which hath been before more largely evinced it be not sufficiently Evident That the Baptizing of Children is of the Institution of Christ and Practice Apostolical Thus far Dr. Hammond Next the Author saith he will give us some account of the insufficiency and Weakness if not wickedness of those first Authorities that have been leaned upon to prove this Practice to be an Apostolical Tradition c. and he reduceth it to these following Dionysius the Areopagite the Decretal Institutions or Epistles of several Popes as he calleth them Justin Martyr Origen and Cyprian Concerning the two first of these we look upon them as broken Reeds and we lean not on them at all and to produce an Argument for the Apostolicalness of Paedobaptism from these is as Dr. Hammond speaks of some which he likes not to be look upon of the number of the Blind and the Lame that are of more use to betray and lose than defend and secure that Fort in which they are placed Know then Sir that we except against them as much as your self and you know you have taken all your exceptions against these Romish Forgeries from the learned Pens of Paedobaptists 'T is by the elaborate pains of the Magdeburgenses Osiander Perkins Reynolds Rivet c. that they are detected who as you observe have laid open the Bastardy both of the one and of the other From these Mr. Tombes gleans what he hath to say upon this point in his Praecursor Mr. Tombes his Praecursor where you have them collected to your hand and from whence you fetch what you present us with and here I am tempted again to draw another Paralel you do so exactly tread in his steps as first beginning as he doth with Osiander then follows Rivet afterward Perkins then the Decretal-Epistles which pass under the name of Clement Hyginus c. All which are condemned as Spurious by Mr. Perkins and he gives undeniable Arguments for it But I observe your little design to render Infant Baptism the more odious by that appellation you give Clement Hyginus with the rest of them namely Pope say you the Decretals and Institutions of several Popes in this Second Century as that of Pope Clement Pope Hyginus and is it not strange â—hat the Pope should appear so early 'T is not handsome thus to impose upon the weaker sort that are not read in Church-History As for others that are more learned they know that Hyginus the Verus or true one of that name is numbred amongst the first good Bishops that succeeded the Apostles for so we find him in Dr. Prideaux his Catologue and to be the man that set Justin Martyr at work to frame his Apology for the Christians and was no Pope in the sence it is usually taken viz. An Oeconomical Bishop challenging unto himself and usurping Authority over the whole Church Euseb Lib. 4. c. 9. He is calculated to be the 8th Bishop of Rome living in the dayes of Antoninus Pius about a hundred and fourty years after Christ and very near to the Apostles Having thus discarded the feigned Dionysius and the Personatus Hyginus as Mr. Tombes observes he is called by Ostander with the rest of the cheating Tribe laying no stress at all upon what they say as touching the Apostolicalness of Infant-Baptism we shall notwithstanding by the Author 's good leave still retain a Venerable esteem of the other three that follow For honest Men are nevertheless honest for being rankt with cheats though I confess they are the more lyable to suspicion by such as do not examine things First for Justin Martyr we shall not altogether quit our claim to him though there be so litle left of him as Mr. Baxter notes that we cannot expect that he should speak expresly to the point Justin Martyr is supposed to have lived in St. John's days Scultetus saith he flourished Anno 140. both because he is brief and treateth on other Theams to which this did not belong and because the Church then living amongst Heathens had so much to do in converting and Baptizing the Aged that they had little occasion to treat about Children especially it being a point not Controverted but taken for granted by the Christians who knew God's dealing with the Jews Church yet nevertheless saith Mr. Baxter Justin Martyr gives such hints by which his Judgment and the Practice of the Church Baxter plaint Scripture-Proof p. 155. even in those dayes may be discerned Touching what is said in Justin Martyr's Responses against which the Author levels his discourse and especially what is said in his 56th Question ad Orthodoxos the Author sayes right that many of the afore-said Learned Writers that are Paedobaptists do disown it as spurious And Mr. Baxter himself Acknowledgeth the same that though the Book be Ancient yet it was either Spurious or Interpolate True but withal gives divers passages for our turn out of other Works of his as that in his Dialogue with Tryphon Part 2. Propos 3. Nos certe qui hujus ope ad Deum accessimus non carnalem istam Circumcisionem fed Spiritualem Hanc nos per Baptisma ut pote peccatores nati a Deo miserante accepimus eam licet omnibus similiter accipere i. e. It was Lawful for all to receive the Spiritual Circumcision which he saith was done by Baptism and if all might receive it even so Infants who were the subjects of the Legal Circumcision for they must be a part of the All and not excluded Another touch we have in that Passage of Justin importing Baptism to be the only way to Remission of Sins and Salvation and he judged that Infants are forgiven and saved therefore he judged that they might be Baptized As for the places I refer the Reader to Mr. Baxter's Plain Scripture-Proof where we have them quoted pag. 155. 2. For Origen we shall with greater confidence adhere to him notwithstanding the frivolous Cavils of the Author which are reducible to these 6 Heads 1. His First is That Origen is but one single Testimony for the practice of Infant-Baptism to be Apostolical Reply This will not pass for a Truth because we have also the Testimony of Irenaeus Irenaeus lived in the 2d Century with Justin Martyr in the Age of those that saw the Apostles and therefore could not be ignorant of their Practice who lived in the Second Century with Justin even in the Age of those that saw the Apostles within the first Century after them Dr. Hammond in his Letter of Resolution Sec. 40. pag. 212. where also we have quoted that Common though Famous passage of his Extant in Lib. 2 Adv. Haeres C. 39. Omnem aetatem Sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsam erat similitudinem Omnes enim venit per semet ipsum salvare Infantes Parvulos Pueros Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum i. e. Christ did Sanctify every Age by his own susception of it and
but rather as the Magdeburgenses do Cent. 2. p. 111. to the Mystery of Iniquity Mr. Geree of vind Paedobapt which so works in the Church of Rome in their corrupting and contaminating the simple forme of Baptism Indeed saith Mr. Philpot the Martyr to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism and afterward was satisfied by the strength of his Arguments if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which have corrupted God's Word by false interpretation and hath perverted the true use of Christs Sacraments you may seem to have good handfast of your opinion against the Baptism of Infants but for as much as it is of more Antiquity and hath its begining from God's Word and from the use of the Primitive Church it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected or thought inexpedient Nor hath the Baptism of Adult Persons in former times been free from many corrupt and ridiculous Human inventions as Dr. Homes out of Binius and Epiphanius shews at large The Council of Carthage tells us Bin. Ca. 34 de rebus Eccles Cap. 26. that sick men lying speechless might be Baptized upon the witness of men touching their former condition The 4th Council of Carthage orders That those of ripe years to be Baptized must be dyered Bin. Cap. 85. and kept from Fesh and Wine a long time and after that having been examined several times must be Baptized Epiphanius declares that the Eunomians called Anabaptists do Rebaptize all that come to them Epiphan Anacephal pag. 108. Edit lat Bazil turning their Heads downward and their Heels upward Some of the Anabaptists called Hemerabaptists thought that none could be saved unless they were daily-Baptized whence they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerard. Joh. Voffus de Anaebaptismo Thes 17. Gastius de Anaebap Exod. p. 50. daily Baptists and so were cleansed from their Sins Singulis diebus mergerentur ita ut Abluantur Sanctificentur ab omni culpa Secondly Another small plot or piece of tunning lyes in linking some spurious Authors with those which are Authentick to render also their Authority Suspicious There are some Ancient Writers which are very express for Infant-Baptism of great Authority in the Church of Rome which are rejected as spurious or interpolate by the Protestants such is that of Dimysius the Areopagite and the Decretal Epistles who notwithstanding have in high account the Testimonies of those Ancients viz. Justin Martyr Irenaus Origen Cyprian c. which are reputed as Authentick and of undoubted truth 3. There is much Impertinency in his Historical Account that is not concerned in the Question As the Story of Constantine Dedication Consecration or Baptizing of Churches and Bells Exposure of the Reliques of Saints for adoration Prohibiting Priests Marriages with much more ejusdem farinae But what is all this to Infant-Baptism 4. There are some errors or falsities in it As Tertullian's standing up against Infant-Baptism in the 3d Century when he stood up no more against it than he did against the Baptizing of Young-men that were unmarried and Young-Widows also whose Baptism he would have delayed 'T is certain he argues for the delay of Baptism in some cases praecipue circa paroulos Tertul. de Bapt. C. 8. especially that of little ones meaning the Children of unbelievers as is conceived by Estius Pamelins and divers others A Second Error respecting this Century is That the Magdeburgenses tell us they altered the form of Baptism from dipping to sprinkling referring us to Cent. 3. pag. 129. where they speak no such thing nor any-where else in the whole History of Baptism A Third Escape is That Infant-Baptism was not in use in the greatest part of the 4th Century either in the Latin or Greek Church Now this is very false nor will that help him which he adds afterward Scil. It is true saith he towards the latter end of this Century it is said that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children as Magdeburg Cent. 4. p. 415. but they say no such thing it is only the Authors own saying and really it troubles me to see so much prevarication every-where Take Reader the true account of what the Magdeburgenses say de Ritibus circa Baptismum about Baptismal Rites They are large in this Chapter and begin it thus That the power of Baptizing was in this Age in the Priests and principally in the Bishops and then in Presbyters and Deacons and then a few lines after they tell us Baptizabantur autem publice in templis cujuscunque sexus aetatis conditionis homines Persons of each Sex and of all Ages and Conditions were publickly Baptized in the Temples Nor hath this Chapter any such passage at the beginning middle or latter end that in some parts of Africa they did Baptize Children 5. I will not say there is a Tincture of prophaneness but am sure of something like it in that saying of the Authors pag. 128. of his Treatise viz. In this 6th Century saith he we meet with a dreadful piece of Infant-Baptism viz. The Heads of 6000 Infants that had been murdered buried in a Warren near a Monastery as testified by Vldricus to P. Nicolas Cent. 6. p. 338. But the Magdeburgenses are not so bold as the Author to call such horrid murder Infant-Baptism A tender conscience me thinks should be afraid thus to play with Holy things 6. This History of his affords some contradiction to himself I mean to what he hath before written for in the first part of his Book Cap 2. pag. 7. he quotes Bede for a Testimony that the Baptizing of Believers is the only true Baptism Bede saith That Men were first to be instructed unto the Knowledg of the Truth then to be Baptized as Christ hath taught c. Cent. 8. p. 220. Whereas in this his Second part of the Treatise which is for disproving Infant-Baptism pag. 130. Bede also concludes for the Baptizing of Infants Cent. 8. p. 218. 7. We observe too great a boldness in those scandalous Reflections which he casts upon the Churches of the Reformed Religion sparing none neither Lutherans nor Calvinists nor Episcoparians nor Presbyterians But me thinks 't is a piece of great indiscretion to fly out so much against the Church of England for if she be contented to give the Antipaedobaptists indifferent good quarter although they do not conform to her why should any of them vilify her in this manner As for the Kirk of Scotland the Author may more securely mock at it and there is no danger in having a fling at the Directory or at the old Parliament's Ordinance of May 2d 1648. which made it imprisonment to affirm Infant-Baptism is unlawful CHAP. III. Containing his Exceptions against Infant-Baptism because built as he says upon 1. Fabulous Traditions 2. Mistaken Scriptures with an Answer thereto 1. The first and Principal ground saith he that hath been asserted for this Practice is Ecclesiastical and
and he might have learned the contrary from the Magdeburgenses Cent. 4. cap. 10. p. 1218 1219. where they say extant inter Origenis opera Latina facta quaedam quorum interpres fuit Hieronimus Erasmi judicio Divers of Origen's Works are Translated by Jerom. This is the judgment of Erasmus as his Homilies upon Jeremy Ezechiel his Homilies upon Luke and the Romans to both which Jerom affixeth his own Preface as Erasmus observes and in both these have we the point of Infant-Baptism asserted and so we see the Author might have spared the pains of telling such a Story of Ruffinus for we give the places which are for our turn out of Origen according to Jerom's version and if Ruffinus hath no credit with him I hope he will allow a little to Jerom 3. Lastly for that other ancient Father Cyprian he cannot let him pass without some exceptions such as they are though me thinks that of Vossius should silence all Cavils viz That the Testimony of Cyprian for Infant-Baptism both in his time and before is beyond all exceptions And Grotius likewise tells us that the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infant-Baptism for Fidus did not deny their Baptism but only denyed they ought to be Baptized before the eight day But let us hear what he hath to except against Cyprian which is 1. Because he doth not urge the Practice from any Apostolical Tradition or Precept but from his own and the Council of sixty six Bishops Arguments Reply But what though no mention be made here of Apostolical-Tradition Origenes Cyprianus Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse Magdeburg Cent. 1. Lib. 2. c. 6. p. 496. yet it follows not that he held it not as such and the Magdeburgenses have before told us that both Origen and Cyprian that lived near the Apostles affirm that even in the Apostles time Infants were Baptized But to see how inflexible and stiff this Antagonist is if saith he he had Asserted it for an Apostolical Tradition his word would have been no sooner taken than when he tells us that Chrysm was so To which I Reply And why then shall Tertullian's supposed Word against Infant-Baptism be taken and pass for currant who was as the Magdeburgenses inform us the first inventer of Chrysm and Cyprian 't is like learned it of him who was as the Author calls him his great Master Judg Reader whether this be fair and equal dealing 2. His other Exception which he never learned from his great Master Mr. Tombes who was too wise to urge it when he opposed the Testimony of Cyprian Examen Sec. 7. pag. 10. is because there is good ground to question whether this was Cyprian's and sixty-six Bishops Conclusion And why so 1. Because we meet with no such Council and that is strange for one that hath launched as he hath done into the vast Ocean of Antiquity neither yet can it appear where it was held Something must be sayd though it be but meer wrangling Well I perceive the Ancient Fathers that lived next after Cyprian were dim-sighted and could not see what good ground there was to question whether ever Cyprian had such a Council Had they had the perspicacity of this Author they would never have retained so venerable an esteem of it as is evident they had in their frequent and respective quotations of it As Nazianzen Orat 3. in S. Lavacrum Chrysost Hom. ad Neophit Ambros in Luc. and Hieronimus Lib. 3. Dialog Contr. Pelag. and Austin in very many places and no less weakness is there in what follows viz. And if Austin's Argument before mentioned be good to prove an Apostolical Tradition because no Council had determined it it concludes against any such Council Reply A pittiful mistake or misunderstanding Austin's Words which are Quod universa tenet Ecclesia c. That which is universally received and practised in the Church and had not its first Institution from some Council The Author should have markt that but hath been ever retained may be believed to be an Apostolical Tradition which indeed is an undeniable Position and being applyed by Austin to the point in hand seems to be a Demonstration of the Apostolicalness of Infant-Baptism Austin therefore calls it an Apostolical Tradition because it was alwayes practised in the Church and had not its first Institution from Councils neither in Cyprian's Council nor any one else being of greater Antiquity than any of them Neither can any man name when it began since the Apostles and for that reason we cannot otherwise conceive rationally of it than that it had its first Original from them I shall only add those remarkable Words of Mr. Philpot the Martyr in his Letter to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism which with the Scripture-Arguments he used proved so effectual that as Mr. Fox in his Book of Martyrs tells us the dissatisfied Person came thereby to be established in the doctrine of Infant-Baptism and dyed in the Belief of its warrantableness I can declare saith Mr. Philpot out of Ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours and then cites Origen and Cyprian out of Austins 28th Epistle to Jerom where are these words viz Cyprian did not make any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his own fellow-fellow-Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized These Authorities saith that famous Martyr a little before his death I do alledg not to ty the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but lies for them and new-Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment And so I shall leave the Author to his Boasting in what follows and the impartial Reader to judg whether our Testimonies from Antiquity be forged and fabulous as he would render them only I must not let pass an Objection which he starts and which is usually made by us which he had better have left Dormant than to give so slight an Answer to it Objection It is sayd That by Tertullian's opposing it it may seem that there were some that practised it in the 3d Century and can it be supposed that any did so except it had been warranted by such Apostolical Tradition Observe Reader the answer which he gives Answer It is granted Tertullian did oppose it But who it was that did assert it and whether upon any such account as supposed is not mentioned it will be on their part to prove the one and the other Reply 1. We gather from this Answer that the Author cannot have the face to deny it was practised in the 3d Century for if Tertullian did Oppose it it must be supposed it was Practised else
the H. Ghost hath no intent ☜ to bind and determine our Practice to this or that for seeing the word he useth is indifferent for both he would have left us some light either from precept or example which way he would have Sacramental This Assumption is confirm'd by this that no-where is it expressed that it was done by Dipping yea in some it is more than probable that it was not viz. Act. 2.41 there being in one day 3000 Baptized which might well be done by Sprinkling but not by Dipping So Act. 10.47 there be many Baptized at a time and place when there could not be accommodation of water and other conveniences for total Dipping Yea Peters phrase can any Man forbid Water imports a bringing in of Water to the place for the use which might well be done for Sprinkling but not for Dipping Also Act. 16.33 There is a Man all his Family straight-way Baptized in a Prison and in the night at which time and place Water for Dipping so many could not be had but easily for Sprinkling CHAP. VII Wherein there is a pretence to some eminent Witness that hath been born against Infant-Baptism from first to last THe first that we shall mention saith the Author is that Excellent Testimony Tertullian bore against it upon the first appearance of it in the 3d Century Reply 1. It is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church hath divers passages seemingly against Infant-Baptism but yet withal it must be considered that his Testimony such as it is is but the Testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church and even from this instance we may learn the great Antiquity of Infant-Baptism that it hath been in use above 15 hundred years as it appears upon record for Tertullian according to Helvicus wrote his Book of Prescriptions about the year 195. which was about 97 years after St. John's Death and 't is probable Mr. Baxter of Infant-Baptism when he wrote his Book he had arrived to the years of thirty or fourty so that according to this calculation he lived about sixty or seventy years after St. John and yet as early days as these were Children were then Baptized for else why should Tertullian be so earnest in disswading them not to be over-hasty in the doing it Cunctatio utilior praecipue circa parvulos he would have them defer the Baptizing of Infants aswel as those of riper years which shews that it was then the custom of the Church to Baptize Children aswell as grown Persons Reply 2. Whereas the Author saith Tertullian lived in the 3d Century Irenaeus contra Haeretic Lib. 2. c. 39. this is true but that the first appearance of Infant-Baptism was in this Age is certainly false for Irenaeus who lived in the second Century makes mention of it Reply 3. Tertullian's Testimony in this case is so far from being excellent that it is contemptible and not to be regarded as may appear by two Reasons First Because he was very corrupt and unsound in his judgment P. Martyr loc com Clas 4. Loc. 8. Sect. 5. It is observed by Peter Martyr in his Common places that when Tertullian wrote his book de Baptismo he was fallen from the Church and from the Orthodox-Faith into the foul error of Montanism Had he been sound in the Faith in all other points it had not been enough to scruple any one touching the point of Infant-Baptism because of his dissent because he only was the man we read of that seems to be against it how much less is this authority to be valued when so corrupt that Jerom counted him little less than a Heretick The Magdeburg Divines whom the Author makes so much use of give us a Catalogue of his Naevi or errors As 1. That he did Deo corpulentiam tribuere ascribe unto God Grosseness or Fleshiness 2. That he did speak concerning Christ incommode periculose unsafely and dangerously 3. That he condemned second marriages ut stupra as Whoredoms 4. That he brought in and augmented many filthy Ceremonies in the Church which he borrowed from the Montanists as anointing the body after Baptism c. 5. And lastly though they mention many other gross errors he affirms in his Book de Baptismo that it is the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop to Baptize Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus and none must do it but by his leave Presbyters and Deacons he allows to Baptize but not without his Authority and in case of extremity that is when one is like to dye and in the want of a Minister it may be lawful for a layman to Baptize not excepting Women provided they did it privately and not in the Church by which passage it is more than probable he was for Baptizing Infants rather than that they should dye without it now let any indifferent Reader judge what a precious witness the Author hath singled out to lead the Van against Infant-Baptism A second Reason why Tertullian's Testimony deserves not to be stiled excellent is this because his arguments are so poor and weak that they will sooner administer occasion of laughter than conviction I acknowledg the Author hath drest them up very handsomly and shewed so much artifice herein leaving out somethings that are most gross that some who have weak heads and no very charitable thoughts towards the way of Infant-Baptism will think Tertullian and he were of one mind both against it and that on very good grounds 1. Because saith the Author out of Tertullian The practice of Baptizing Children was built upon the mistake of that Scripture Matt. 19.14 Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not c. It is true saith Tertullian the Lord saith do not forbid them to come unto me let them come when they grow elder when they learn when they are taught why they come c. upon which the Magdeburgenses have this sentence seutit Tertullianus Mira opinione Cap. 3. Cap. 4. c. Tertullian was of a strange opinion then they repeate those weak passages before mentioned As before intimated in Chap. 7. according to which Dotage the Disciples did wisely in forbidding Children to come and Christ did weakely in rebuking them for it inviting them to come Let them come saith Christ though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Children the wise men found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the young-Child or Infant with Mary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Luke the exactest Historian new-born Babes or sucking Children that are carried in Arms and such wore those whom Christ invites to come unto him brought in all likelyhood by their Parents that did believe or made some profession of their Faith as appears by this because they brought their Children for a Spiritual end to receive some special favour or blessing from Christ and for this Christ would have them come