegeth. 1. That as in the first Adam children, whiles children, died 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 joint concurrence of baptism, with faith in all that should be saved, or else no Salvation: (For if Cluniacensis had not spoken to this, he had forsaken the terms 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 confess before my Father in heaven, and many other things, that some are saved without baptism, that Martyrdom goes for baptism. His fourth business was to prove that children might be baptised, and for that urgeth Mat. 19 Mar. 10. Suffer little children to come unto me and forbidden them not, etc. 4. Mr T. makes an observation upon the former passages, as he himself hath represented them. From these passages (faith Mr T.) I gather, that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for Paedobaptism the authority of Augustine and the Latin Doctors; so Peter de Bruis and Heinricus appealed to the Scriptures, and the Greek Church. We answer. Here Mr T. makes a great triple intimation. 1. That Cluniacensis urged Latin Doctors. 2. That therefore Augustine's 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 Baptism: But I can find neither of these in Cluniacensis. This only I find (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, etc. * Ad vestram brutamhaeresin refellendam innumera mihi doctorum Ecclesiasticorumtestimonia suffragantur. Sed vestra authoritas & sapientia tanta est, ut eos coram producere non praesumam; maxim cum didicerim Hilarium, Ambrosium, Augustinum, Hieronymum, Leonem, Gregorium, etc. judicio majestatis vestrae esse damnatos. Cumque Latino's omnes & a regno caelorum excluscritis, nescio si Graces, 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 refel your brutish heresy, innumerable testimonies of the Ecclesiastical learned Drs give me their Votes. But your Authority and wisdom 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, etc. from the chair of the learned Doctors, and from the kingdom of heaven. I know not whether you will spare the Greeks, or men of any other language. But if perhaps they at least, by means of your sober examination, have escaped your peremptory sentence, what is that to me? So far forth as concerns the business in hand it little or nothing advantageth; seeing I am only a Latin, 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 say of the Evangelists, Apostles, and Prophets, if nevertheless you receive so much as them. This is the only likely place that I find in all Cluniacensis his chapters and Treatises aghasted De Bruis touching the point of paedobaptism, 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 Latin Doctors, but expressly waved them. And of Augustin particularly he saith in another place, 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 Augustine's 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 mere Latin 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 Latin. Or if perhaps they did not despise the Greeks, yet Cluniacensis being a Latin could not urge them. So also in the Translation afore. And there is the less probability that Cluniacensis should charge De Bruis with appealing from the Latin Church to the Greek, as if it sided with De Bruis in the point of Anabaptism; For Cluniacensis urgeth on his own part the Greek Church for Paedobaptism against De Bruis in a general historical 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, Spain, Germany, Italy, and all Europe hath not had any baptised for the 300. or 500 years, but Infants. All Europe contains Greece, Continent and Islands, And Cluniacensis wrote (as Mr T. quotes out of Usher) about the year after Christ, 1150.) and so his 500 years reacheth up to 650 after Christ. This passage of Cluniacensis coming 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 Baptism; 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 Latin. 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 colleague; which to me is an intimation that Cluniacensis had understood some how, by Latin 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 only a Latin and not skilled 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 Augustine's authority was this; The Pelagian heresy being generally condemned, and Augustine's works being greatly esteemed, as being the hammer of the Pelagians, the following refuters of Pelagianism, namely, Prosper, Fulgentius etc. the Councils that did condemn it, as those of Carthage, Arles, Milevis etc. did rest altogether on Augustine's ARGUMENTS and often on his Words. We answer, that here Mr T. asserts much without any proof; Animadver. and to what great purpose I know not. But I must follow Mr T. Therefore we say; It Augustine's works 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 heresy, especially seeing by Mr T. his words, Wicked Pelagianisme was as well generally condemned as hammered by Augustine, who could do no less in faithfulness to the place and time he lived in, against an heresy bolted forth just in his time when he began to be famous. And they that condemned the total of Pelagianisme [That men by their own free will can repel sin and keep the Commandments] (so apparent against Scripture, as was no need for any to pin their faith on Augustine's sleeve) they could not but condemn that shredd of Pelagianism; 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 sins as having none; but if they must needs be baptised, than they are only baptised into the Kingdom of heaven] An apparent lie against the truth of Scripture; That saith in Adam we all died, who sinned not after th' similitude of his transgression. Rom. 5. And in sin did my mother conceive me. Psal. 51. with many more Scriptures which would have informed the Churches if Augustine had held his peace, that Infants have sin in them and are baptised into remission of sins 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 Council of Carthage, wherein being inflamed with an incomparable zeal against the Pelagian heresy, 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 shows that he was rather an Advocate for, than a Client to Augustine. Therein Augustine's works depended on him, not he on them. And if he writes to Augustine, in that not as from Augustine. For Fulgentius, I find not that he doth quote Augustine, in the main dispute touching Pelagianism in his responsory book to Peter Deacon; but often and aptly quotes the Scriptures. In his books to Monimus touching piae destination, he recites Monimus quoting Augustine. And at the end of Fulgentius his works are printed at Basil together with them, Augustine's or rather Prospers book of answers to articles imposed upon him; and some bodies 6 books Hypognosticon in answer to the Calumnies of the Pelagians; Now whether all this may argue Fulgentius his reliance on Augustine's arguments, let the reader judge. For Mr T. to say, Prosper, Fulgentius, and those three Counsels rested on Augustine's words, and to bring us no instances, or to say they rested on his arguments, and to bring us no parallel of both their arguments, is to dictate, not to prove: Or to say they relied on his arguments, and after to say they relied on his words, is an expression of inconsistencies: Or to say they relied 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 relied altogether on Augustine's arguments, is impossible for Mr T. to make good to us; or for us to believe of those worthies. For the Counsels Mr T. doth not intimate, much less 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; We answer, it is true that in this Council of Carthage, Pelagius and Coelestius the Heretics are condemned; but by notable Scripture-arguments, without the least mention of Augustine. And it is true that that Counsels Epistle to P. Innocent the first, and that P. Innocents' Epistle bacl to that Council, are by some body put among the 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 Council 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 etc. who were present in the Council of Carthage? Therein being then Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, as appears in the Epistle of the aforesaid Council of Milevis to the Emperors, 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 find not either in the Acts of that Council, or in the Epistle or etc. that there is any more particular notice of Augustine then of any of the rest; much less 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 Councils to dispute against Pelagianisme, than 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 sixth, we find 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 Augustine's 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 (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 divers Canons against Pelagius, and Coelestius too, and that about baptism of Infants which we mentioned afore at large. But there is no mention at all of Augustine's persons or rrguments there: and is after that which Mr T. Quotes. For the Council of Arles, if Mr T. means 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 Pelagianism, if there had been in it any debate about it, as there was none. If Mr T. mean 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 Errors 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 Augustine's 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 general 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 Church's judgement, and the Schools determination; as to the great hurt of God's Church, Luther and others have been of late. Answer. Animadver. To that of Augustine's respect and authority in matters of dispute we have spoken once and again: that it hath not been so high, as Mr T. his elevation. There were sundry Antagonists and some honestly minded as Acrius etc. did pretty well keep Augustine, Hierom etc. from too much height and extravagancy, as the Calvanists did the Lutherans; and like instances might begiven of later times. But Augustine, EXAMEN Ibid. saith Mr T. proved original sin from the baptism of Infants, and so did the Council of Milevis anathematising them that did deny it. Ergo, great was the sway of Augustine's authority. We answer, Animadver. (having spoken of the Councils 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 original sin in Infants, and Infant-baptisme, and so did the Council of Milevis. Ergo, the Council ●f Milevis depended on the authority of Augustine: A nonsequitur that every man will perceive. Two Counsellors urge the same clause of a statute, or the same deduction thence, clear to both their reasons, will it follow therefore that the one's judgement depended on the other? But saith Mr T. I value Augustine's judgement, EXAMEN just so much as his proofs and reason weigh. We answer, Animadver. That's well: But as we may not extol good men too much, so nor depress an Augustine, a Luther, as if we would by a back blow strike out their eyes, and then say they saw nothing. Augustine's retractations, and Luther's voluntary suffering of so many losses, and crosses for the truth, are incomparable signs they aspired not to be high in authority over men's 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 another's arguments. The Council of Milevis did Anathematise them that did deny original sin, and perhaps them that said Infants were not baptised into remission of sins; but they do not curse them that will not make Infants original sin an argument for Infant-baptisme. Sure Augustine did not so Anathema, and therefore the C. of Milevis took no such thing from him, and therefore no wonder they do not practise it. But Mr T. again urgeth the baptism of Augustine at above 30 years old, EXAMEN §. 8. of Alipius his friend, at ripe years, of Ad●odatus his son at 15, to prove that the custom of baptising Infants was not so received, as that the Church thought it necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptised in their Infancy. We answer first in general: Animadver. That they were persuaded that of Equity they ought to baptise all Christians children as the stream of Antiquity hath carried it, of which afore abundantly. And Mr T. himself chargeth Augustine and Cyprian, that they thought too many Infants were to be baptised, namely all that had Christian parents or undertakers. If therefore in fact some few were not baptised in infancy, it must needs be that there was some outward forcible stop, no inward in the judgement. As the Israelites in fact gave not their children the first Seal or sign of Circumcision for 40 years in the wilderness by reason of their pilgrimage there so long; and God bore 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 baptism, that it was not done till he was about 34 or 35 years 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 return to his EXERCITATION. Section 17. where Mr T. urgeth the same thing touching Augustine. But mean while for Adeodatus Augustine's son, if Mr T. be sure he was baptised at 15, the cause might be this: Seeing Augustine when he was at man's estate about 32 years old ran into most blasphemous errors, and after that became Catechumenus A Catechised, about two years, and so not baptised till about 34, or 35, he might possibly have a son of about 15 years old unbaptised till the father were owned in the Church for a Christian, and then he and his son Adeodatus and his friend Alipius might be baptised the same Day; Augustine and his friend being men; Adeodatus his son 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 words of Augustine, whether Adeodatus were baptised the same time his father was or no? ** Ind 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 premises of Augustine, Adeodatus, and Alipius, I say his conclusion, that the Church thought it not NECESSARY That all children of Christians by profession should be baptised in their Infancy, 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 Baptism of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa, then in Asia, or other parts of the world; for (saith he) in the Councilis you cannot find ancienter mention of that custom than the Council of Carthage; yet Mr T. doth very much question whether they did in Africa even in Augustine's time baptise children, except in danger of death, or for the health of body, or for such like reason. I do not find (saith Mr T.) that they held that Infants must be baptised out of such cases; for it is clear out of sundry of Augustine's Tracts, as particularly Tract. 11. in Johan. that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptised, and the use of catechising afore baptism; 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 applied by Mr. T. we say, besides that it is a naked thing, not backed to a sufficiency of a clear and manifest assertion from negatives; especially in the point of necessity; we may justly Quare. 1. How much more frequency and necessity doth Mr T. mean? How much more can he make appear? For sure he cannot dispute from punctilios. 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 practice 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 less practised, and yet the minds of true Christians in both, may be alike one with the rule. Yea if the more frequency of Infant Baptism were never so ancient in Africa, according to the Councils there, whereof that in Cyprians time was one, * Cyprian was within 148 years 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, Hyrcania, Tartary, China, India, the Islands of the Indian and Mediterranean seas. where man was created, Christ born, wrought mirocles, suffered; All the penmen of both Testaments acted; were the Monarchies and captivities over the Church. Great Asia included Asia the less, since called Anatolia * This Anatolia or Asia the less 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 certain which were the chief of Asia sent unto Paul. Suitably we quoted Justin Martyr for one of our witnesses since the Apostles time, of Infant Baptism. 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 years after the Apostles. To that of not baptising children in Africa but in danger of death, or etc. we have showed the contrary out of several antiquities, & particularly out of Cyprian whither we refer the reader. And sure enough, from the life of Augustin (of which anon after) it is clear that Augustine's sickness 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 baptising 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 Baptism. Those words Mr T. adds, Children were baptised 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 Original sin, in Baptism, which presently Mr T. repea●es within 25 lines following. You may conceive (saith Mr T.) how light Augustine's judgement was, by considering the ground upon which Augustine held, and urged the baptism of Infants so vehemently; which was (saith Mr T.) as all know that read his works, the opinion he had, that without baptism Infants must be damned by reason of Original sin, which is not taken away but by baptism; and for this quotes several places out of Augustine, T. 7. de Nat. & Gra. c. 8. T. 2. Ep. 28. For the distinction of the Chatechised and the Baptised, and that the use of catechising afore baptism still continued, and a great while after (he means Augustine's time:) All this doth not overthrow the common tenet and practice of that antiquity, and upward, as well as downward, in baptising Christians children. The catechising being for the children of those whose parents were not supposed Christians, as before we abundantly shown out of Tertullian, and junius upon him: and out of Pareus, Calvin, Bullinger, Marlorat, etc. on Heb. 6.2. And this is practised in all Protestant Kingdoms to this day, notwithstanding the constancy of baptising 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 Baptism. As his collation of Baptism and Circumcision, in many places of his works. His Collation of baptism, with the Flood, the Cloud, and Red Sea, divers times. His say, That Baptism is not to be deferred. That repentance is not absolutely universally necessary before baptism; His several tracts of the Baptism of little ones, etc. Which we need not quote to them that are acquainted with Augustine. All which show in what sense Augustine spoke of catechising before baptism; 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 baptised; what is that more to the purpose then to baptise them whiles Infants? We must understand that in most of the Father's times there were no whole Kingdoms, or for the most part converted, or Religious worship set up by allowance of the state, but the general of them were heathens. Therefore of necessity, there must have been some catechising afore the baptising of some. And for baptising Infants for bodily health, etc. 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 Baptism doth not profit all. That Baptism profits not without charity. That one baptism by faith purgeth. And that the Virtue of Baptism 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 reader with quotations already. They are obvious to him that reads Augustine. But Mr T. EXAMEN §. 8. objects that catechising afore baptism continued in Augustine's time, and after a great while, in Asia, because Peter Cluniacensis saith that there had been none but Infants baptised in all Europe for 300 or 500 years afore his time: but doth not deny the baptism 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 Africa (which is Mr T. his Qu. in hand). And for Africa we have heard abundantly out of all sorts of antiquity of the baptising 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 baptism 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 zeal of those father's 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 than Mr T. his quotation of him, to clear him. Tom. 2. Ep. 28. That Infants cannot be saved but BY THE GRACE OF THE LORD CHRIST, which he hath commended to us in his Sacraments. He saith there they are saved by the Grace of the Lord Christ. And saith only Christ commendeth his grace to us in the Sacraments. And for my part when Augustine and others of the Fathers do speak so confidently of the salvation of Vnbaptized Martyrs, yea of the Vnbaptized Thief; 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 father's writing infinite much, speaking sometimes in one extreme against the opposites on the one hand, did after in their polemical dealing with the opposites on the other hand, or in a doctrinal way moderate the same. So we must take their say altogether, or we shall wrong them and ourselves too. And therefore Mr T. might have done well, not to have charged up so fiercely upon Augustine and Ambrose in this point, seeing Mr T. confesseth presently following, That Ambrose and Augustin in his 4 book the Baptism contra Donatistas'. c. 22. yielded, That either Martyrdom, or the desire of baptism might supply the defect of baptism. We could add several 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 supplies the place of baptism. That suffering, faith, conversion of the heart, supply the room of Baptism. That the Baptism of blood, is greater than the Baptism of the river. That little ones not baptised have a most easy condemnation. Lastly, whatever the rigidness of Augustin and Ambrose was in some passages touching Infant-baptism; the grand point in hand is whether Baptism in these men's, and other father's times were in practice 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. endeavouring to detract from Augustine touching his inferring the necessarynesse of Infant-baptisme from john 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 baptism? And dare any of us in our Pulpits say there is not (necessitas praecepti & medy) a mandatory and instrumental necessity of ordinances, that at our peril we may not wilfully neglect them? So that with Cyprian afore quoted we conclude, we must not as far 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 Baptism, that ground of ours that the Covenant of grace belongs to believers 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) unless 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 Heretical. 3 Antiquity hath somewhat of the Covenant of grace in relation to Infant-baptisme, in the things we have afore quoted. Tertullian sets recounting in Christ, over against counting in Adam. Cyprians Epistle tells us in those times they looked to circumcision for Infant baptism. Gre. Nazianzen once and Augustine oft makes parallels and comparisons between Circumcision and Baptism. Tertullian again saith that the children of either parental-sexe sanctified, are holy by the prerogative of the seed, and the rule of discipline. See also before Clem. Alexandrinus, and Hesichius; yea some of the Ancients were so fare 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 baptism, was some how baptised in the mother. This appears partly from Augustine disputing the contrary * August. lib. 6 contra julian. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That is, the woman great with child may be baptised 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 Baptism of Infants. EXAMEN Animadver. As for the Popish Schoolmen, Biel, Cajetan, and Gerson touching the necessity of the Baptism of Infants which Mr. T. allegeth; we are not careful to give any answer to them, as we are not to care for their opinions. Protestants are not tied to make good the dreams of Papists. Or if this will not go for an answer, let one of their own tribe answer them; namely Peter Lombard in his sense of the text, 3 of joh. ver. 5. upon which Aquinas and Ballarmine and the rest of that rout towered up on high their too sublime and absolute necessity of the baptism of Infants upon pain of salvation. Peter Lumbards' words are, The place of joh. 3.5. unless a man be borne again 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 contemn to be baptised. To that Mr. T. objects about Augustine's opinion of giving the holy Supper to Infants; we will answer to (God permitting) anon when we return to Mr. T. his Exercitation Sect. 17. Where he hath the same charge against Augustine, though it be quite beside the point in hand of Infant-Baptisme, and without all coherence of argumentation in the dispute. Mr. T. Yet again urgeth (even to a surfeit upon it) Augustine's opinion of the necessity of Infant-Baptisme, EXAMEN. in that he held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration thereby. We reply. 1 This is no good argument, Animadver. Augustine held Infant baptism 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 Augustine's time, as formerly, Infants-Baptisme was the Tenent and practice of the Christian Churches. 2. Mr. T. might have excused Augustine, and answered himself touching this out of Grotius whom he hath so often quoted for his own turn, which Grotius tells him * The words of Grotius on Matt. 19.14. are; caeterum illa sententia, infants 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. that Augustine's, rigidness about the necessity of Infant baptism, Ne ipsi placuerat Augustino, was not pleasing to Augustine himself before that he disputed with Pelagius. Likely he might Confess, or Retract somewhere in his works somewhat of that rigidness; but we have not leisure as that Emperor to hunt after every fly. 3. Let Vossius answer. They object (saith he) that Augustine, Fulgentius, Gregory, and the Author of Hypognosticon, adjudged those Infants to Hell torments that died without Baptism. 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 saith Vossius, 1 The later ancients (that also held infant baptism) 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 etc. The spirit and water suffice, the spirit and blood suffice; if not the CONTEMPT OF RELIGION, but the point of necessity excludeth the water. The spirit if self will suffice, because the testimony thereof hath weight. So again the same man Serm. 24. In festo jacobi. By this you may see how fare Mr T. his former assertion is true, that Augustine's authority carried others without control, in the point of Infant baptism. 2, Vossius answers we oppose (saith he) Augustine to Augustine; For nothing is more clear and manifest then those words of Aug. lib. 5. de Baptismo contra Donatistas'. I again and again considering (saith Aug. there) do find, that not only suffering for the name of Christ, may supply that which was wanting of baptism, but also faith, and the change of the heart, if perhaps by reason of the distresses of the time, recourse cannot be had to baptism. By this you may perceive whether we gave a just reason why Augustine's, and his son Adeodatus his baptism was deferred (if Adeodatus his was deferred). But how doth Mr T. prove his last allegation of Aug. rigid opinion of the necessity of Infant's baptism? EXAMEN §. 8. First thus. Augustine usually puts Regeneration for Baptism. Animadver. We Retort. Yet before * cap. 13. in our answ. to EXAMEN §. 4. EXAMEN §. 8. Mr T. did much doubt whether Ireneus might mean baptism, 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 baptism out of their by-intention to procure the children's health, or etc. 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 Augustine's time (for it is nothing to that) but what is it to Mr T. his design of disgrace 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 merely to be tickled in the ear 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 spiritual sleep in sin; 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 Baptism; and in charity (that hopeth all things) of Augustine's meaning. For it is clear out of several places of Augustine so common that we need not quote more than those quoted afore, that Augustine did think that baptism 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 justify this fact of so bringing Infants with a sinister end to baptism. The bare recital (say we) of Augustine's words will be a sufficient confutation of this objection. Animadver. Nec illud te move at and let not that move thee (saith Augustine to Boniface. Epistle 23.) that some bring their little ones to receive baptism, not with that faith that they may by spiritual grace be regenerated to eternal life; but because they think by this remedy they may retain, or receive temporal 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 think that Augustine doth no way justify or excuse their bad intention; but magnifieth Gods powerful operation, that he can bestow the right end of an ordinance, whiles by men the wrong is intended. Let us interpret others with that candour we ourselves would be interpreted, as fare as words and Grammar will permit. Upon 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 baptism used by Athanasius in play among boys. And upon this Objection we make these animadversions. Animadver. 1. That it was not Augustine that approved it, but Alexander the chief Minister of Alexandria 60. years 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 seems Athanasius (upon whom Mr T. before called to speak in the point of children's baptism) knew that in his time little children, at least as soon as they could well speak, EXAMEN were baptised. But Mr T. objects that Augustine absurdly answers to Boniface about excusing Gossips from a lie when they say the child to be baptised doth believe. We answer Seeing Mr T. doth not here question but a child may have faith, Animadver. the rest is so light a thing he speaks of and so impertinent to the Qu. Of the Tenet and practice of Infant baptism in Augustine's 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 freedom to plainly lay down to the world the strange fantasies of several ages of Anabaptists or Antipaedobaptists, as he hath wrung even to blood as we say a few unwary expressions, and petty mistakes of the most Godly and learned Martyrs and Saints of God. EXAMEN Whereas Mr T. doth paraphrase upon Boniface his question to Augustine about Sureties at baptism [That even in Baptism of Infants 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 baptism, 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 baptised, 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 unbelieving parent to be baptised; even as Abraham; profession of his belief in God Gen. 15. Gen. 17. made him stand as a parent to all his household. The last thing Mr T. objects against Augustine, EEAMEN and through him against Antiquity, is, that in those times they baptised 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 baptism. 3 That in Augustine's time, Boniface scrupled whether the sins of parents might not praejudice the baptism of their Infants, seeing the faith of believing parents did advance the baptism of their Infants. Augustin Epist. 23. And Augustin himself there answers that Infants are regenerated (he means baptised) by the spiritual 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 committed into the hands of any godly persons that may stand instead of parents * As Abraham did to all his family of strangers etc. , and so die unbaptised, are damned by the traduction of original sin from their parents. 4 You heard before how Antiquity looked upon the descent 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, the Tenet, and practise of Baptism 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 return 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. M 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 baptism to be a mere tradition, namely, in that he speaks so often in his 6 Hom. super jesum 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 etc. that is; But since Christ came, and hath given us the second Circumcision, by baptism 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 baptism? We have heard his witness, examined him by circumstances; he speaks no such thing. Or would Mr T. impeach, and disgrace his own witness 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 Baptism of Infants came from Christ and the Apostles, and ground it upon several Scriptures, and divine reason? Why did Mr T. hang so huge a weight on so small a wire? He hath produced but one pretended place on Rom. 6. for himself, and that he weakens too with a glance at origen's 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 the 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 reliance (as he supposeth) only on Cyprians 59 Epist, Exercitat. §. 17. to Fidus for Infant Baptism, we say only 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 confess since I took th●s work in hand to Animadvert a little upon Mr T. his Exercitation, I have oft wondered that he speaks 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 myself with this, likely he remembered he was propogating a now-taking-opinion. He therefore 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 Baptism 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 showed that the pious learned ancients had other Scripture reasons, then only Circumcision, or their greediness to increase the number of Christians (who so oft gave warning to take heed to whom they gave that sacred thing baptism * Caeterum Baptismum non temere credendumesse sciunt quorum officium est. Nolite dare sanctum canibus; ne participes a liena delicta etc. 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 etc. apologized against heathenism for Christianity; and many of our quoted authors sealed their opposition against Heathenism 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 baptised till the eight day, and not in Cyprians Epistle that confuted him. Nor do they more intimate the necessity of baptism to salvation then Christ himself john 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 baptised into remission of sins, and for receivall of the holy spirit, which they, Hierom and others also allege. And it is most sure there is such a necessity in regard of God's precept and means as to us in the use of ordinances, as let them venture their salvation on the willing neglect of them that dare; I dare not. As it is a sin to put more in an ordinance than God ever put in it (as the Anabaptists talk of wonderful 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 sin to contemn an ordinance enjoined when it may be had: As Tertullian speaks in his book de Baptismo chap. 13. Hic ergo scelestissimi illi etc. Here those most graceless follows provoke questions: So that they say baptism is not necessary, to whom faith is sufficient etc. To Mr T. Exercitat. §. 17. his third particular in his Minor, that Infant-baptisme was not universally practised; for Constantine was not baptised whiles an Infant, though his mother Helena were a Christian: Nor Augustine, though his mother Monica was a Christian etc. We answer. 1 No wonder if baptism of Infants be not universally practised in all ages, Animadver. when so many Sects under one notion or another, more or less stuck at it; First Arrians in one age; after that the Pelagians in another; after them Arminius; then the Anabaptists in Luther's time; then the Anabaptists in Ainsworths' time; and now the Anabaptists in our times. Shall these men make a practice, and then make of it an argument for themselves? who will be swayed with such an argument as that? They should make out their practice from an argument, and not make an argument of their practice. 2 Mr T. doth not here so much as say that Helena was a Christian at Constantine's birth, or that Monica was a Christian at Augustine's 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 wonderful (I had almost said) superstitious Christian, Socrat. schol. Ecles. hist. lib. 1. chap. 13. according to the English trans. in digging for the cross of Christ at Jerusalem, and finding three, to wit those two also on which the thiefs were crucified on: and being perplexed which was Christ's, a miracle of curing a dying woman with that which was Christ's, resolved which was his; and so she locked up some of it in a silver chest, and the rest was set up upon a pillar in the market place at Constantinople so called of Constantine for the preservation of that City. As also that she finding the nails that fastened Christ to the Cross, she sent them to her son Constantine the Emperor, whereof he caused bits for bridles, helmets, and head-piece to be made, which he wore in battle. So Socrate Eccles. You see how vain a story here is. And that all the Christianity by this appearing in Helena, relates to the time of her son Constantine's being Emperor. And therefore what Mr T. can make of it to his purpose I know not. 4. At this time of Constantine's 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 Empress, the wife of Constantius the Emperor (Religion then daring little to peep forth; more than in notorious suffering for it) might well be afraid (if she were then a Christian) to do such an act as to carry her son to Baptism, as Ministers might be afraid to do it, Constantius the father not being a Christian, though politically moderate. 5. For Augustine. 1. It is clear out of Aug. Confessions The first Book, and 11. Chap. that his father was not a believer at his birth, nor when he was grown up to be a little boy of some understanding. For he saith there in the description of himself while he was Puer a little boy, or lad. Ita jam credebam, et illa et omnis domus, nisi pater solus etc. So I and my mother and all the family did now believe, except my father only, who notwithstanding did not control my mother's power over me, whereby I should not believe in Christ. For she rather endeavoured, that thou O my God shouldest be my father, rather than he; so Augustine. Now the want of the father's concurrence in carrying a child to baptism 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 Book 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 year old & so upward to 14. essem, et quodam die pressus stomachi dolore etc. When I was a little boy, or lad, being a certain day oppressed in my stomach, and sick even to death, thou O God sawest, because thou art my keeper, with what motion of mind, and with what faith I earnestly desired from the piety of my mother and of thy Church the mother of us all, the Baptism of thy Christ, and of God my Lord. And the mother of my flesh was much troubled, etc. and earnestly hasty that I should be initiated and washed with the saving Sacrament etc. But being now refreshed that my purifying was delayed. And Augustine tells 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 do what he listed, being yet weak, and not fully recovered; then was fi● to be permitted in case h● had been Baptised. Which thing Augustine there bewa●●es in these words, my Baptism was delayed, as if it had been necessary I should be more defiled, it I would live. It founded in my ears from these and those, let him alone to do what he will, for he is not yet Baptised. 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 book & chap▪ of his Confessions. And though in his childhood or ladship, he loved not his learning, and hated to be urged to it, yet there was less fear of him then then when he was a youth * In adolescentia. So in the 12. chap. of that first book of his Confessions, Fifthly, After this, before his Baptism (which was about the 34. year of his age as we shown afore) he ran into blasphemous errors, in so much as his mother would not admit him to her table, so he confesseth in his third book of Confessions Chap. 11. And thus you see the life of Augustine, and the causes of the delay of his Baptism, sure enough the delay of his and Constantine's baptism was not from the custom of the Churches as we have before proved. From a non-fact, to a non-equity is no consequence, though they were not Baptised 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 baptised in their childhood; and so Infant's baptism was not universally practised in those times. 1. Touching Alipius and Adeodatus we have answered afore. Animadver. That of Alipius is very doubtful whether he were of Religious Parents; the contrary being more probable, by some passages out of Augustine we have there quoted. And it is doubtful of Adeodatus whether he were baptised at 15. years old as was alleged. 2. Touching Theodosius the Great (for that's the man I suppose Mr T. means) it is true that both Pezelius, and Socrates Scholasticus do tell us that he was baptised at man's estate, but they do 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 trained up in Christianity. But by the story it seems to me, that Religion did not so cease upon his spirit, or that he did so declare himself against Arrianisme and for the Orthodox Religion and faith till he fell sick a little afore his baptism. For the naked story in short is this. His Colleagues Valentinian the second, his assistant in many battles, 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 been formerly trained up in Christianity. After the aforesaid battles, he fell ill, and lay sore sick at Thessalonica, in which time he desired to be baptised. Sent for Anatolius alias Ascholius the Bishop of that Church; asked him whether it was lawful for him to be baptised of an Heretical Bishop? The Bishop answering that for his part he detested the opinion of Arius, that he embraced the faith delivered by the Apostles, and set forth in the Nicen Creed by the Council of Nice, he was presently baptised by him. Then wrote Theodosius to the people of Constantinople, that he was addicted to the Orthodox Religion and exhorted them to constantly embrace the Orthodox faith. Thus the story. Now what inferences Mr T. can justly make hence for a consult delay of Theodosius his baptism, by his Christian friends I know not. This hence only appears to me, that seeing we cannot learn neither how good his Parents were at his baptism, though great, in his infancy (and who shall meddle with great men's children in point of Sacraments without their consent?); nor how long or how much his education in Christianity had been in his youth (it being unlikely that forwardness in Religion would forward them to be elected Emperors in those generally troublesome and heathenish times) nor what leisure he had seriously to think of Religion and worship in his young manhood, the Empire then being full of wars against the Goths, Huns, and Alanes etc. That that was the only fit time to baptise him when he was baptised. Now his sickness made his soul well. Now he had leisure to think of Religion for his own soul; now he is hungry for baptism, now he regarded of what faith Ministers were; now being Emperor and baptised, 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 baptism at ripe year, to a Necessity that the Churches then thought, so baptism ought to be administered, is a consequence which I never found in my Logic. And if This Theodosius was about the year 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 alleged for infant baptism, from Justin Martyr to Augustin had declared their judgements to the world for the same, as the Tenet and Practice of the Churches in all age of the New Testament. And therefore Theodosius, and the other few instances Mr T. hath given of adult baptism at ripe years, were rather beside, then according to the general Tenet or Practice of the Churches anciently and downward: which do no more infringe the generalily of the Tenet and Practice of Infant baptism, than the hills and valleys do the roundness of the world's which by the Moon we can see keeps its exact rotundity. The Moon light of antiquity can show us that the generality of Infant baptism hath been all along so universally held and practised, that it swallows up a small handful of instances of the other practice. Mr T. his fourth particular of his Minor, Exercitat. Sect. 17. of his fifth argument against infant Baptism, is That together with it, went along the error of giving the Lords supper to Infants, as is manifest out of the book 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 proof, 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, etc.] put among Augustine's works in the tenth Tome, are these Expressions, Infants sunt, etc. That is, They are Infants, but they are Christ's Members: they are Infants, but they receive his Sacraments: they are Infants, but they are made partakers of his table that they may have life in themselves. But * Censura patrum. Rob. Cook, * Cens. tom. 10. Erasmus, and they that put forth the Louvain Edition, * In that Edition Augustine name is not prefixed. do doubt whether the 2.4. 6.8. Sermon with many more of them there on the said words of the Apostles be Augustine's 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, john 6.53. and Maldonat on john 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 General thus: 1. That here is produced only matter of fact, but no rule, so much as pretended out of any Scripture, Council, 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 near 140 years, I find 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 baptism alone, was as Ordinance fully sufficient to assure them of the salvation of Infants, which caused the universality of practice 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, Cook. Possevin. and if in this silly story of a phantisied miracle, unworthy of learned pious Cyprian, ** The story in a word is; That a maiden 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 Sacramental wine, she presently vomited, etc. which is taken as a miracle to discover the sin, before unknown, of her partaking of the Idol-sop. Popish Pamelius indeed hugs this story to prove miracles since the Apostles, and transubstantaition. But for Protestants, they maybe rather ashamed of it, than own it. this wine were given to the child not as aliment, but as a Sacrament, why was not the Sacramental bread given to it too? And if it could not suck down a crumb of that bread, as 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 Commwion, in Cyprians time. Let us come secondly to Augustine: letting pass his weakness in too credulous quoting that weak passage in Cyprian, his rash asserting that the child received the Lords Supper, and his in considerate application of it to warn persons of ripe years of unworthy communicating; whereas more fitly he might have inferred, that it shown what a sinful human invention it was to force the wine of the Sacrament into an Infant: I say, letting pass these things in his 23. Ep. Let us consider what is alleged out of him, In his book of the merit and remission of sins, Chap. 20. upon occasion of his alleging john 6. To which we say. 1. That Augustive doth not speak of Infants receiving the Communion as the common Tenet of those times. 2. He brings in some disputing against him, that that place of john 6.53. doth not belong to Infants. 3. When Augustne weakly endeavours to pull that text to reach to Infants, from the verb plural, unless yes shall eat; and that it must belong to children too, or else to those only whom Christ there speaks, and not to us also in following ages etc. In the conclusion he saith only this; That flesh which was given or the life of the world, was given for the life of, LITTLE ONES, and if they SHALL not eat the flesh of the son of man, nor SHALL they have life, speaking in the future tense, or time. As for Maldonat that Popish Calumniator, I think it nor worth while to turn to him, if I had him; or to believe him if I read him. If Innocentius the 1. Bishop of Rome so thought and said, 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 Augustine's time, did not mind Augustine of it, nor Augustine allege Innocent to Boniface in his 23. Ep. to Boniface; Augustine touching upon this very point and alleging Cyprian for it, in that Epistle. Howsoever if the 600. years of that opinion and practice were those next before the Council of Trent, th●n the opinion and practice was rare and private in Cyprian and Augustine's time, if the 600. years must begin at Cyprian, ye a or at Augustine, and his Coeve Innocentius; how is it averred that the Council of Trent first rejected it? Sure it was a gross thing in the opinion of all Orthodox Churches, that the Council of Trent must reform. Thus of Mr T. his proof 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 baptism 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 badness of the subject or thing. The Sun shineing, many men commit evil yet this doth not prove the badness of the Sunshine. 3. The Sacraments are two things specifically different, distanced by express rules, that only self examiners may Communicate; it's not said so of baptism; therefore they that give the Communion to Infants err for want of eyes, not for want of light, distinguishing between Sacraments. 4. Many errors for many hundreds of years clavae 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 mad furies of FORMER Anabaptists: Therefore might infant baptism be severed from some errors that have accompanied it. 6. If the errors accompanying Infant-baptisme have made it doubtful to Mr T. So have the pernicious errors and mad furies of the Anabaptists in former ages which Mr T. hath confessed made their baptism doubtful 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 Apostolical Tradition. Caused or attended Infant-Baptisme, rather than any solid argument from Scripture. 2. A wrong liking of Judaisme. Caused or attended Infant-Baptisme, rather than any solid argument from Scripture. 3. The using of it as a main Argument against the Pelagian Heresy. Caused or attended Infant-Baptisme, rather than any solid argument from Scripture. 4. The mere authority of the Councils under Cyprian, the Council of Milevis, Augustine, and Jerome. Caused or attended Infant-Baptisme, rather than any solid argument from Scripture. To 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 aforesaid antiquities. 3. We say now; that we have produced sufficient proof afore out of approved antiquity; that the Tenet and practice of Infant baptism, 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. adds these words as the close of his fifth Argument, and Section of his Exercit. Exercita●. §. 17. So in this last age (saith he) some modern men seem to embrace this tenet of Infant baptism out of horror of mind, lest they should go headlong into the PERNICIOUS ERRORS of former Anabaptists, and their MAD FURIES, or 2 lest 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 dreams, who shall read what Robert Lord Brooke hath in the end of his Treatise concerning Episcopacy, Daniel Rogers in his treatise of Baptism and others elsewhere. We answer: to the 1 particular thus. That the modern men cannot be justly abhorred, Animadver. for their horror of mind, lest they should by any Tenet fall headlong into pernicious errors and mad furies. And if Mr T. doth but approve his own seventh Argument for a right rule viz. That which hath occasioned many errors, that is deservedly doubtful whether it be right etc.] then it will follow uncontradicted by Mr T. That as he doubts of Infant Baptism, because of errors that have followed it; so we doubt of adult baptism according to the Tenet and Practice of the Anabaptists, because of the pernicious errors, and mad 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 mean while not engaged necessarily to practise against our consciences; and in such points, as will no ways stand in the line of any concord so much as negatively. The Church way or Independency (as they neck name it) differs from the intended Presbytery (as we guess) ungainly in point of Appeal, especially in the manner of it; which may breed no distraction in case particular Churches walk so wisely as not to need appeals; as some discreet parishes did in the worset times of Episcopal Courts. Rests in a song whereby to sing only when the concord's will bear it, and rest where not, till they Symphonise again do not mar, but grace the harmony. But whether Anabaptism, or Catapaedobaptisme, denying Baptism to believers infants, wherein the great part of a sad distracted kingdom is interested, will for the present so well fag, 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 yield to a relation of Pastor and Flock, between them and that Minister of whom they require that Ordinance, and to walk 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 amiss. But for baptising of beleivers Infants, several Churches of us do hold, that we may Baptise them, though neither of those Parents be of our particular Churches. Baptism, as we Conceive, being but an admission into the universal visible Church; As those Baptised, Matthew the 3. The Centurion Act. 10. The Gaoler Act. 16; were Baptised, 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 capitulating as I may say with point of Argument for reformation they think it not seasonable to indeavoure for the inward Hold, till they can take the outworks. Reformation from Adam's fall, to the highest pitch in the old Testament, came on by degrees; so from john Baptists time to the end of the Apostles, in the New Testament. And so in every Kingdom since from the first sitting down of Religion there, to its growth; or from the Lapse thereof, to its Restitution. We cannot come to the end but by means. And it cannot but be dangerous in an unwieldy Kingdom to jump from the lesser to the greatest things of that we count Reformation at one leap. For my part, I should desire rather to suspend mine own interest then to be a coadjutor to further a general 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 witness). But if Mr T. mean by Perspicuous any thing more than sufficient, we answer we conceive we have as Perspicuous Scriptures for Infant-baptisme as Mr T. hath for The Lord's day, and for women's partaking of the Lord's Supper. To Master T. his allegation of the Lord Brookes, and Daniel Rogers, that Mr T. did not dream. We say that it is possible two more, may dream as well as Mr. T. we say two more; for to his [&c.] And others elsewhere, we can distinctly answer nothing, where nothing is alleged. But for the two particularly named, giving their books all due respect. Robert Lord Brookes of Episcopacy. Sect. 2. chap. 7 p. 96. of 2. edit. 1. The bare recital of the Lord Brooks words are a full answer, which are these. I will not, I cannot, take on me to defend That men usually call Anabaptism: Yet I conceive that Sect is Twofold: Some of them hold ; Community of all things; deny Magistracy; and refuse to Baptise their Children. These truly are such Heretics (or Atheists,) that I question whether any Divine should honour them so much as to dispute with them; much rather sure should alexander's sword determine here, as of old at the Gordian knot, where it acquired this Motto, Q●ae soivere non possum, dissecabo, What I cannot untie, I will cut asunder. There is another fort of them, who only deny Baptism to their Children, till they come to years of discretion, and then they baptise them; but in other things they agree with the Church of England. Truly, These men are much to be pitied; And I could hearty wish, That before they be stigmatised with that opprobrious brand of Schismatic, the Truth might be cleared to them. For I conceive, to those that hold we may go no farther than Scripture, for Doctrine or Discipline, it may be very easy to err in this Point now in hand; since the Scripture seems not to have clearly determined This particular. The Anaglogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the old Law, is a fine Rhetorical Argument, to illustrate a Point well proved before; but I somewhat doubt, whether it be proof 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 express, that it leaves no place for scruple: but it is fare otherwise in Baptism; Where all the designation of Persons fit to be partakers, for aught I know, is only, Such as believe. For this is the qualification that, with exactest search, I find the Scripture requires in persons to be baptised: And This it seems to require in All such persons. Now, how Infants can be properly said to believe, I am not yet fully resolved. Yet many things prevail very much with me in this point. First, For aught I could ever learn, It was the constant custom of the purest and most Primitive Church, to baptise Infants of believing Parents; For I could never find the beginning and first Rise of this practice: Whereas it is very easy to track Heresies to their first Rising up, and setting foot in the Church. Again, I find all Churches (even the most strict) have generally been of this judgement and practice: yea though there have been in all ages some, that much affected novelty, and had parts enough to discuss and clear 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 clear that of Saint Paul (1 Cor. 7.14.) Else were your Children Unclean, but now are they Holy. I know some interpret it thus, If it be unlawful for a believer to live in wedlock with one that believeth not; Then have many of you lived a long time in unlawful 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 confess, This seems a very fair Interpretation; yet I much question, Whether This be all the Apostle means by that phrase Holy; especially when I reflect on the preceding words, The unbeliever is Sanctified by the believer. Nor yet can I believe any Inherent Holiness is here meant; but rather That Relative church-holiness, which makes a man capable of admission to Holy Ordinances, and so to Baptism. Thus fare the Lord Brookes, where he is against Master Tombs touching the meaning of 1 Cor. 7.14. And touching Infant Baptism. But the question is whether Master Tombs be not more than a Catapaedobaptist, namely an Anabaptist, for Rebaptising; who so readeth the last page of his exercitation, will not think that I merely dream. For there he saith [Nor is the assuming of Baptism in ripe years, by those who were washed in Infancy, a renoucing of Baptism, as some in their gross ignorance conceit.] 2. For Master Rogers (not daring to play the ginger, to tell what influence Episcopal wand'ring Stars might have upon his Book Printed in the year 1635. having been once Printed afore; but esteeming the man) I dare set down his words also as a full answer to Master Tombs; his words are these. The fourth and chief person, yea equal object of Baptism, is the party baptised. The fourth person, the infant. For not only the Church may and doth baptise her Infants: but also (adultos) grown one's also, if any such being bred Pagans, and brought within the pale of the Church, shall testify their competent understanding of the new covenant; and profess their desire to be sealed with Baptism, for the strengthening of their soul in the faith thereof: profess it I say, not basely and slightly, but with earnestness and entireness; cutting off their hair and nails, and abhorring their Paganism. But the truth is, the exercise of the Church's baptism is upon infants: Here the Anabaptists rise up, A short touch of the baptism of infants. pleading the corruption of such baptism, and urging the first baptism of catechised one's and confessors of sin, and cravers of the seal, upon the work of the Ministry foregoing in knowledge and faith, which can be incident only to adulti, or grown ones. They allege that we seal 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 fare as my digression may be venial. I say this, for the settling of such as are not wilful, that I take the baptism of Infants to be one of the most reverend, general, and uncontrolled traditions which the Church hath, and which I would no less doubt of than the Creed to be Apostolical. And although I confess myself yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it, yet. Reasons for it. First, Since Circumcision was applied to the infant the eighth day in the Old Testament. Secondly, there is no word in the New Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it: nor special reason why we should bereave her of it. Thirdly, sundry Scriptures afford some friendly proofs by consequence of i●. Fourthly, the holiness of the child, (external and visible) is from their parents who are (or aught to be) catechised, con●●●tors, penitent, and Protestants in truth (which privilege 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 baptism. Howbeit here a further query arises. And because the Sacrament of Baptism is here handled by us, Question. How it is capable. 1 Pet. 3.21. not a half a Sacrament, (only including a washing of the flesh) but an entire Sacrament, holding out and giving an invisible grace by outward means: By what authority shall we say, an Infant may be presented to that, whereof it is not capable? To that I answer: Answer. First, it's not meet that Baptism being the Sacrament of new birth, which can be but once, should destroy her own 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 grown are, by hearing, conceiving, and believing: yet this follows not, that Infants are not capable of Sacramental grace in and by another way. Pitiful are the shifts of them that have no other way to stop an Anabaptists mouth, save by an error, that an Infant may have faith. It's easy to distinguish between the gift conveyed, and the manner of conveying it. For if the former be, the latter in such case will prove needless. But if the infant be truly susceptive of the substance of Christ, none can deny it the Sacrament. Now to understand this, mark, that Infants borne of believing 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 do 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 mystical 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 son and daughter by adoption, and the image of God by sanctification without faith, as with it. Now, if the grace itself of Baptism be thus given it, why not Baptism? Nay, I add further, I see no cause to deny, that even in, and at, and by the act of Baptism, (as the necessity of the weak infant may admit) the Spirit may imprint these upon the soul of the Infant. Thus Master Rogers. Where, by his quotation of Scriptures and discuss● of arguments you may see what he meant by Apostolical tradition. CHAP. XV. Exercitat. Argu. 6. §. 19 The argument against Infant-baptisme, from humane inventions occasioned by it confirmed. THe sixth Argument follows: That which hath occasioned many humane inventions, partly by which Infant-baptisme itself may be under-propped, partly the defect in the policy of the Church, which in very deed is to be supplied by the lawful use of Baptism, Of that it is deservedly doubtful whether it be not in itself weak and insufficient for its proper work. But the matter is so in the business of Infant-baptisme, Ergo. The Minor is proved by instances: they are, 1. The use of sureties in Baptism, which is an humane invention, for a shadowy supplement, and I had almost said sporting, of that profession of faith which at first was made by the baptised in his own person. 2. Episcopal confirmation, in which the Bishop lays hands or anoints the Catechised, that Baptism, or the Baptised may be confirmed, and they made capable of the Lords Supper. 3. The reformed union, by examination, confession, subscriptition, of the received doctrine in the Church, before the communion of the Eucharist, of which Parker of Eccles. policy. l. 3. c. 16. 4. The Church-covenant, as they call it, afore the admission of members into Church-fellowship, of which the New-England Elders in the little book in English, called Church-Covenant, which in very deed are devised to supply the place of Baptism; for by Baptism, according to Christ's institution, a person is exhibited a member of Christ and the Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. Gal. 3.27. Ephes. 4.5. THe seventh Argument: Arg. 7 § 20. The argument against Infant-baptisme, from the Errors occasioned by it, confirmed. That which hath occasioned many errors, that is deservedly doubtful, whether it be right. But the practice of Infant-baptisme hath occasioned either the birth or fostering of many errors. Ergo. It is proved by instances: 1. That Baptism confers grace by the work done. 2. That Baptism is Regeneration. 3. That Infants dying, are saved by the faith of their Parents, faith of Sureties, of the Church receiving into her lap: which is to be ascribed alone to the grace of God by Christ. 4. That some regenerate persons may utterly fall from grace. THe eight Argument. That which hath caused many abuses and faults in Discipline, Arg. 8 §. 22. The argument against Infant-baptisme, from many abuses caused by it confirmed. and Divine worship, and Conversation of men, that is deservedly doubtful. But Infant-Baptisme is such. Ergo. It is proved by enumeration. 1. Private baptism. 2. Baptism by women. 3. Baptism of Infants not yet brought into light. 4. Baptism of Infants of uncertain progeny, whom we call children of the earth and world. 5. They are baptised in the name of the Lord, who know not the Lord, nor have ever consented, or perhaps will consent to the confession of the name of our Lord. 6. It hath brought in the admission of ignorance and profane men into the communion of the Church, and to the Lords Supper: for who can deny rightly, the right of the Church to the baptised? 7 It perverts the order of discipline, that first a man be baptised, and after among the catechised. 8 The Sacrament of baptism is turned into a mere Ceremony, yea into a profane meeting to feast together. 9 Men forget Baptism, as if they were never baptised so that it hath the force of a carnal rite, not of a spiritual Institution. 10 It takes away, or at least diminisheth zeal, and industry in knowing the Gospel. THe ninth Argument. That is deservedly doubtful, Argum, 9 § 22. The argument from unnecessary disputes caused by it against Infant-baptisme, confirmed. that yields occasion to many unnecessary disputes, fostering only contention, and which cannot be determined by any certain rule. But the tenet or rite of Infant-baptisme is such, Ergo. It is proved by instances. 1 Of baptising the Infants of Excommunicated persons, 2 Of baptising the Infants of Apostates, 3 Of baptising the Infants of such Parents as are not members in a gathered Church. 4 Of baptising the Infants of those, whose Ancestors were believers, the next Parents remaining in unbelief; These things show that men have departed from the Rule, when they know not where to stay. THese four Arguments of M. T. to wit, the 6, 7, 8, 9 I have put together, being much alike for notion and validity, Animad. and so apt to receive one and the same general Answer by way of retorsion, thereby to discover their weakness. The sum of them is this. That which hath occasioned many human-inventions, Errors, faults in Discipline, and unnecessary disputes, is doubtful. But the tenet and practice of Infant Baptism hath occasioned all these. Therefore the tenet and practice of Infant Baptism is uncertain. We retor●. That which hath occasioned many human-inventions, Errors, faults in Discipline, and unnecessary disputes is doubtful. But the tenet and practice of adult Baptism, as held and used among the Anabaptists hath occasioned all these. Therefore the tenet and practice of adult Baptism as among them, is doubtful. The particulars to be made good in the minor, are four: That 1 Humane Inventions, 2 Error, 3 Faith in Discipline, 4 Unnecessary disputes, Have been occasion by the adult baptism of the Anabaptists. These four I shall make good, not by bare asserting or torturing of Authors (of one of which M. T. is somewhat guilty, in most of the particulars he hath produced in the said four Arguments) but by plain allegation of approved Authors. And this I shall do as forced thereunto now at last by M. T. in these his strange kinds of arguments, which I have forborn all this while, though oft incited thereunto by M. T. before in his Exercitation and that of his Examen. But now we must by this course, take off that aspersion laid peculiarly on us for baptising believers infants in a conscientious way. So that we intent in this our answer, rather to be defensive then offensive. 1 Humane inventions have been occasioned by the adult baptisime of the Anabaptists. 1 We are informed from the third Council of Carthage, a Bin. Ca 34. and and by M. T. his Walafridus, b De rebus Eccles. cap. 26. That sick men lying speechless might be baptised upon the witness of men touching their former condition. By this is intimated that dipping was not in this case used. 2 The fourth Council of Carthage c Bin. Ca 85. tells us thus this, That those of ripe years to be baptised, must be dyetted and kept from flesh and wine along time, and after that, having been examined several times, they are to be baptised. 3 Epiphanius d Epiphan. Anacephal. pag. 408. Edi●. Lat. Ba●il. declares that the Eunomians (called in the margin Anabaptists) dore-baptise all that come to them, yea, they re-baptise the Arians also (who deny Christ to be God) and they rebaptise them (saith Epiphanius) turning their heads downward, and their heels upward. 4 Vossius e Gerard. joh. Vossius de Anabaptismo Thes. 17. take notice out of Epiphanius of this: We are not ignorant (saith Vossius) that the Hem●robaptists thought, that none could be saved unless they were daily baptised (whence they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Daily-baptists) and so were cleansed from their sins. But they were a sect of Jews, as we know out of Epiphanius, the 17 Sect of the Jews. 5 The same Vossius f Ge●. john Vossius de Anabap. Thes. 18. assetts that the Marcionites did say (for which they had no reason) that Baptism might be iterated, and Tertiated. That is repeated and done three times.) I will bring you (saith Vossius) a place out of Epiphanius against the Marcionists Haeres. 42. When Martion had in his own City defiled a virgin, and fled, and was found in that great sin, the juggler invented to himself a second laver, asserting that it is lawful to give remission of sins, unto the number of three lavers, that is three baptisms, whereby if any one hath backsliden after his first, having acted repentance, he might receive the second, and likewise the third, if he be taken in a sin after the second. How he proves this opinion, Epiphanius (saith Vossius) subjoins, viz. The first baptism he collects, in that Christ was baptised by John. The second and third, because Christ saith, I have a BAPTISM to be baptised with, and what will I if I have already finished it. Again, I have a cup to drink, and what will I, if I shall now fulfil it. Both places (saith Vossius) are taken out of Martion his Pseudo-Gospell (that is False Gospel.) To the first, there is somewhat like Luke 12.50. To the second somewhat, Mat. 20 22, 23. But Christ speaks there not of the baptism of water, but of the baptism of blood, that is, of his passion, and death. Suitable to this oft baptising M. T. hath two passages. The first In his Exercit at. pag. the last. Nor is (saith he) the assuming of baptism in ripe years by those who were washed in infancy a renouncing of baptism, as some in their gross ignorance conceit, but indeed a firmer avouching of baptism, according to Christ's mind. The second is in his Examen Part 2, Sect. 4. M. T. his note in the margin is OF REBATING. His words in his answer to Master Martial there, are these. YOu go on, § 4. Of rebaptising. Since that time multitudes in Germany have embraced his opinion, who because they opposed paedobaptism, were forced to reiterate their own baptism, and thence were called Anaebaptists. Afore I proceed, because it goes so currant, that rebaptisation is not only an error, but also an heresy, let me beg of you one good argument to prove it unlawful inse, or intrinsically, I mean without respect to scandal, or the like cause by accident, for a man that hath been baptised rightly, to be baptised again: One baptism Eph. 45. is not to me all one as once baptising, no more than one faith once believing. We are regenerated by baptism, and a man is borne but once. But are we not borne a gain by the Word, and must that be but once preached? Is not sin mortified, the Church sanctified by baptism, and are not these often? And for example, if there were as good for paedobaptism, as that Act. 19.5, 6. for rebaptising, the controversy were at an end with me. But if heresy must be determined by the votes of men, Smectymnuus may be judged an Arian, and the opposers of Pasche Heretics: this by the way, though not besides the matter. So M. T. 6 Sch●mer g Scham. Panstr. Tom 4. lib. 4. cap. 11. § 24. quotes out of several Authors with him in credit for that purpose; the wont of some in old time to dip the party baptised, at ripe years, three times immediately on after another at his baptism. He quotes out of some ancient author, now known only by the false name of Areopagita, Chap. 2. These words. Then he (the Minister) bids him (the baptised) renounce the Devil and cleave to Christ, Anoint all thy body with Oil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then the chief Minister baptizeth him (he means dippeth him) three times, and at every dipping of him down, and pulling him up again, he calls upon the essence of the Godhead. Likewise he quotes divers other. h Scham. Panstr. Tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 3. § 7. etc. As the Apostolic Canons (as they are called) If the Bishop or Presbyter doth not make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three Baptisms (he means dippings) of one innitiating, etc. let him be deposed. Zonara's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, Three immersions or dippings in our innitiation, that is, in our Baptism. Gregory the first, Ep. 41. lib. 1. Nosautem, etc. That is, That we dip three times, we signify the mystery of Christ's burial three days. I have given you a touch, being necessitated by M. T. but have no mind of myself, therefore I rake no further into this dunghill, though I might find abundance more of invention, Oil, Salt, etc. Thus of human-inventions. Secondly, of Errors occasioned by, or waiting upon Anabaptists adult baptism. 1 Let me tell you mine own experience, that some of them, and particularly M. Ta. formerly a Preacher, and a considerable Scholar, having, as this week laid down this position, that nothing may be admitted into the New-Testament worship, but upon an express command in the New-Testament, the next week or thereabout came to me, and told me, Now Sir, said he, I doubt of the Lords day. And M. Tombs himself saith he will suspend his judgement about the quot a pars temporis, how often there should be a Sabbath day, &c, Examen. Sect. 8. p. 28. l. 32. which in my opinion enervates all M. T. seems to speak for the Lords day. 2 Epiphanius a Epiphan. l. 6. Anaceph. p. 408 Edit. Lat. Basil. relates that from Aetius a Deacon under George the Bishop of the Arians at Alexandria, were the Actians, called also Anomaeans, that is unequal, of some they are called Ennomians, from one Eunomius (the Disciple of Aetius) who is yet alive. With these were Eudoxius Arianissans, that is, Eudoxius Arianizing, but through fear of Constantine, he severed himself and only Aetius was cast out or banished. But Eudoxius notwithstanding continued Arianizing, that is to be, and act as an Arian (that denies Christ to be God) but not with Aetius. These Anomaeans, and Aetians, poenitus ab alienant, do utterly alienate or separate Christ and the holy Spirit from God, affirming him to be created. And say there is no similitude between them. For they affirm God the Father by Aristotelian and Geometrical syllogisms, and by this means Christ cannot be of God. But the Eunomians so called from him, rebaptize all that come to them. So Epiphanius. There are other most abominable things there mentioned by Epiphamus, which I have no delight to once name. 3. Tertullian b Tertul. contra Martion. tells us of the Marcionites that were so curious in baptising those of ripe years, that they would not baptise married persons, but single persons, virgins, widows, and divorced persons. 4 Pontanus, Osiander, Bullinger, and M. Aynsworth, give us this list of the errors of the Anabaptists. 1. That Christ did not assume his flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary. 2 That Christ is not God, but endued with more gifts than other men. 3 That our righteousness depends not on faith in Christ, but upon the works of charity and affliction. 4 That there is no original sin. 5 That man hath free will in spiritual things. 5 John Cloppenburge c In his Gangrene of anabaptistical Theology, Professor of Divity, at Franequer, Printed 1645. gives us a great Catalogue of the Errors of the Anabaptists, to the number of about 48. 1 That the true God is not called in Scripture, by names that signify his eternal increated essence, and so are proper to him, but by names that signify only God's dominion or power, which names are common to Moses and other Governors. 2 That there is not an immediate omnipresence of the divine essence, wherein they hold, saith J. Cloppenburge, with Socinus and Vorstius. And consequently they deny one of the Attributes of God, namely his immensity. 3 God did not in the Old Testament command any thing of the Jews, but external acts, not reaching with his word, to the purification of the heart. Nor did he make any promise of spiritual things in the Covenant in the Old Testament. Nor ought we to interpret any of them but of temporal things. That the old ministry of the Ceremonial Law was not instituted to convince consciences of their spiritual uncleanness, and typically to seal the true atonement or expiation. 4 That the Scripture doth no where clearly testify, neither doth it seem to be according to such reason as is consentaneous to truth, that the souls of believers going out of the body, are presently taken up to Christ their head to partake of celestial joy. And Christians may state the Question, without any damage to piety, that likewise the souls of the wicked after death, do not immediately taste of the infernal torments in hell. 5 That John the baptist was not in the least, the Minister of the New Testament, or Doctor and teacher of Evangelicall righteousness, but of legal. Note then how fit John's Baptism is in the opinion of the Anabaptists, to be the ground of their form and rule of baptism, which they so oft allege. 6 That the one only per son of the Father was understood and acknowledged in the Old Testament. And thus John Cloppenburge D.D. and Professor at the University of Franequer, goes through the body of Divinity, in public disputations, and quotes out of the Anabaptists own writings the several dangerous errors they hold, against the main heads of Religion, to the sum of about 48. But I delight to name no more. But that M. T. by his impertinent, yet importunate way of disputation in his later arguments, forced me to clear ourselves, that we are not the only originalists of by-opinions, and to discover the weakness of this way of argument used by M. T. I had not mentioned any at all. Thus for error. 3 Some faults in Discipline have been occasioned by the way of baptism, among the Anabaptists. 1 That a particular Church is constituted by Baptism, and formally united, So Mr. K. d In his Answer to Dr. B. and M. T. in the close of his sixth argument Exercit. § 19 By baptism (saith M. T.) a person is exhibited a member of Christ, and the Church. But what Church doth M. T. mean? If he means of the universal Church, I yield. That he is exhibited a visible Christian. But if he means a member of any particular rightly constituted Church, according to the platform of those in the New Testament, and ancient antiquity, I altogether deny it for these reasons. 1 Those baptised Mat. 3. were in no particular Christian Church, there being none gathered till a good while after that Christ had given the holy Supper to the Disciples. 2 Cornelius his, and the Gaolers families, after the gathering of Churches, were not by that numbered to any particular Churches or thereby made particular Churches, that we read. Now that which exists afore or after a thing without that thing, cannot be the form of that thing. 3 That which is common, cannot be proper and peculiar. But baptism is common to make men only visible Christians in general. Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church. And therefore though godly men, or their infants have been baptised, yet the Churches think according to Scripture, that there must be somewhat more expressed to make such to own this or that preaching officer to be their pastor or teacher, whom they must obey in the Lord, and have in singular respect for the works sake. Heb. 13. And to cause that Minister to own them as his flock, Act. 20. if he mean not to take upon him a power Apostolical for latitude to extend to all baptised one's. Nor can it be pretended that this Minister baptising them, doth make them of his congregation, because the Confession of the Anabaptists h Their confession of faith Artic. 41. set forth by the seven brethren of their fraternities, say That any preaching Disciples, that are no particular Church Officers, or p●rsons extraordinarily sent, but as considered Disciples, are designed by Ch●ist to dispense this Ordinance. Which we look upon us as a second fault in discipline following upon the Anabaptists Baptism. For we find not that any baptised others, but either they were extraordinary Officer, as the Apostles, or Evangelists. Or else particular Churches Pastors, or Teachers. Nor is there any thing in the Scriptures alleged in their Confession but to the same purpose we speak. Divine reason also concurs with us. For a Disciple, as a Disciple, is only a member of the universal visible Church. And so he can confer nothing but what he hath. And so bring his brother no further in subjection to Church Ordinances, than are administered by the universal visible Church; and so can never be censured, ●in case of lapse, unless the universal visible Church concur, which can never be. And so Church discipline falls to the ground. 3 Anabaptists have in many ages admitted generally all that will take up their baptism, Epiphan. Anaceph. p. 408. E dit. Lat. Basil. Epiphanius shows us in the fore quoted place, That they affirm that for a man to stray in some great sin is nothing. God required nothing but that he should be of their faith. Augustine in his fourth book against the Donatists complains, and quotes Cyprian as condoling the same. That many Cord in melius non mutato etc. That many being not changed in heart, that renounce the world in words, not in deeds, were baptised. And in another place speaks of it as an error of some in those times. Errand qui p●aeter delectum omnes ad baptismum admittunt. They err (saith Augustine) that admit all to baptism, without any choice, or difference. And one of the late Anabaptists in a book called the mark or character of the Beast, saith, that any man upon confession of sin, though he manifest no signs of grace, aught to be baptised. Thus of faults in discipline. 4 By Anabaptism have been occasioned many unnecessary disputes. 1 Whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to baptise signifies to dip, to rantize, or to sprinkle? whereas they baptised in old time, some in their beds, a See afore. or couches, b Clinidia. therefore dipped not them. The baptisms of Tables, Mar. 7.4. here the word cannot signify dipping. The Israelites are said to be baptised in the Cloud, and the red Sea. But they were but sprinkled in the Cloud; and not dipped in the Sea. 2 Whether those baptised by men erroneous in judgement, aught to be rebaptized. Aug. against the Donatists? 3 Whether there be original sin in infants? 4 Whether they have faith? 5 How long they must stay ere they be baptised, c Of these 3 last we heard afore severally, upon other occasions. whether till three years old or under, or till four years old or over? or how long? whether till as old as Adeoda●us who was 15 at his baptism (as some will) or till they be 30 years old, which was the age of Christ? As some thought in Nazianzens' time. Thus I have given you a taste of the manner of M. T. his disputing in those four Arguments, by an easier retorting them, If M. T. condemn these our arguments retorted, of impertinency or invalidity he must of necessity also condemn his own. And for my part if he will do so, I am contented that these four arguments on both sides should go for blank, and so to leave the dispute where we found it, as no great matter being done on either side, to argue for or against, by producing the errors and mistakes of men, which may be laid aside on either side, and yet a truth be held by either. Though I do not hereby mean to give away the Question of the lawfulness of baptising believers infants. And therefore we go on to give particular answers to M. T. his four Arguments aforesaid. CHAP. XVI. TO M. T. his first particular, Exercitat. § 19 of Sureties in baptism, urged in the minor of his sixth Argument touching, humane inventions occasioned by Infant Baptism. We answer, Animad. 1 That sureties are known to have been in Tertullia's time, and two hundred years after in Augustine's time; as we have touched in divers quotations afore. Whence I infer only this, that the tenet and practice of Infant-baptisme were held in ancient times. 2 That by virtue of Abraham's power, and Guardianship over his household all his male family had the first sign or seal. As the family of Cornelius and the Gaoler had, the Governors believing, and being baptised. And usually those sureties that brought children to Baptism, promised to see them brought up in the fear of God, or to that effect. Whence I infer (though I am not in the least for sureties, only I would have M. T. speak justly of things as they are) That the sporting of profession of faith (which M. T. here abjects) was rather in the sureties that performed not that they promised, then in thing itself. To M. T. his second particular thence, Exercitat. of Episcopal confirmation. We answer: Animad. that we have already declared much, of the Patriarches imposition of hands; of Christ's imposition of hands, of the Apostles imposition of hands, of Church's imposition of hands since the Apostles, upon little ones, and usually after the first seal. So that there is not so much human-invention in imposition of hands on baptised persons, as there was arrogancy in the Bishops, to assume this peculiarly to themselves. To M. T. his third particular there That the reformed union, Exercitat. by examination, confession, and subscription of the received doctrine in the Church, before the communion of the Eucharist, is an human-invention, following upon Infant baptism. We answer. Animad. 1 That M. T. all this while hath contended that Examination and confession before Baptism (and consequently afore the Communion) is an ordinance of Christ. How then says M. T. now, that they are human-inventions? 2 If subscription be added. It is but a visible or legible profession, and not so dangerous as Ministers subscriptions have been in the Prelates time, though some have had the mercy, out of the University, to subscribe with their own conditions. 3 That there is mention in Isay 44.5. That one shall call himself by the name of Jacob, and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel. So that to subscribe to the truth of God, professed in a Church, to be called a member of the same, is no such Scripturelesse human invention as M. T. would make of it. To M. T. his fourth-particular. That the Church Covenant; Exercitat. yea as set forth in the book of the Churches of New England, called CHURCH COVENANT is an human-invention, devised to supply the place of baptism. We answer. We will not say that this is Cynically, but we will say it is boldly spoken by one man, Animad. so to censure so many brave men for Learning, Godliness, Conscience, and Sufferings. For 1 we quaere whether M. T. doth think the late Nationall Covenant to be a mere human-invention? If not, let him be moderate in his opinion of Church Covenant. 2 We assert, that whatsoever ingenuous and understanding Reader shall peruse the Book called the Church Covenant, will find it stronger for a Church Covenant then M. T. his Treatise for the Anabaptists way of baptising. 3 We put M. T. in mind, that all relations (except natural) are founded upon mutual covenant, and agreement, as between husband and wife, Master and servant, amp; c. Therefore that between Pastor and flock. 4 That Baptism exhibiting one to be a member of the universal visible Church now on earth, doth not make him to belong peculiarly to my flock a See before in the former Chapter touching faults in Discipline. that are bound in Scripture duties to me, or me to be a Pastor, and bound in conscience of Pastoral duty to him. 5 In that, seeing some particular express intimation there must be (seeing we have not the intellectual communication of Angels) that he or she is of my flock, and I their Pastor, What can M. T. find out to effect this, if he lay aside all Covenantall expressions. 6 If the Church Covenant were composed by men, as those of marriage, servantship, etc. are; yet all divine, duties may follow upon this, as upon them, by divine imposition. CHAP. XVII. TO the 1 and 2 particulars in the minor of M. T. his seventh Argument of Errors occasioned by Infant Baptism, Exercit. § 20. as that Baptism confers grace by the work done, that Baptism is regeneration. We answer. Animad. 1 M.T. in all his allegations of Antiquities, or others that are orthodox in the main, hath not to our knowledge produced any such expression as that Popish one, that Baptism confers grace by the work done. 2 That we have produced places of best antiquity that expressly tell us that their meaning was that we should not in denying Baptism to Infants, as much as in us lies hinder their salvation. a See before out of Cyprian. Thirdly, that ancients do call Baptism regeneration is no more than to speak Scripture phrase, b Which place the Ancients oft quote in that point. John 3.5. Titus 3.5. Fourthly, that the ancients did not think Baptism did profit all baptised persons. c Lib. 4. contra Donatistas'. Augustine saith, What profits the Sacrament to them that receive it, unless they be inwardly changed? And blaming some in his time, saith, What profits the Sacrament to them that receive it, unless they be inwardly changed? And blaming some in his time saith, Spem baptiz andorum auferunt à Domino Deo, & in homine ponendam esse persuadent. That is, They take off the baptised from their hope in God, and persuade them to, place it in men. To M.T. his third particular thence, Exercit. that Infants dying are saved by the faith of their parents. We reply. Animad. 1 How doth this agree with the former assertion, that we hold baptism, confers grace ex●pere ●perato, by the work done? 2 Where in approved antiquity, or late Protestant Writers is any such expression? We say upon very good Scriptures, urged afore, that a child of a believing parent is to be reckoned within the Covenant, by virtue of that parent's faith; but to pronounce him to be saved thereby, is a doctrine unknown to us. For those expressions of M.T. annexed to his third particular; put upon us, as, that Infants are saved by the faith of sureties, of the Church receiving into her lap: we desire they may be carried back to Rome, whence they were brought; the dispute now is not between. Papists and Protestants. To M T. his fourth particular in that argument: Exercitat. that some regenerate persons may fall from grace. We answer. Animad. That neither is the dispute between Prelaticall-erring-time-serving-vassals, and us: Have therefore these things away to the Prelatical Arminians, and their State-serving-Complyants. CHAP. XVIII. TO M.T. his first particular of his minor in his eighth argument, Exercitat. that Infant-baptisme hath occasioned private Baptism. We answer: Animad. If M.T. means private in regard of place (for we never knew of difference of forms) as that which is done in a dwelling house, we demand what danger or derogation is there, in that, more than in that which is commonly called a Church. Or 2 that Baptism which is not done in a River, we demand, whether Baptism in a dwelling house or in a meeting place, in the company of 40 or 50 be not as public, as when two or three steal to a River's side, in some uncouth and unfrequented place; yea and as well done in the said houses, as there, as to the question now in hand, of private or not private? To M.T. his second particular, of Baptism by women, Exercitat. occasioned by Infant Baptism. We answer. Animad. 1 we know no such thing to have been allowed in the Protestant Churches since Luther's time. 2 For ancienter time, before the invasion of gross Popery into the World▪ Bin. The fourth Council of Carthage, Ca 10. commands, Mulier baptizare non pr●sumat, that is, Let not woman presume to baptise. So that if an overforward Midwife, or Matron presumed to baptise upon the example of that bold woman Zippora circumcising her son she had by Moses; yet this was not allowed by the orthodox Churches. To the third particular, Exercitat. of baptising children before they are brought into light. We answer, Animad. we cannot see what M. T. means in that darkness. If he means baptising of the mother, having the child in her womb; we have showed afore that Councils have enacted against it. Or what ever M. T. means, we know no allowance given to it, by orthodox Churches. To his fourth particular of baptising Infants of uncertain progeny. Exercitat. We answer, Animad. that this cannot follow upon our Tenet of baptising believers Infants. If others practices extended further: it was the darkness and corruption of the times, without our line, and the line of Scripture. To his fifth particular. Exercitat. That they are baptised in the name of the Lord, who know not the Lord, nor ever perhaps will consent to the confession of his name. We answer: Animad. Supposing that M. Tombs means saving knowledge, (or else he speaks to little puepose) 1 The same inconvenience might Abraham have objected against Circumcision of little ones at eight days old. But he did not; yea, he circumcised Ishmael, though the Lord told him the blessing should be upon Isaak, Gen. 17. Secondly, The same objection we can justly make against the Anabaptists baptism; by too much experience; and testimony too from some of their writings: wherein as we have before quoted; that upon confession of sins, or profession of the faith of the Anabaptists, d See before Epiphan. And the book called the mark or character of the Beast. such are to be baptised, though things otherwise are much wanting, or amiss. Thirdly, If Infants may have saving grace as John Baptist had, and those, Mark 10. And M. T. before confessed they might; And the mere acts of the reasonable soul do not depend upon the organs of the body, much less doth grace depend on them; and the grace of God may act as conveniently in a well waking child, as in a man a sleep or in a swound, than we cannot boldly say with M. T. that all Infants that are baptised, know not the Lord; or do not consent to the Lord. What they will prove after, the promise of God, I am the God of thee and they seed, is as sure an evidence, as the judgement of the Anabaptists touching them they bapti●e. To the sixth particular. Exercitat. That Infant Baptism hath admitted into the communion of the Church, and to the Lords Supper, many ignorant and profane. For who saith M. T. can deny rightly, the right of the Church to the baptised. We answer. To that that of admission of them to the Lords Supper, because baptised, Animad. is a mere Scripturelesse and an alog●call, irrational non s●quitur. The Scriptures that bids give a child of eight days the first seal; and doth tell us Christ laid his hands on little ones, and no where forbids to baptise believers Infants; do tell us Christ gave the Communion only to persons of ripe years; and forbids us to give it but to them that duly examine themselves. It is unreasonable to infer that if one hath committed a fault in not right using the first Sacrament, proving ignorant or profane, that he should be admitted to the second till he amend. Yea, if M. T. holds Excommunication out, and Baptism an admission into particular Church Communion (how I leave him to make out) if I say he holds these, than I suppose if he were in a particular Church, he would give his vote to Excommunicate one that walks profanely after Baptism. Then by the same proportion, we may keep back from the Communion, one baptised in infancy, and after proving profane; and by a better pretence, seeing by Baptism we did not admit him into a particular Church, where peculiarly is administered the Communion of the Lords Supper. To M. T. his seventh particular in the minor of his eighth Argument. Exercitat. That Infant-baptisme doth prevent the order of Discipline, that first a man be baptised, and after is among the catechised. We answer. Animad. 1 That God commanded Abraham to give the first sign or seal to all his male Family, Gen. 17. After Gen. 18.19. it is said he would instruct his children. 2 Instruction may follow receiving the Lords Supper (else farewell Preaching) therefore it may follow Baptism. 3 We have showed plentifully out of good antiquity, and famous modern Authors upon Heb. 6.2. That the Doctrine on Catechizing of Baptisms belonged to unbelievers children before Baptism, and the Doctrine of imposition of hands belonged to believers Infants after Baptism. 4 That to acknowledge one a member of a particular Church by a general confession, and the common act of Baptism is a greater overthrow to discipline, by leaving this man in that condition, that you cannot call him to an account, nor is he engaged to come at your call to give you an account, however he walks. Exercitat. To M. T. his 8, 9, 10 particulars. That the Sacrament of Baptism is turned into a mere Ceremony, yea, profane meeting, and feasting, by Infant Baptism. Men forget Baptism, as if never administered. It takes away zeal, or at least diminisheth it. Animad. I say to these; that I were as good give no answer to these empty things, as to give such an answer as is most suitable, for then that answer must be as trivial as the argument. M. Tombs can answer himself, that the same thing might be objected against the institution of Circumcision. That there was a Feast at the weaning of Isaac, yet no profaneness; and the Feast of Charity accompanied the Lords Supper a good while, ere it degenerated. That we can well enough mind at ripe years what was bequeathed by Testament to us in our nonage. That a sealed Covenant preceding, when it comes into consideration by due education, cannot cool our zeal towards a natural worship to own God. CHAP. XIX. Exercitat. TO M.T. his 1, 2, and fourth particulars of the minor, of his ninth argument; That Infant baptism hath occasioned the needless disputes; about the baptism of Excommunicates-Infants. about the baptism of Apostates-Infants. about the baptism of Next-unbelieving Parent's Infants, the Grand Parents. about the baptism of being believers. Animad. We answer, that in our Churches, there are no such disputes about these things. We can easily by the tenor of the Scripture, resolve on the negative, that the children are not to be baptised, whiles the next Parents are such as M. T. hath mentioned. Exercitat. To the third particular that Infant baptism hath occasioned an unnecessary dispute about the baptising of the Infants of believing parents, that are not members of gathered Churches. Animad. We answer. I never perceived the world troubled with this dispute. Divers Churches without dispute can practise the baptising of such. And other Churches without dispute practice it not, and so as much as in them is are kept back the more Infants, to be baptised at ripe years, according to M. T. his define; who hath moved more dispute than any twenty of our Churches formerly have made, about Baptism. Thus of M. T. his 6, 7, 8, 9 Arguments, with a general and particular answers thereunto. CHAP. XX. NExt we come to M. T. his tenth Argument which is this. Exercitat. § 23. That in the midst of the darkness under the papacy, the same men opposed Infant-baptisme, who opposed invocation of Saints, prayer for the dead, adoration of the cross, etc. This is manifest. 1 Out of the 66 Sermon of Bernard on the Canticles, whereof the Heretics (as he calls them) who he said boasted themselves to be successors of the Apostles; and named themselves Apostolic, He hath these words, They deride us because we baptise infants. because we pray for the dead, etc. And in his 140 Epistle to Hildefonsus he complains of Henricus the Heritick that he took away Holi-days, etc. and denied the grace of baptism to infants. 2 From the Epistle of P- Abbat-Cluniacensis, to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis, and Henricus holding errors digested into five heads. 1 That little ones are not to be baptised. 2 That Churches or Altars ought not to be made. 3 That the Cross of our Lord is not to be adored, etc. 3 From Lucas Osiander his Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History, Cent. 13. l. 1. c. 4. at the year, 1207 where he accuseth the Albigensis, as consenting with the Anabaptists. 4 To which I add, That in the ages near the Apostles, Tertulian in his book of Baprisme cap. 18. Greg. Nazianzen in his 40 Oration of holy baptism, dissuade the baptism of infants, unless the danger of death happen. Thus far M. T. Animad. Note as an introduction to our Answer, That Bernard, and Cluniacensis lived about the same time. That the very same Henricus, alias Heinricus, mentioned by Bernard for an Heretic, is the same man (in all probability) that Clunia●ensis mentioneth. And in both Authors he is called, as by himself pretended to be, an Apostle. Now for Answer, we say to M. T. his particular, 1 That the same man that opposed Infant baptism, opposed the authority of the Old Testament. So did Henricus at this time. So saith Cluniacensis of Henricus alias Heinricus, in the place M.T. quotes out of e See more before of Cluniacensis touching Henricus and de Bruis abundantly, Chap. 14 of our Animad. pag. 160, 161, etc. Cluniacensis. So have the opposers of Infant-baptisme since. See Cloppenburgius in his book called, The Gangrene of anabaptistical Divinity. Some particulars we have translated afore in the Catalogues of the errors of the Anabaptists. Yea, the said Henricus and De Bruis, doubted of the authority of Paul's Epistles in the New Testament. So M.T. his Cluniacensis. 2 That formerly those same men that opposed Infant baptism, held all those dreadful errors we numbered up a little afore. Cap. 15. 3 That many of the same men that opposed Infant baptism, were either Arians or Pelagians, or Socinians, or Arminiaus, as we have formerly showed out of Epiphanius, Augustin, M. Phillips, and M. Ainsworth. And experience at this day shows us in them that together with Anabaptism, hold universal redemption and freewill, 4 That Bernard did justly call Henricus Heretic, he holding that the Old Testament and Paul's Epistles were of doubtful authority, as Cluniacensis tells us out of their own writings. 5 On the contrary part, the same men, that have held Infant-baptisme were 1 Great lights to the Church, As Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, Tertullian, Hierom, Augustine, etc. 2 Glorious Instruments in Reformation, Luther, Melancthon, Bullinger, Calvin. 3 Were renowned Martyrs dying for Christ. Some ancient, as Peter Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. Some later, as Master Philpot, see his Letter in the Book of Martyrs, against Anabaptism. A most pious, ☞ Note. learned and brave letter, which may suffice for a Treatise upon the point, penned by such a gracious spirit, that soon after poured out his blood for Christ. See his Letter at the year 1555 in the book of Martyrs, Volume 3. pag. 606. colum. 2. of the last Edition, in the reign of Queen Mary, among M. Philpots Letters. Animad. To M. T. his second particular, in this argument, we answer that M. T. reckons out of Cluniacensis, five errors that Henricus and De Bruis held against, but leaves out the great error they held for, which was that the Authority of the Old Testament, and of the Epistles of Paul in the New were of doubtful authority, as we touched afore. To M.T. his fourth particular touching the ALBIGENSES, as they are called in his book. We answer. That it is true, that in M. T. his forequoted place, Exercit. there is mention of the ALBINGENSES (for I suppose he means them) but not a word there of their consenting with the Anab●ptists. For the naked words are these: Ablegabat Innocentius papa cum Petro quod am suo legato, duod●cim Cisterciencis Sectae Abbates in Albingensium terram ut. in. viam ●osdem suâ praedicatione redu●ment, etc. That is, Pope Innocent with One Peter his Legate, sent away twelve Abbot's of the Cistercian Sect or Order, into the land of the Albingenses, to the intent they might by their preaching, bring them back into the way. And then tells how they called a Council of the Archbishops, Bishops, and others to consult which would be the best way to enter upon that design, which the Bishop of Oxford advised to be, not by external pomp as they were honourable Bishops, but by the preaching of the word, and integrity of life. And to give them an example, he himself sent home his glorious retinnue, with all the horses, coaches, and sumpters, and went with a few Clergy men on foot, and performed the business of preaching strenuously. And so the story goes off from the Albingenses. But being not willing to shift off the business, we looked afore in that Osiander his Epitome in the year before, namely Anno 1206, but in the same Chapter M.T. quotes, and there we found the nest, which is little for M.T. his advantage, or for the credit of the Anubaptists. The inferring here of the bare story is answer enough. In english it is this (The Latin as a witness of our faithfulness in translating you have in the margin.) EXorta est, & progressu temporis vires acquisivit, haeresis Albingensium, sive Albiensium, sive Albianorum, in Gallia: quos alii ab autore, allii à loco Galliae, sic dictos putant: ea Romae primò coepisse, postea verò in comitatu Tolosato (etiam intra viros illustres) longè lateque sparsa dicitur: quin etiam in Angliam penetrasse scribitur. Dogmata haec illis attribuuntur. Duo esse Principia, Deum videlicet, bonum: & Deum malum, hoc est, Diabolum, qui omnia corpora crëet: Bonum autem Deum creare animas. Christi corpus non aliter esse in pane, quàm in aliis rebus. Baptismum abjiciunt. Ire in Ecclesias, vel in eyes orare, nihil prodesse. Episcopos Papales coetum sceleratorum, & Ecclesiam Pontificiam, coetum infernorum esse. (In hac propositione non multum à vero aberraverunt.) Matrimonia damnabant: promiscuos concubitus, cosquenefarios, sanctos ducebant. (Hic est furor Satanicus.) Corporum resurrectionem negant. Mortuos vivorum beneficiis non● juvari. (Haec propositio non est haeretica.) Animas defunctorum hominum transire per diversa corpora, etiam animalium & serpentum, si malè vixerint: sin benè, in Principis, aut alterìus illustris personae corpus. Carnem comedi prohibent. Tribuitur illis à quibusdam, quòd Evangelion urina conspersum, de muro in hosts, multis additis convitiis, projecerint. Christum non esse Deum, nec assumpsisse carnem de Virgin, sed è Coelo carnem● duxisse. Quòd Christus non fuerit verus homo, nec verè comederit: quòd non verè passus sit in cruse, nec resurrexerit, nec in coelum ascenderit. Mundum semper fuisse, semper futurum. Quòd Moses fuerit malus. Quòd Adam non fuerit à Deo. Ecclesiam non posse aliquid possidere, nisi incommuni, nec debere persequi malos, Usuram non esse prohibitam necablata restituenda, etc. Hae propositiones cù partim sint absurdae, impiae, & haereticae: partim etiam in Politia tolerari non possent: praesertim promiscuae libidines, & abolitio matrimonii, cùm Albingenses admonitiones non admitterent, sed in erroribus & sceleribus persisterent, adhortante Pontifice Romano, Magistratus politicus, collecto exercitu, duabus vicibus aliquot millia Albin gensium trucidarunt: multi etiam capitibus truncati, & cremati leguntur, qui hinc inde sunt deprehensi: fuit enim Albingensis, furor Anabaptisticus, qualis Anno 1534. nostro seculo, Anabaptistarum Monasteriensium crat. THere arose, and in progress of time got strength the heresy of the Albingenses, or Albienses, or Albians in France; whom some think to be so called from their Author, others, from a place in France. That heresy is said to take beginning first at Rome, than it was dispersed far & wide in the county of Tholouse (and that among men of rank) & more over, they writ, that it entered England. The opinions attributed to them are these. That there are two Principles, or beginnings, namely the good God; and the Evil, that is the Devil who createth all bodies: The good God creates souls. That the body of Christ is no otherwise in the bread then in other things. They throw away Baptism. That it profits nothing to go into Churches or to pray in them. That the Papal Bishops were a company of infernal spirits. (In this proposition they did not much err from the truth.) They condemned all matrimony, or marriages. Promiscuous or mingled, and wicked copulations, they accounted holy. (This is a Satanical fury.) They deny the Resurrection of the dead. They say that the dead are not helped by any kindnesses from the living. (This Proposition is not heretical.) The souls of the dead if they lived wickedly pass through divers bodies, even of Animals, Serpents. If they lived well, than they pass into the body of some Prince, or some such noble person. They forbidden the eating of flesh. It is attributed to them by some, that they threw down the books of the Gospel, sprinkled with piss from the wall, upon the enemies, with addition of many reproaches. That Christ is not God, neither took he flesh of the Virgin, but brought down his flesh with him from heaven. That Christ was not true man, nor did he truly eat: that he did not truly suffer on the cross, nor ascend into heaven. That the world hath been, and shall be eternal. That Moses was wicked. That Adam was not from God. That the Church can possess nothing but in common, Neither ought it to persecute the wicked. That usury is not forbidden, nor are things taken away to be restored, etc. These propositions being partly absurd, wicked, and heretical; partly intolerable in a Commonwealth, especially promiscuous lusts, and the abolishing of matrimony, when the Albingenses would receive no admonition, but persisted in their impieties, the civil Magistrate, the Bishop of Rome exhorting him thereunto, having gathered an Army, two several times slew some thousands of them; many also were beheaded, and many burnt (as we read) being taken here and there. For Albingensis was an anabaptistical fury, such as was that in the year 1534 in our age, Of the Monasterian. Anabaptists. Thus far out of the Chapter M. Tombs quoted out of Osiander, alleging the Albingenses against us, for an instance, that the same men that opposed Infant-baptisme, opposed Popish superstitions: How, you have heard out of Master Tombs his quoted Author. To M. T. his fourth particular of those places of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen, Tertull. p. 120. Greg. Nazian. p. 139. I have abundantly answered several times afore, Chap. 13 and 14 of our Animadversions, and elsewhere. CHAP. XXI. MAster Tombs his eleventh argument against Infant baptism is; Exercit. § 22. because the assertors of Infant baptism little agree among themselves, upon what foundation they may build Infant-baptisme. Cyprian and others of the Ancients draw it from the universality of grace, and the necessity of baptism to salvation. Augustine, Bernard, etc. bring the faith of the Church as the reason of baptising infants. The Catechism in the English Liturgy puts the promise of the sureties. The Lutherans the faith of infants. Others, the holiness of a believing Nation. Others, the faith of the next parent, and others, the faith of the next parent in Covenant in a gathered Church. We answer, 1 In general, Multaloqueris, pauc a dicis, Animad. Here is much spoken, little proved. We have but one quotation, and that is out of the English Masse-book the Episcopal Liturgy. 2 More particularly. 1 By way of retort. 2 By way of reply. 1 We retort. The Anabaptists also much differ in their foundation of their Anabaptism, some build it on bare confession of sins, what ere the man be in point of manifestation of grace. So some of the Arians, etc. See Epiphan. afore quoted in the 15 Chap. And of late, the Author of the book called the Mark, or Character of the Beast. Some on profession of forth. So many of them at this day. Some on signs of grace. So M.T. Some on making them Disciples. So M.D. and others. Yet M.T. saith in the next argument, that a man is showed to be a Disciple by baptism, and we have proved before, believers children are reckoned Disciples. Some build their Anabaptism upon I know not what. Master S.M. saith that by baptising in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is not meant, baptism with water. And those Anabaptists in Germany now, mentioned in Cloppenburgius, and by Spanhemius at the end of Cl●ppenburgius (where you have the history of them) say John Baptist was a Minister of the Law, not of the Gospel. See before in our 15 Chap. 2 By way of reply. 1 To Cyprian, etc. They hold not universality of grace, but the indefinite offer of grace. How they held in point of baptism, and upon howmany Scripture grounds, we have before shown, cap. 13, 14. 2 To Augustine we reply, that M. T. before fiercely charged Augustine for holding Infant-baptisme upon Cyprian grounds. Nor do I remember in all M. T. his quotations out of Augustine, any such thing as he here mentions of him. 3 To Bernard we reply, Thst M. T. tells us neither what nor where he saith it. It he did say so any where, we know he lived in late corrupted times, and far more worthy to be slighted in this, than Cyprian, Augustine. etc. whom M.T. hath so slighted. 4 To the English Liturgy, Tolerabiles ineptiae, Calvin. seeing M.T. aleadgeth that English-masse, those tolerable fooleries, as Calvin calls them, Covenanted against by us all, put down by Parliament, and no more to be urged against us, then against M. Tombs himself, and the Preachers of his judgement, We reply, give the Devil his due, the English Liturgy urgeth for infant baptism the 10 of Mar. And the Catechism therein saith, Faith is necessary to Baptism, what ever other unnecessary expressions be added. 5 To the Lutherans opinion, seeing we must take it upon M. T. his bare word, we say only this, That M.T. confessed, that infants may, when infants, have regeneration, saving grace, etc. 6 To that of the faith of a holy Nation we have answered afore upon M.T. his reply to 1 Pet, 29. And add so far as a Nation is holy and believing, so far all parents are such too, and so this sixth particular is all one with the fifth of believing parents, which we have maintained all along as a sufficient ground of giving their children the first seal. 8 To that of parensa in Covenant in a gathered Church, we have answered a little afore a See afore in Chap. 13. Infaults in Disciplne. we add that those that so practise, look in baptism to the saith of parents, more than to that their Covenant. CHAP. XXII. THe last, and that a weighty reason of doubting is, because Infant baptism seems to take away one, Exercit. perhaps the primary end of Baptism; Argu. 12 § 25. for many things argue that it was one end of Baptism, that it should be a sign that the baptised shows himself a disciple, and confesseth the faith in which he hath been instructed. The Argument against Infant-Baptisme, from its voiding the chief end of Baptism, confirmed. 1 The requiring of confession by John Baptist and the Apostles, was wont to be before Baptism, Luk. 3.10. Act. 8.35. Act. 16.31. 2 The frequent manner of speaking in the new Testament, which puts Baptism for Doctrine, Act. 10.37. Act. 19.3. shows this. Beza in his A not. on Act. 19.3. The answer is most apposite, in which they signify that they professed in Baptism the Doctrine propounded by John and confirmed by use of Baptism, with which they had been baptised, whereby they had acknowledged Christ but very slenderly. 3 The form of Christ's institution, Mat 28.19, compared with the phrase as it is used 1 Cor. 1.13. Or, were you baptised into the name of Paul? implies the same. On which place Beza, The third reason is taken from the form and end of Baptism, in which we give our name to Christ, being called upon, with the Father and Holy Spirit. 4 That which is said John 4, 2. He made and baptised more disciples. And Mat. 28.19. Going, make Disciples in all nations, baptising them; Intimate this. And if, as some affirm, Baptism was in use with the Jews, in the initiating of proselytes into the profession of Judaisme; this opinion is the more confirmed. But in Infant-Baptisme the matter is so carried, that Baptism serves to confirm a benefit, not to signify a profession made: and so one, perhaps the chief end of Baptism is voided. And here I think it is to be minded, that the usual description of a Sacrament, and such as are like to it, That it is a visible sign of invisible grace; hath occasioned the misunderstanding of both Sacraments, as if they signed a divine benefit, not our duty, to which in the first place the justitution had respect. In seems to some, that Infant-baptism should be good, because the devil requires witches to renounce it: which reason, if aught worth, might as well prove Baptism of any Infants, Baptism by a midwife, good; because these the devil requires them to renounce, as well that which is of the Infants of believers, by a lawful Minister. But the true reason why he requires the Baptism of witches to be renounced by them, is not because the baptism is good in respect of the administration of it; but because the Faith mentioned in the form of baptism, is good; & they that renounce not their baptism do show their adherence to that faith in some sort which cannot stand with an explicit Covenant with the Devil. Nor is the assuming of baptism in ripe years by those who were washed in infancy a renounceing of baptism, as some in their gross ignorance conceit; but indeed a firmer avouching of baptism according to Christ's mind. This more likely might be inferred from the Devil's practice in requiring witches to renounce their baptism; That the profession of Faith is the main business in Baptism, which should be before Baptism, if it were rightly administered after the first pattern. We answer, Animad. 1. In general. That as circumcising of infants, did not in se, in regard of itself, intrinsically considered, take away one end of it, to wit, that signing of duty, and obligement unto profession; so nor doth the baptism of infants. 2 That signing of profession is not the primary, that is either the first or chief end of baptism, but the signing of God's favour to us, and his giving grace into us, whereby we should afterwards walk dutifully towards him. For the seal confirms the Covenant, and so runs the Covenant of Grace. 3 We before proved by two Scriptures, b john 9.28. Acts 15.10. that the children of those parents, that are reputed members of the visible Church, were accounted and called Disciples in both Testaments. 4 That children signed with the 1 sign or seal, are engaged to be active Disciples, when they come to be of years, as in the Old Testament, so in the New, as we have before shown. For Circumcision see, Gal. 5.3. and for Baptism, see Mat. 28.19, 20. ver. 19 Go teach and Baptise, etc. ver. 20. Teaching them effectually (so the word signifies) to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded. 5 That the Anabaptists generally affirm with M.T. that they must be first made Disciples, and known to be made such, before they are baptised, and yet M. T. asserts a little afore that baptism exhibits him ●●member of the Church, and here, that baptism is a sign that manifests him to be a Disciple. Now if they have not manifestations of grace, if they be not manifestly Disciples, or discipled (as M. T. formerly spoke) they will not baptise them. And so by this they are manifestly Disciples, or discipled afore, yet manifested to be disciples in baptism. 6 Baptism of infants doth not anticipate profession, but oblige unto it in due time. 2 To answer particularly as to the reasons to prove that one end of baptism is to be a sign that the baptised shows himself a Disciple, and of his confession of faith. 1 We say that all those proofs reach but to those that were baptised at ripe years, as hath been before largely discussed. 2 M. T. his inferring that profession may be the end of baptism, doth not infer that it must be made by the baptised at every time whatsoever. Affirmatives bind always, but not to every point of time. 3 M. T. his inferring that profession is one end of Baptism, doth not conclude that it is all, or the chief end of baptism. For whereas M. T. would have that description, of such like of a Sacrament [An outward sign of invisible grace] to be an occasion of misunderstanding of both Sacraments, as if they signed a divine benefit, not our duty; we say that to our knowledge no true Protestant ever so understood it. And the Papists understand it for aught I can perceive, more of duty than they should, in that they put so much in their act, or bare doing, as if thereby to please God, as they put merit in their other actions. To that M. T. speaks in the conclusion of all his arguments, concerning the Devil, requiring witches to renounce their baptism, or rather their profession in baptism. We answer. 1 Sure enough the devil requires those to renounce their baptism that were baptised in infanc●e, when they could not make profession. If they made profession after upon that baptism, than it appears against M. T. that Infant-baptisme proves obligatory to them grown up. 2 It is no way sure that Satan doth require those witches to renounce their nominal baptism, that they received from midwives. 3 (As an answer to all) the most likely reason why Satan requires witches to renounce their baptism, being the titular seal of all their hypocritical profession is, that they might detest all wherein they had seemed any ways to have any thing to do with God. Now the God of truth, and love, make us one in every truth and mean while one in love. Amen. FINIS. An Alphabetical TABLE of some principal things, in the ensuing Animadversions. A THe 1 general Argument of M. T. of the doubtfulness of Infant Baptism retorted, chap. 1. pag. 1 Our 1 Argument out of Gen. p. 6 Our 2 17. omitted by M. T. p. 9 Our 3 urged by us, c. 2. p. 9 Animadversions upon M. T. his answer to the 1 particular argument by him propounded out of Gen. 17. c. 2. p. 11 To the 2 thence, and Col. 2.11, 12. c. 3. p. 24 To the 3 c. 4. p. 36 Animadversions upon his answer to the argument out of Acts 2.39. c. 5. p. 41 Upon that to 1 Cor 7.14. c. 6. p. 45 Upon that to Math. 19.15. Mark. 10.14, 16 Luke 18.15, 16, 17. c. 7. p. 54 Upon that to Acts 16.15, 32, 33. Acts 18.8 1 Cor. 1.16. c. 8. p. 70 Upon that to Ex. 20.6. Psal. 112.2. c. 9 p. 73 Upon that to Isay 49.2. ibid. p. 74 Upon that to 1 Cor. 10.2. ibid. p. 74 Upon that to Ephes. 5.26. ibid. p. 76 Upon that to 1 Pet. 2.9. Ex. 19.5, 6. ibid. p. 77 Upon that of the Church's succession, ibid. p. 80 Upon that to Heb. 6.2. c. 10. p. 83 Animadversions upon M. T. his second gen●rall argument out of Math. 28.19. c. 11. p. 89.92. etc. Upon his 3 general argument from john Baptist administration of Baptism, and the Apostles practice therein, c. 12. p. 10● Upon his fourth. From the use of Infant baptism in the next age after the Apostles, c. 13. p. 107 Upon his fifth from the pretended tradition of it in succeeding ages, c. 14. p. 123 In gen c. 15. p. 201, 212 In particular Upon his sixth from human-inventions accompanying it, c. 16. p. 21●. etc. In gen. c. 15. p. 201, 212 In particular Upon his seventh from errors accompanying it, c. 17 p. 212 In gen. c. 15. p. 201, 212 In particular Upon his eighth from faults in discipline accompanying it, c. 18. p. 203 In gen. c. 15. p. 201, 212 In particular Upon his ninth from its occasioning unnecessary disputes, c. 19 p. 226 Upon his tenth, that the same men that oppon Infant baptism, opposed superstition, c. 20 p. 217 Upon his 11 of the disagreeing of the paedobaptists, c. 21. p. 223 Upon his 12. that Infant baptism takes away one and of baptism viz. to show a disciple, c. 22. p 225 A wide difference between the efficacy and administration of an ordinance and the different Scripture expressions touching both, c. 1. p. 5 Act 2.39. parall●ed with Gen. 17. c. 2. p. 9 discussed, p. 10. more largely, c. 5. p. 41 The Histories of the Anabaptists, written by divers learned men, c. 14. p. 126 Clemens Alexandrinus alleged for Infant Baptism, c. 14. p. 143 Ambrose alleged for Infant Baptism, c. 14 p. 148 Aug. Alleged for Infant Baptism, c. 14 p. 150. 151 Aug. Objected against by M. T. 152. 153. etc. Aug. Vindicated by 〈◊〉, p. 157 Of the supposed Baptism of Ad●odatus (the son of August. at 15 years old, c. 14. p. 17● Infant Baptism frequent aswell in Asia as Africa, c. 14. p. 172 Arians, have been Anabaptists, c. 11. p. 94. c. 14. p. 184 Pelagians, have been Anabaptists, c. 11. p. 94. c. 14. p. 184 Arminians and other Sects have been Anabaptists, c. 11. p. 94. c. 14. p. 184 The Anabaptists d●ffer in their grounds, c. 21. p. 223 Why Augustine was not baptised till he was a man, c. 14. p. 185 Why Alipius Augustine's friend was not baptised till of age, c. 14. p. 171. & p. 186 The Anabaptists Human inventions, c. 15. p. 202 The Anabaptists Errors, p. 205 The Anabaptists Faults in Discipline, p. 207 The Anabaptists Unnecessary disputes, c. 15. p. 209 B A Parallel betw●een Baptism and circumcision, c. 2.18 M. Balls judgement about Infant Baptism, alleged and cleared, c. 4. p. 40 Of two sort of old Baptised, Catechumeni and Believers Infants, c. 7. p. 58, 59 The confessions or professions at Baptism in john Baptist and the Apostles time was neither high in nature, nor dangerous for fear of persecution, c. 7. p. 67 The Baptism of the old Testament, c. 9 p. 75 The commission to Baptise Mat. 28.19. will dot hold parallel with the corruption of abuse of marriage, Mat. 19 4, 6. the Apostles correction of abuses in the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11. to prove Math. 28. to be exclusive, c. 11. p. 97. p. 102 Basil alleged for Infant Baptism, as speaking the same with Ambrose, c. 14. p. 148 margin. De Bruis quoted by M. T. 〈◊〉 against Infant Baptism, is sound to be also against the authority of all the Scripture. but the 4 Evangelist, c 14. p. 161 Robert Lord Brook alleged by M. T. against Infant Baptism, produced by us for it. c. 14. p. 194. Baptism doth not exhibit one a member of a particular Church, c. 13. p. 207 Of private Baptism, c. 18. p. 203 C THe multiforme fantasy the Anabaptists have touching the Covenant with Abraham, c. 1. p. 2 Their conceits about the Covenant confuted, c. 1. p. 2, 3, 4 A main difference to be put between the inward efficacy, and the outward form of administration of the sign of a Covenant, c. p. 4 Children are reckoned with the parents, c. 2. p. 8. The Soul an Angel in a body, c. 2. p. 8 No Covenant of grace, but is mixed in regard of signification of temporals as well as spirituals, c. 2. p. 12 The Covenant largely discussed, c. 2. p. 17, 18, etc. why Melchisedech, Lot and job are not Circumcised, c. 3. p. 26 Churches, not unchurched for want of the 1 Seal, c. 3. p. 26. Col. 2.11.12. whether Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision, largely discussed, c. 3. p. 24. &c Cofessions at Baptism in john the Baptist and the Apostles time, nor high, nor venturous for fear of persecution, c. 7. p. 67 Cyprian Alleged for Infant Baptism, c. 14. p. 131 Cyprian Objected against, Ibid. p. 134. etc. Cyprian Vindicated, Ibid. p. 134, 13●, etc. Clemens Alexandrinns alleged for his Infant Baptism, c. 14. p. 143 Chry sostome alleged for Infant Baptism. c. 14. p. 148 Petrus Cluniacensis misquoted touching Infant Baptism, is rectified, c. 14 p. 160, 161, etc. Of the Councils of Carthage, touching Infant baptism, c. 14 p. 167 168, etc. Of the Councils of Milevis, touching Infant baptism, c. 14. p. 167 168, etc. Of the Councils of Arles, touching Infant baptism, c. 14. p. 167 168, etc. The Covenant was looked upon by the Ancients, as the ground of Infant baptism, contrary to M. T. his objection, c. 14. p. 177 Why Constantine the great was not baptised young, c. 14. p. 184, 185 Of Episcopal Confirmation, c. 16 p. 210 Whether the Church- Covenant be an human invention, whether divine. or civil And whether somewhat equivalent to it be not necessary for un●ting people into a particular Church, c. 16. p, 211 D MAtth. 28.19. Go teach, is not rendered to Disciple, or make Disciples by the Arabic, Syriack, and S. Mark, or the exactest Latins, c. 2 p. 78. or by the best translations of the N. Testament, in French, Dutch, Germane, Hebr. Another Syr. Ital. ma●g. Or by the holy Ghost, Mar. 16, 15. c. 11. p. 10● The wide difference between the two words, Matth. 28.19, 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c. 2. p. 7 E WHat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies, c. 5. p. 42. Text and margin. Epiphanius alleged for Infant Baptism, c. 14. p. 145 Cluniacensis asserts that very few or no Gentiles have been baptised, but in Infancy in all Europe, for 300 or 500 years afore him, who himself lived 1150 after Christ, c. 14. p. 165 Of the Baptism of Infants, of Excommunicates, c. 19, 216 F OF Federar, and to be signed, c. 〈◊〉. p. 20, 21, etc. federal holiness discussed, c. 6. p. 47. etc. Fulgentius is not led by August. c. 14. p. 167 The form of uniting a Church, c. 16. p. 110, 111 G GEn. 17. And Act 2.39. paralleled, c. 2. p. 9 The main hinges of the Gospel move upon the Covenant with Abraham, c. 14. p. 125 Gregory Nazianzen Alleged for Infant Baptism, c. 14. p. 139 Gregory Nazianzen Objected against by H. D. 〈◊〉. 14● Gregory Nazianzen Cleared by us, p. 141 Gregory Nazianzen Objected against by M. T. p. 142 Gregory Nazianzen Vindicated by us, p. 142 The Greek Fathers and Churches objected against touching Infant Baptism, and vindicated, c. 14. p. 143, 144, 145. H. Grotius pretended to be against Infant Baptism; cleared to be abundantly for it, c. 14. p. 145, 146, 147, 148 Genuadius alleged for Infant Baptism, c. 14 p. 150. margin. De Bruis doth not (as M. T. instances) appeal to the Greek Churches against Infant Baptism, c. 14. p. 105 H HIcronymus alleged and discussed touching imposition of Hands on them that had been baptised, c. 10. p. 88 Hefychius alleged for Infant Baptism, c. 14. p. 144 Hieronymus alleged for Infant Baptisms, c. 14. p. 149. I IMposition of hands, when, and to whom applied, c. 7. p. 58, 59, 60. etc. more, c. 10. p. 63, etc. It supposeth Baptism, c. 7. p. 66 Of Imposit on of hands out of Tertullian and jerom, c. 10. p. 86, 87, 88, 89 justin Martyr, and be under that name: Alleged for Infant Baptism, c. 13. p. 110 justin Martyr, and be under that name: Contradicted by M. T. Ibid p. 110. justin Martyr, and be under that name: Vindicated by us, Ibid. p. 111 Irenzus Alleged for Infant baptism, c. 13 p. 115, 116. Irenzus Contradicted by M. T. Ib. p. 118 Irenzus Vindicated by us, Ibid. p. 119, etc. Of the Baptising of the Infants of Excommunicates c. 1 p. 9 216. Of the Baptising of the Infants of Apostates, c. 1 p. 9 216. Of the Baptising of the Infants Of believing Grand parents, the next being unbelievers, c. 1 p. 9 216. Infant's may have saving grace confessed by the Anabaptists, c. 21. p. 224 K M. K. answered that Baptism is not that form, or forming of a particular Church c. 15. p. 207 L LVdovicus Vives alleged & answered about Infant Baptism. See Vives. M What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify, whether they differ, c. 5. p. 42 Matrimonial and federal holiness discussed c. 6. p 47. etc. N GReg. Nazianzen alleged and cleared for Infant baptism, c. 14. p. 139, 140, &c The Neocaesarian Synod alleged and cleared touching Infant baptism, c. 14. p. 146 The Father's opinion of the necessity of Infant baptism cleared, c. 14. p. 178. and c. 17 p. 212 O Origin, Alleged for Infant baptism, c. 14.127.128— Objected against, p. 129 Vindicated, p. 129-Orig. alleged by M. T. to prove Infant baptism to be a Tradition c. 14. p. 182-Vindicated by us, Ibid. p. 182 P THe Anabaptist as much a Proteus as the Paedobaptist, c. 1. p. 2 The privileges of the O. and N. Testament compared, c. 4. p. 37, 38 The difference between polliceri and promittere, c. 5. p. 42. margin. The cunning of the Pelagians opposing Infant baptism, c. 14. p. 149 The many Fathers that wrote for Infant baptism, afore the rise of Pelagianism, c. 14 p. 148 The many that wrote after the rise of Pelagianism, and yet long afore. Walafridus, c. 14 p. 150 Prosper is not led by Augustine, c. 14. p. 166 The most excellent letter of M. Philpot the Martyr, against Anabaptism, and where to be found, c, 20. p. 218. Q WHether the Questions ad Authodoxos be justin Martyrs, or whose they are, and of what antiquity, and authority, c 12. p 110,111,112,113. R MAster Daniel Rogers alleged by M. T. against Infant Baptism, is produced by us as for it, c. 14. p. 196 Of Robert Lord Brooks in like manner, ibid. p. 194 S THe Seed of Abraham distinguished, c. 2. p. 15, 16 M. T. would have Churches subject to Nationall Synods (without adding any limitation) yet disputes against the baptising of infants, as to carry it by argument, what ever Synods should determine, c. 9 p. 78 The mention in ancients of giving the Lords Supper to Infant's 〈◊〉, c 14. p. 188 189 Of Sureties used in Baptism their antiquity, the rise, the seeming ground, c. 16. p. 210 T HOw the N. Testament quotations out of the Old, hold analogy, c. 3. p. 26 Tertullian de Corona Militis, alleged, and discussed touching imposition of hands at Baptism, c. 10. p. 86 Tertul. lib. de Anima, Alleged for Infant baptism, c. 13. p. 121 Tertul. lib. de Anima, Vossius his sense upon him, Ibid. 122 Tertul. lib. de Anima, junius his Notes upon him, Ibid. p. 122 Theodoret alleged for Infant baptism▪ 150-why the Emp. Theodosius Magnus was not baptised till at man's estate, c. 14. p. 187 V LVdovicus Vives urged for adult baptism and answered, c. 9 p 81, 82 Walafridus Strabo alleged by M. T. for adult baptism, is answered by Vossius, c. 13 p. 109 Vossius intimated for Infant baptism, but is showed to be for it, Ibid. p. 109 Of the union of members into a particular Church, c. 16. p. 210 W OF Witnesses or sureties at Baptism. Their antiquity, what mistake might bring them in, c. 11. p. 101, 102 Walafridus Strabo alleged for adult baptism, answered, c. 13. p. 109. more largely, c. 14. p. 158. Of women's baptising, c. 18. p. 203 FINIS.