this one thing saith he which Christ did not prescribe nor did the Apostles that we find so conceive it yet saith the Doctor Christs prescription must be indisspensably used In reply to this I shall not spend much time to evidence this forme to be Christ's prescription If the expresse words at his parting from the world Mat. 28. Go ye therefore and teach or receive to discipleship all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be not a prescription of Christs and if the universall doctrine and continuall practice of the whole Church through all times be not testimonie sufficient of the Apostles conceiving it thus and a competent ground of the indispensable tinuing the use of it I shall not hope to perswade with him onely I shall mind him of the words of S. Athanasius in his Epistle to Serapion Tom. 1. p. 204. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that is not baptized in the name of all three receives nothing remains empty and imperfect For perfection is in the Trinity no baptisme perfect it seems but that And if this will not yet suffice I shall then onely demand whether he can produce so expresse grounds from Christ or the Apostles or the Vniversal Church of God through all ages or from any one ancient Father for his denying baptisme to infants What in this place he addes farther from me out of the Practicall Catechisme that I confesse that by Christs appointment the baptized was to be dipt in water i. e. according to the Primitive antient custome to be put under water is a strange misreporting of my words I wonder Mr. T. would be guilty of it The words in the Pract. Cat. are visibly these By Christ's appointment whosoever should be thus received into his familie should be received with this ceremonie of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the Primitive anetint custome to be put under water three times or in stead of that to be sprinkled with it where 1. All that Christ's appointment is affixt to is the receiving all that should be received into Christ's familie with this ceremonie of Water 2. For the manner of that reception by water t is set down disjunctively therein to be dipt three times or in stead of that to be sprinkled with it These are evidently my words no way affirming either the dipping or sprinkling one exclusively to the other to be appointed by Christ but onely the ceremonie of water whether it be by dipping in it or sprinkling with it either of which may be signified by the word used from Christ by S. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptize yee What ground the Church of Christ hath had to disuse immersion and in stead of putting the whole body under water only to dip the face or sprinkle it with water I shall not now discourse all that I have to do in this place being to vindicate my self that I have no way affirmed the putting under water used by the Primitive Church to be appointed by Christ exclusively to sprinkling and that I hope I have already done by the exact reciting of my words which had been so much misreported by him And so I have done with his 24th Chapter For as to the objection against Mr. M. drawn from his covenanting to performe the worship of God according to Gods word and admiring that ever mortal man should dare in Gods worship to meddle any jot farther then the Lord hath commanded and yet in point of infant baptisme following the Talmud I that am farre from Mr. M. his perswasions as well as practices am not sure bound to give answer for him Aetatem habet let him answer for himself and when he doth so 't were not amiss he would consider whether Episcopal government stand not on as firme a basis in the Church of God as Infant baptisme is by him vouched to do CHAP. II. Of Christ's words Mat. 28.19 Sect. 1. The Doctors pretended concessions examined Christ's institution of baptisme not set down Mat. 28. but necessarily before that time HIS 25. Chapter is a view of my interpretation of Mat. 28.19 which lyes thus Goe and disciple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples receive into discipleship all nations baptizing them in the name c. teaching them c. thereby evidencing that the making or receiving disciples not supposing any precedent instruction but looking wholly on it as subsequent can no way exclude the Christians infants from baptisme when they are thus brought to the Church to be entred into the School of Christ and undertaken for that they shall learn when they come to years And to this a long proemial answer he hath of many lines which begins thus Though I conceive Dr. H. to ascribe more power to the Canons of the Prelates about the Sacraments then is meet being one who hath written in defence of the Common prayer Book yet by this allegation of Mat. 28.19 he seems tacitely to yield that if the words there include not infants under the discipled then there is something in the New Testament which excludes infants from baptisme although he say § 96. I do not believe or pretend that that precept of Christ doth necessarily inferre though it do as little deny that infants are to be baptized Before I proceed to that which followes 't is not amiss to view in passing how many incongruities are here amass't together in these few words For whereas my having written in defence of the Common Prayer Book is made use of as an evidence to inferre that I ascribe more to the Canons of Prelates then is meet it is certain 1. that the Common Prayer book stands not by the Canons of the Prelates but by Act of Parliament and consequently if I had been guilty of a confest partiality to the Common Prayer book yet were this no evidence of my ascribing any thing therefore sure not more then is meet or too much to the Canons of Prelates 2dly It never yet appeared that by writing in defence of the Common Prayer book I offended at all therefore surely not about either much less against both the Sacraments 3ly The making my defence of the Common Prayer book written long ago a proof that I oftend now in somewhat else viz. in attributing too much to the Canons of the Bishop is 1 the connecting together things that are most disparate concluding quidlibet ex quolibet and 2dly a plain begging of the question for such certainly it is in respect of him with whom he disputes and so must be till he shall offer proof that I have erred in that defence The same as if he should conclude that he who hath once written the truth were obliged the next time to swerve from it So when he mentions my allegation of Mat. 28.19 the word allegation must signifie that I produce and so allege that text as a proof of my position But this he knows I do not But only suppose the
of the antient Christian writers no nor any of those the Doctor cites ever derives it from the Jewish practice But certainly this is of no force for 1. So long as none of all these deny it to be so derived and when the matter it self speaks it and the agreement between what we find in the Christian Church with what we find among the Jewes there is no want either of truth or sobriety in my assertion that Christs institution of baptisme was founded in the Jewish practice of baptizing their natives and their proselytes and that their custome being to baptize infant children Christs institution also being by the Apostles understood to belong to the infant childrens baptisme was in that respect also conformable to the Jewish copy and so still the Jewish practice the foundation of the Christian What he addes from several antient testimonies shortly pointed at that they shew that the Fathers took the baptisme of infants not to have foundation in the Jewish practice but in the conceit they had that baptisme did regenerate give grace and save and was necessary for them to enter into the kingdome hath nothing of weight in it For 1. Their conceiting that baptisme had this force from Christs institution no way prejudges Christs founding his institution in the foregoing Jewish practice T is as if he should thus argue the Fathers conceived the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be usefull for the confirming of our faith therefore they took that Sacrament not to be sounded in the postcoenium of the Jewes They conceived imposition of hands to conferre a Character on those that were thus ordained to holy orders therefore this was not founded in the Jewish custome of receiving Doctors into the Sanhedrim by laying on of hands The foundation of the institution is one thing and the benefits of it being instituted is another and yet both these are found to belong to the same thing 2dly Their very opinion that baptisme did regenerate and was necessary to enter into the kingdome as it is taken by the Fathers from the words of Christ to Nicodemus Joh. 3. Except a man be born again v. 3. and that of water v. 5. by baptisme he cannot enter into the kingdome of God so was that speech of Christ taken from the customary doctrine of the Jewes among whom baptisme was said to regenerate and to enter into the Church as that was the portal to the kingdome of God and accordingly when Nicodemus seems not to understand it Christ appeals to the Jewish doctrine or tradition Art thou a Ruler a Master in Israel and knowest not these things and therefore again those perswasions of the Fathers are far from unreconcileable with that which I have affirmed of the founding the Christian in the Jewish baptisme Nay 4. That the Fathers in their discourses of baptisme do ordinarily lay the foundation of it in Moses or the baptisme of the Jewes and so might as well found the baptisme of Christian infants there the Jewes baptisme as hath appeared belonging to such hath formerly been evidenced from Gregorie Nazianzen Orat. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so from others also What he now addes of womens baptizing among Papists and the allowance thereof formerly among us of private baptisme of the use of propounding questions to the infant which he is pleased to style ridiculous of the sureties answering in the childs behalf and expressing their desire to be baptized into the faith recited of the custome of baptizing onely at Easter and Whitsontide of sprinkling or powring water on the face of a confession in the Pract. Cat. that all men were instructed antiently before they were baptized is all amast together if it might be to make up one accumulative argument but is utterly insufficient to do so All that he concludes from the mention of all these is but his own resolution not to answer the testimonies which I had alledged from the Fathers to prove that Infant baptisme was an Apostolical tradition His words are these upon the mentioning of those particulars And therefore for the present I shall put by the answering of the stale and rotten allegations out of the Fathers for infant baptisme brought by the Doctor because having said so much Here indeed by his therefore I am told the reason why he was willing to mention those other particulars so causelesly and unseasonably viz. by way of diversion as dextrous persons are wont to do for the removing of difficulties to put by the answering of the allegations out of the Fathers But I must not thus farre complie with Mr. T. The main issue of the whole dispute must divolve to this the doctrine of the antient Church in this matter For. 1. baptisme being instituted by Christ long before his crucifixion and 2. The forme wherein he instituted it being not set down in the Gospels and so 3. The Apostles practice being our onely guide for the resolving such difficulties as these whether infants were admittable or no to baptisme the foundation thereof among the Jewes visibly belonging to infants but it being still possible that this might be changed in Christs institution it is not now imaginable what way should be open to us of this age 1600 years after those times to discern Christs institution in this matter but by the words or actions of or some kind of intimation from the Apostles how they understood Christs institution Of this one place we have 1 Cor. 7. which comes in incidentally speaking to another matter and notifies the Apostles sense by their practice visibly enough and defines for the baptizing of infants in those dayes But to them that will not acknowledge this sense of those words how fair and easy soever there is but one possible method remaining in this as in all other questions of fact as evidently this is whether in the Apostles times and by their appointment children were received to baptisme or no viz. to appeal to those that could not be ignorant of this matter who by succession and tradition the one from the other had the Apostles practice the interpreter of their sense of Christs institution conveyed and handed down unto them and are to us their late posterity the only competent witnesses of this matter of fact and so are in all reason to decide the controversie and give a final conclusion to the debate between us This therefore being the last part of my method in the positive part of the Resolution of that Quaere I professe to have laid the most weight upon it according to the grounds set down in the first Quare concerning the deciding of such controversies and consequently must still insist upon it and not be put off by Mr. T. his dexteritie and that in this matter I may not fail of giving the Reader some evidence I shall again resume it and give him a competent series of testimonies some formerly mentioned and now put more into forme of evidence and others added to them so
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we affirme of this the same things which our divine officers of the Church being instructed by divine tradition have brought down unto us and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our divine guides i. e. the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Maximus considering this appointed that infants should thus be admitted according to the sacred manner nothing can be more clear then that the Apostolical tradition is by this antient and elegant writer vouched for the baptizing of infants as a sufficient account of that matter against the reproaches and scoffes of profane or heathen men who deemed it unreasonable And so there is a most convincing testimonie for that time wherein that author wrote which must needs be in the fourth Century before Theodorus Presbyters debating the question concerning him but most probably more antient and so to be placed in this third age In the midst of this third age An. Chr. 248. was S. Cyprian made Bishop of Carthage and ten years after he suffered martyrdome i. e. 158 years after the age of the Apostles In the year 257 he sat in Councell with 66 Bishops see Justellus in his Preface to the African Canons p. 21. and their decrees by way of Synodical Epistle are to be seen in his Ep. 58. ad Fidum fratrem which is now among his works Pamel Edit p. 80. The Councell was in answer to some questions about baptisme and accordingly he there sets down his own opinion together with the decrees of that Councell of 66 Bishops which were assembled with him And so this as it is an antient so it is more then a single testimonie that of a whole Councell added to it and yet farther to increase the authority of it S. Augustine cites this Epistle more then once and sets it down almost intire as a testimony of great weight against heretikes and so t is cited by S. Hierome also l. 3. dial contr Pelag. In this Epistle the question being proposed by Fidus whether infants might be baptized the 2d or 3d day or whether as in circumcision the 8th day were not to be expected he answers in the name of the Councel Vniversi judicavimus t was the resolution or sentence of all nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denegandam that the mercy and grace of God was not to be denyed to any humane birth to my child though never so young by that phrase mercy and grace of God evidently meaning baptisme the rite of conveighing them to the baptized adding that t is not to be thought that this grace which is given to the baptized pro atate accipientium vel minor vel major tribuitur is given to them in a greater or lesse degree in respect of the age of the receivers and that God as he accepts not the person so nor the age of any confirming this by the words of S. Peter Act. 10. that none was to be called common or unclean and that if any were to be kept from baptisme it should rather be those of full age who have committed the greater sins and that seeing those when they come to the faith are not prohibited baptisme quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiqua primâ nativitate contraxit qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso faciliùs accedit quòd illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata how much more ought not the infant to be forbidden who being new born hath no sin upon him but that which by his birth from Adam he hath contracted as soon as he was born who therefore should more easily be admitted to pardon because they are not his own but others sins which are then remitted to him Concluding that as none were by the decree of that Councel to be refused baptisme tum magis circa infantes ipsot recens natus observandum atque retinendum so this was the rather to be observed and retained about infants and new born children Thus much and more was the sentence of that antient Father and that Councel and as the occasion of that determination was not any antipaedobaptist doctrine there had no such then so much as lookt into the Church that we can hear of but a conceit of one that it should be deferr'd to the 8th day which was as much infancy as the first and so both parties were equally contrary to the Antipaedobaptists interests the condemned as well as the Judges so that it was no new doctrine that was then decreed or peculiar to S. Cyprian who had one singular opinion in the matter of baptisme appears also both by the concurrence of the whole Councel that convened with him and by the expresse words of Saint Augustine Ep. 28. ad Hieronym Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod decretum condens novum sed ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans mox natum rite baptizari posse cum suis quibusdam coepiscopis censuit Blessed Cyprian saith he not making any new decree but keeping the faith of the Church most firme decreed with a set number of his fellow Bishops that a child new-born might fitly be baptized Which shewes it the resolution of that Father also that baptizing of Infants was the faith of the Church before Cyprians time not onely the opinion but the Faith which gives it the authority of Christ and his Apostles In the next or fourth Century about the year of Christ 370. flourished Gregorie Nazianzen and dyed in the year 389. who though he be by Mr. T. affirmed to dissuade from it but in case of necessity by reason of apparent danger of death will yet give an evident testimonie of the doctrin of the Church of that age in this matter In the 4th oration written on this subject of Baptisme having gone through all the ages of man to demonstrate a proposition premised by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it belongs to every age and sort of life he at length comes to the consideration of infancy in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou hast an infant let not iniquity get time let it be sanctified certainly baptized in infancy let it in the tender age be consecrated to Gods spirit and whereas the heathens use amulets and charmes to secure their children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do you give it the Trinity the Fathers the Sonne and the Holy Ghost in baptisme that great and good phylacterie or preservative A plain testimonie of the Churches doctrine at that time Afterwards in the same oration he returns to this matter again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what saith he will you say concerning those that are yet children and neither know the losse nor are sensible of the grace of baptisme shall we also baptize them And his answer is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yes by all means if any danger presse t is
THE BAPTIZING OF INFANTS REVIEVVED and DEFENDED from the Exceptions OF Mr. TOMBES In his three last CHAPTERS of his Book Intituled ANTIPEDOBAPTISME By H. Hammond D. D. LONDON Printed by J. Flesher for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy lane 1655. THE BAPTIZING OF INFANTS Reviewed and Defended The Introduction HAving by Gods help past through many stadia in these agones and therein paid some degree of obedience to the precept of Christ Mat. 5.41 and withall to S. Peters directions of rendring an account of the Faith which is in us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even to him that most unnecessarily requires it There is yet remaining one matter of discourse wherein some seeming ingagement lyes upon me occasioned by the Resolution of the 4th Quaere concerning Infant Baptisme For to this Mr. Jo Tombes hath offered some answers in the three last Chapters of his Book intitled Antipaedobaptism What I have thought meet to return to these might I supposed have been not unfitly annexed by way of appendage to that of Festivals the treatises of Festivals and Infant Baptisme being so neerly conjoyned in the first draught or monogramme that the defence of them which may in some degree passe for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought incongruity to be contrived into the same table also But the length of this Answer hath disswaded that and the desire that the Reader may have no taskes imposed on him but by his own choice hath advised the publishing this by it self with some hope that this may conclude his trouble and that this new year may not bring me so many occasions of such contests as the last hath done CHAP. I. Of Baptisme among the Jewes Sect. I. Probations more and less perfect The use of Circumcision to this question of Paedobaptisme As also of Christ's reception of children Childrens coming and believing Mat. 18. Children sinners THe foundation of Mr. Tombes's returns to me he is pleased to lay in some words which he hath recited out of § 23. of my Resolution of the 4th Quaere where I say that there is no need of laying much weight on this or any the like more imperfect wayes of probation the whole fabrick being sufficiently supported and built on this basis the customary baptismes among the Jewes and that discernible to be so if we consider it first negatively then positively To this he begins his Reply with these words I like the Doctors ingenuity in his waving the imperfect wayes of proving Infant Baptisme viz. the example of circumcision Gen. 17. of baptizing a whole houshold Act. 16.33 Christs reception of little children Mat. 19.14 Mar. 10.16 and doubt not to shew his own to be no better then those he relinquisheth To this introduction of his I shall make some Reply in a generall reflexion on the Treatise which he undertakes to answer and begin with disclaiming his good words and approbation of my ingenuity assuring him that he is wholly mistaken in these his first lines and that I do in no wise relinquish those wayes of probation by him taken notice of nor shall so far despise the authority and aides of the ancient Church writers who have made use of them as wholly to neglect the force and virtue of them And I thought it had been to him visible that I have made my advantage of every one of them § 20 21 22. though I do verily think the foundation of this practice is more fitly laid in that other of Jewish Baptisme which belonged to all both Jews and proselytes children females as well as males whereas circumcision belonging to males onely was in that and some other respects a less perfect basis of it Meanwhile for the clearing of this whole matter it must be remembred that probations are of two sorts either less or more perfect those I call less perfect which though they have full force in them as far as they are used yet are not of so large an extent as to conclude the whole matter in debate which others that are more perfect may be able to do I shall apply this to the matter before us The instituting of the Sacrament of circumcision among the Jewes and the express command of God that the children of eight daies old should by this rite be received into Covenant is an irrefragable evidence that those may be capable of receiving a Sacrament who have not attained to years of understanding the nature of it that children may be received into Covenant with God though they are not personally able to undertake or performe the condition of it and then that argument will so far be applicable to Paedobaptisme as to evidence the lawfulness and fitness of it among Christians by this analogie with God's institution among the Jewes and so certainly invalidate all the arguments of the Antipaedobaptist i. e. of Mr. Tombes drawn from the incapacity of Infants from the pretended necessity that preaching should go before baptizing from the qualifications required of those that are baptized c. For all these objections lying and being equally in force against circumcising of Infants it is yet evident to be the appointment of God that every Infant of 8. days old should be circumcised Gen. 17.12 and the threatning of God denounced against them as transgressors in case it be neglected The uncircumcised manchild shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my covenant v. 14. And this the rather because the Apostle compares baptisme of Christians with circumcision Col. 2.11.12 In whom ye are circumcised buried with Christ in baptisme Isidor Pelusiote l. 1. Ep. 125. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Jews used circumcision in stead of baptisme whereupon S. Epiphanius styles Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great circumcision and S. Augustine to them that require a divine authority whereby to prove the baptisme of Infants renders this of the Jewish circumcision ex quâ veraciter conjiciatur quid valeret in parvulis Sacramentum Baptismi whereby true judgement may be made what force the Sacrament of Baptisme may have in Infants And in like manner Isidore l. 1. Ep. 125. whereupon consideration of the Angel coming to kill Moses because of the childs not being circumcised he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us make haste to baptize our children Yet because what is thus evidenced to be lawfull and agreeable to divine appointment in the old Testament is not thereby presently proved necessary under the New Christ might otherwise have ordained if he had pleased and from his ordinance onely as that was understood by his Apostles and by them delivered to the Church the necessity of our obedience and so of Baptizing Infants is completely deduced therefore it is that I mentioned this as a more imperfect way of probation in respect of the intire conclusion which I undertook to make viz. not onely the lawfulness but the duty and obligation that lies upon us to bring our Infants to Baptisme which by the way was much more then
when he shall have considered it The onely way M. T. hath to confirme this of the Iewes not baptizing any infants of proselytes born after their first conversion and baptisme is the resolution of the Jewes that if a woman great with child became a proselyte and were baptized her child needs not baptisme when t is born And this I had cited § 109. out of the Rabbines and so indeed I find it in Maimonides tit Isuri bia c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I cannot think that whether true or false a sufficient proof to inferre the conclusion For the Iewish Doctors might probably thus resolve upon this other ground because the mother and the child in her wombe being esteemed as one person the woman great with child being baptized they might deem the child baptized as well as the woman and not account it needfull to repeat it after the birth which yet by the way it seems they would have done if they had not deemed the childe all one with the mother and consequently they must be supposed to baptize those children which were begotten to the proselyte after the time of his or her first conversion and baptisme And accordingly the Christian Doctors in the Councel of Neocaesarea Can. 6. having resolved the contrary to that Jewish hypothesis viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother that bears the childe differs from the childe or is not all one with it and her confession in baptisme is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper or particular to her self and belongs not to the childe in her womb give the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the woman that is with childe and is then converted to the faith leave to be baptized when she pleases supposing that the childe which then she carries shall notwithstanding her baptisme then be it self baptized after its birth Which as it is a cleer answer to the argument deduced from the resolution of the Jewes in that point so t is moreover an evidence how little of proof Mr. T. had either from his own observation or Mr. Seldens testimonies from all which he can produce no other but this which in the sound is so far from affirming what he would have and upon examination is found to conclude the contrary Sect. 6. Lesser inconformities no prejudice Yet they do not all hold Prayer the Christian sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The rule of judging in this matter Baptizing in the name of the Father c. prescribed by Christ So dipping or sprinkling The Pract Cat. misreported Mr. Marshals covenanting THis grand disparity then being cleared to be Mr. T. his mistake I shall not need to attend his other instances of disparity this accord which hath been already mentioned and vindicated being sufficient to my pretensions and no concernment of mine obliging me to believe or affirm that the parallel holds any farther then Christ was pleased it should hold and of that we are to judge by what the Scriptures or ancient Church tells us was the practice of him or his Apostles For 1. the Jewes I doubt not brought in many things of their own devising into this as into other institutions of God's and the latter Jewes more as of the proselytes being so born again in baptisme that lying with his natural sister was no incest and the like And 2. Christ I doubt not changed the Jewish oeconomy in many things as in laying aside circumcision in commissionating his disciples to baptize and they leaving it in the hands of the Bishop and those to whom he should commit it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not lawful to baptize without the Bishop saith Ignatius whereas it was not among the Jewes any part of the Priests office any more then circumcision was And so in many other particulars But what prejudice is that to my pretentions who affirm no more of the accordance betwixt the Jewish and Christian practice then eiher by some indications in the Scripture it self or by the Christian Fathers deductions from the Apostles times appears to be meant by Christ and practised by the Apostles and then by the Jewish writers is as evident to have been in use among them And this is all the return I need make to his 14 lesser disparities and all that he hath at large endevoured to infer from them supposing and granting them all to be such But yet it is evident that some of them are not such As when 1. he saith the baptisme of males must be with circumcision and an offering t is clear that though 1. circumcision be laid aside by Christ and 2. when it was used it had nothing to do with baptisme yet as to the adjoyning of offering or sacrifice the parallel still holds the prayers of the Church being the Christian sacrifice and those in the Christian Church solemnly attendant on the administration of baptisme So parallel to the court of three Israelites by the confession or profession of whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Maimonides the infant was baptized we have now not only the whole Church in the presence of whom t is publickly administred and when more privately yet in the presence of some Christians who are afterwards if there be any doubt to testifie their knowledge to the Church but more particularly the Godfathers and Godmothers being themselves formerly baptized do represent the Church of which they are members meaning thereby the people of the Church and the Minister commissionated thereto by the Bishop represents the Church also meaning the Governors thereof But I shall not proceed to such superfluous considerations and so I have no need of adding one word more of reply to his 24 Chap. as far as I am concerned in it unlesse it be to tell him that the Bishops Canons are not the rule by which I undertake to define wherein the Jewish custome must be the pattern wherein not but as he cannot but know if he had read the resolution of the 4th Quaere the practice of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known unto us to which as I have reason to yield all authority so I find the Canons and rituals as of this so of all other Churches in the world no one excepted to bear perfect accoordance therewith in this particular of infant baptisme though in other lesser particulars they differ many among themselves and all from the Jewish pattern And this I hope is a competent ground of my action and such as may justifie it to any Christian artist to be according to rules of right reason of meekness and sound doctrine and no work of passion or prejudice or singularity or as Mr. T. suggests of the Doctors own pleasure as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern Of this score t is somewhat strange which he thinks fit to adde concerning the forme of baptisme In the name of the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Ghost In
as to inferre an uniforme concordant tradition of all the ages of the Church of Christ even since the Apostles times unto this day for the receiving infants to baptisme and that shall be the last part of this Replie to Mr. T. and the Antipadobaptist whose pretensions are the contrary that infants must not be thus admitted Sect. 2. A Catalogue of Testimonies of the first ages for Infant baptisme and the Apostolicalness thereof FIrst then I begin with the words of the Apostle so long insisted on and vindicated from Mr. T. his exceptions and by so antient a writer as Tertullian c. applyed to this matter And that first Epistle to the Corinthians being written at the end of his three years stay in Asia Act. 20.31 i. e. An. Chr. 54. I shall there place my first testimonie In the middle of the first Centurie S. Paul delivered these words Now are your children holy i. e. your children new-born as appears by the context and Tertullian are sanctified as that signifies baptized in the style of the New Testament and the antient Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are vouchsafed the good things that come by baptisme saith the Author of the Respons ad Orthod whether that were Justine the Martyr who suffered Anno 163. or another very antient writer under that name And this of that Apostle is an evidence of the practice of the first or Apostolical age soon after Christ and is not contradicted by any that wrote in that age In the next age after the Apostles flourished S. Irenaeus said to be martyred at Lyons the seate of his Bishoprick the 5 t of Severus An. Chr. 197. he had been an auditor of Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna styled by that Church an Apostolical and Prophetical Doctor and is by S. Hierome lookt on as a man of the Apostolical times and by Tertullian as a most accurate searcher of all doctrines and so is a most competent witnesse of the Apostolical doctrine and practice and thus he speaks l. 2. advers har c. 38. Omnes venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes parvulos pueros juvenes seniores Christ came to save all by himself all I say who are born again unto God by him Infants and little ones and children and young men and older men where it is evidently his affirmation that infants expressely are by Christ regenerate unto God and that must be in baptisme that laver of regeneration and so they are not in his opinion excluded from baptisme And so this is a testimonie of the second Century not found or praetended to be contradicted by any other of that age Immediately after Irenaeus followed Tertullian in the end of the 2d and beginning of the 3d Century a man of great learning and a diligent observer and recorder of the customes and practices of the most antient Church And he lib. de Animâ c. 39. affirmes it from the Apostle ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari that when either parent is sanctified or believer i. e. baptized the children that are born from them are holy and this tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ both by praerogative of their seed and by the discipline of the institution i. e. as hath been shewed by baptisme adding from the same Apostle that delivered those words 1 Cor. 7.4 that his meaning was that the children of believers should be understood to be designati sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis and evidencing what he means thereby by the following words of Christ's definition Joh. 3. Vnlesse a man be born of water and of the Spirit he shall not enter into the kingdome of God i. e. non erit sanctus shall not be holy where baptisme is manifestly the thing by which these children are said to attain that sanctity and more he addes in the beginning of the next chapter to the same purpose And so he is a competent witnesse for the beginning of that third age and is not found contradicted by any other passage in his works or by any of his time But on the contrary Origen who died at Tyre An. Chr. 254. hath three most irrefragable testimonies for it first on Luke Hom. 14. Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum little ones are baptized into the remission of sins and quomodo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulò autè diximus Nullus mundus à sorde c. How can the account of baptizing little ones bold but according to that which before was said none is clean from pollution no not if he be but a day old and per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur propterea baptizantur parvuli by the sacrament of baptisme the pollutions of our birth are put off and therefore little ones are baptized Secondly on Leviticus Hom. 8. Requiratur quid causae est cum baptisma Ecclesiae in remissionem peccatorum detur secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari Let it be considered what the cause is when the baptisme of the Church is given for the remission of sins that baptisme should according to the observation or custome of the Church be given to little ones Thirdly on the Epistle to the Romans l. 5. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare the Church hath received tradition from the Apostles to give baptisme to little ones also such little ones still as by the former words appears as those of a day old and the like And so here is a full concord of testimonies both for the practice of the Church and tradition received from the Apostles for baptizing of infants and so is a farther evidence of the doctrine of the third age not contradicted by any of that time About the same time or without question soon after wrote the Author under the name of Dionysius Areopagita de Eccl. Hierarch For as by Photius it appears Theodorus Presbyter about the year 420. debated the question whether that writer were Dionysius mentioned in the Acts or no. And of this no doubt hath been made but that he was a very antient and learned Author He therefore in his 7. chap of Eccles Hierarch proposeth the question as that which may seem to profane persons i. e. heathens ridiculous why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children which cannot yet understand divine things are made partakers of the sacred birth from God i. e. evidently of baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the baptizing of infants saith Maximus his Scholiast adding to the same head also that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others in their stead pronounce the abrenunoiations and divine confessions And his answer is 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things which are unknown by us why they are done have yet causes worthy of God