baptized before they can hear and understand the gospel preached to them ANSWER 1. The setting preaching before baptizing doth no more prove that preaching must alwaies go before baptisme then the naming repentance before faith Mar. 1. 15. Repent and beleeve the gospel proves that repentance goeth alwayes before faith which the Anabaptists themselves hold not 2. Christ setteth in that place preaching before baptizing for two reasons neither of which make any thing against the baptisme of children The first is because it is the more principall act of the ministeriall function for it is preaching which through the operation of the holy Spirit begetteth faith which the sacraments only confirme preaching draweth the instrument as it were of the covenant between God and us whereunto the sacrament is set as a seal Secondly because Christ there speaketh of converting whole nations to the Christian faith in which alwayes the preaching of the word goeth before the administration of the sacraments For first men beleeve and after are admitted to baptisme but after the parents are converted their children being comprised within the covenant are admitted to baptisme and whensoever any proselyte is to be made this course is likewise to be taken they must professe their faith before they be received into the church by baptisme but the case is different in children they have neither the use of reason to apprehend the gospel preached unto them nor use of their tongue to professe their faith and God requireth no more of them then he hath given them the like course God himself took in the old law before any men of riper years were circumcised the commandement of God was declared and his covenant made known unto them but children were circumcised the eight day before they were capable of any preaching unto them or such declaration Nothing remaineth but that the two objections concerning the doctrine of the Trinitie in the beginning propounded by D. F. for no other end but to try how well verst these ring-leaders of the Anabaptists were in the more necessary points of catechisme he answered The first was framed out of Ioh. 17. 3. This is life eternall to know thee to be the only true God and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ. If the Father be the only true God how is the Son or the holy Ghost very God Hereunto the Anabaptists gave two answers the first blaspemous the second unsufficient and impertinent as appears in the beginning of the conference The true answer is that Christ Ioh. 17. prayeth to God and not to any of the three Persons particularly for though he useth the word Father v. 1. yet Father is not there taken for the first Person in Trinity but as a common attribute of the deity as it is also taken Mat. 6. 9. Our Father v. 14. your heavenly Father Gal. 1. 4. God and our Father Jam. 1. 27. Before God and the Father 1 Pet. 1. 17. If you call him Father who judgeth without respect of persons So then the meaning is O God Father of heaven and earth This is life eternall to know thee to be the only true God and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ. According to which interpretation this text is parallel to that of the Apostle one God and one Mediator betwixt God and man the man Christ Iesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. The second objection was out of Ioh. 15. 26. The spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father If the spirit proceed from the Father only how do we say in the Nicen creed and that other of Athanasius and in the Letany which proceedeth from the Father and the Son To this none of the Anabaptists gave any answer at all yet the answer is very easie for the spirit is said to proceed from the Father in the place above alledged because he proceedeth from the Father originally not because he proceedeth from the Father only for he is elsewhere called the spirit of the Son as well as of the Father Gal. 4. 6. And in this very text Ioh. 15. 26. it is said the spirit whom I will send you from the Father which sheweth that the holy Spirit hath a dependance from both To whom three Persons and one only true God be ascribed all glory honour power and dominion for evermore FINIS A TRACTATE against the ANABAPTISTS CHAPTER I. Of the name and severall sorts of Anabaptists THe name Anabaptist is derived from the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifieth are-baptizer or at least such an one who alloweth of and maintaineth re-baptizing they are called also Catabaptists from the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying an abuser or prophaner of baptisme For indeed every Anabaptist is also a Catabaptist the reitteration of that sacrament of our entrance into the church and seal of our new birth in Christ is a violation and depravation of that holy ordinance Of these Anabaptists or Catabaptists who differ no more then Bavius and Maevius of whom the poet elegantly writeth Qui Bavium non odit amat tua carniua Maevi Alstedius maketh fourteen sorts first the Muncerians 2. the Apostolical 3. the Separatists 4 the Catharists 25 the Silents 6. the Enthusiasts 7. the Libertines 8. the Adamites 9. the Hutites 10. the Augustintans 11. the Buchedians 12. the Melchiorites 13. the Georgians 14. the Menonists But in this as in other things he is more to be commended for his diligence in collection then for his judgement in election For although there are schismaticall and hereticall persons that have neer affinitie with Anabaptists known by all these names yet these are not so many distinct and severall sorts of Anabaptists For some of these differ only in respect of their doctors or teachers and not of their doctrines as the Muncerians Hutites Menonists others were hereticks more ancient then the Anabaptists properly so called as namely the Apostolicall the Catharists the Adamites and Enthusiasts though as I shall shew hereafter some of our present Anabaptists trench upon their heresies the Augustinians Melchiorites and Georgians are Anabaptists aliquid amplius though they agree with them in their main doctrine of re-baptizing yet they go beyond the ordinary Anabaptists holding far more damnable tenents then they For the Augustinians beleeve that none shall enter into paradise till the prince of their sect Austine the Bohemian shall open the way The Melchiorites expect Melchior Hofmannus to come with Elias to restore all things before the last day The Georgians blasphemously boast that their master David George was a holy person composed and made of the soul of Christ the third person in the Trinitie Lastly he omitteth one sort of Anabaptists called Hemerobaptists who in the summer time quotidiè baptizabātur were christened every day senserunt enim aliter non posse hominem vivere si non singulis diebus in aqua mergeretur ita ut abluatur sanctificetur ab omni
Anno Dom. 1644. 219 IX The conclusion of all 227 Errata sic corrige Page 1. line 15. read end p. 4. l. 8. r. a visible Church p. 23. l. 24. r. reiteration p. 36. l. penult r. 1. Cor. 14. 19. p. 41. l. 22. r. sexes p. 44. l. penult r. and they are no where prohibited p. 48. l. 3. r. And. p. 51. l. 15. r. or a legitimate wife p. 53. l. 33. r. from p. 57. l. 27. r. in the principles of p. 67. in marg ad lin 19. r. Valentinian p. 70. l. 9. r. that they lin 25. r. rue it by p. 89. l. 17 r. propounded p. 120. l. 24. r Prayer himselfe p. 125. lin 18 r. hebetetur p. 185. lin 6. dele to page 189. l. 8. r. Scepter p. 195. l. 4. r. abjiciunt p 198. l. 13. r. the man p. 207. l. 14. r instance p. 211. l. 21. r. reliquo p. 215. l. 31. r. habet p. 216. l. 17. r. stagello p 218. l. ult r. as well as an Arrian p. 219. in marg l. 5. r. bini p. 225. l. 35. r. evident p. 226. l. 37. dele of Greg. Naz. Theol. Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What wilt thou say of Infants that neither experimentally know the grace of Baptisme nor the losse by want thereof Shall we baptize them Yes by all meanes if there be any danger For it were better that they should be sanctified though they be not sensible thereof then to goe out of this world without the seal and badge of their initiation into Christianity A true Relation of what passed at a meeting in Southwark between D. Featley and a company of Anabaptists October 17. 1642. AFter the Company were placed and Dr. Featley had made a short ejaculatory Prayer to GOD to give a blessing to the meeting a Scotchman began thus M. Doctor we come to dispute with you at this time not for contention sake but to receive satisfaction wee hold that the Baptisme of Infants cannot be proved lawfull by the Testimony of Scripture or by Apostolicall tradition if you therefore can prove the same either way we shall willingly submit unto you Are you then Anabaptists I am deceived in my expectation I thought that the ending of this meeting had bin to have reasoned with you about other matters and that my taske would have beene to have justified our Communion-Booke and the lawfulnesse and necessity of comming to the Church which I am ready to doe Anabaptisme which I perceive is the poynt you hold is an heresie long since condemned both by the Greeke and Latine Church and I could have wished also that you had brought schollars with you who knew how to dispute which I conceive you doe not so farre as I guesse by your habit and am informed concerning your professions for there are but two wayes of disputing First by Authority Secondly by reason First by Authority if you will dispute in Divinity you must be able to produce the Scriptures in the Originall Languages For no Translation is simply authenticall or the undoubted word of God In the undoubted word of God there can be no Error But in Translations there may be and are errors The Bible Translated therefore is not the undoubted word of God but so farre onely as it agreeth with the Original which as I am infermed none of you understand Secondly if you will dispute by Reason you must conclude syllogistically in mood and figure which I take to be out of your Element However sith you have so earnestly desired this meeting and have propounded a Question to me I little expected before I answer yours I will propound a Question or two to you concerning the blessed Trinity that I may know whether you are well instructed in the principles of Catechisme who yet are so well conceited of your selves that you take upon you to teach others This M. Doctor is nihil ad Rhombum we would know of your whether the Baptism of Children can be proved lawful as we said before as it is practised among you Whereas you say this my question is not ad Rhombum you mistake the matter For it is ad Rhombum if you know what the Phrase meaneth Is not the form of Baptisme this I Baptize thee in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost therfore my questions concerning the Trinity appertain to the Doctrine of Baptisme Before therefore I answer you concerning the persons fit to be Baptized whether men and women onely in riper years or children also to try your skill I will propound an argument to each of you out of Scripture concerning the blessed Trinity And first turning to the Scotchman Doe you believe saith hee that each of the three persons is God how then doth Christ Iohn 17. 3. say that the Father is the onely true God 2. After turning to the other Doe you believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son if you doe so how then doe you answer the words of our Saviour Iohn 15. 26. The Spirit which proceeds from the Father there is no mention at all of proceeding from the Son but the Father onely To the latter of these queries nothing was answered by either of them to the former they both answered First the Scotchman We never intend to deny that every person in Trinity is God for the text you alledge it proves not what you bring it for Herâ—t be Text being read the Scotchman answered Christ opposeth his Father as the true God to all false Gods I doe not urge the word true for that indeed is spoken in opposition to false Gods but the word only and thus I frame the Argument If God the Father be the only true God then the holy Ghost is not God But God the Father is the onely true God Ergo the Holy Ghost is not God The Father is said to be the only God in respect of Essence This Answer containes in it Blasphemy for if the Father bee the onely true God in respect of Essence then is not the Son or the Holy Ghost God in respect of Essence but that is false and blasphemous for then the three persons should not be one God in Essence or in respect of Essence Here the Scotchmans answer being exploded he wrote something and gave it some there present and in the meane while one M. Cufin interposing said I come not here to dispute but to receive satisfaction of some doubts which if you can resolve me in I shal submit Now for the place you alledge out of S. John I conceive it may be thus answered Christ spake this as man and his meaning is that his Father is only God and no Creature is so It is very true that only excludes all creatures but whereas you say that these words are spoken by Christ as man onely it cannot stand with the Text for it is added and whom
18. 10. Two men went up into the Temple to pray Acts 3. 1. Peter and Iohn went up together into the Temple at the houre of prayer 1 Thess. 5. 17. Pray without ceasing 1 Tim. 2. 1. Let prayers intercessions and supplications be made for all men 1 Thess. 1. 2. making mention of you in our prayers 2 Tim. 1. 3. remembrance of thee in my prayers EXCEPT II. Secondly they except against the Service-book that either all of it or the greater part is taken out of the Roman Missall and therefore is to be kickt out of the church with that superstitious piece of Romish devotion ANSWER But this exception is first insufficient secondly ignorant For if the prayers in our Service-book are holy and pithie if agreeable to the pattern of all prayer and favour of true pietie and devotion which they cannot denie they doe what skils it out of what book they were culled The Iews borrowed jewels of the Egyptians to adorn the Sanctuarie Solomon sent for timber and other materials for the Temple to Hyram king of Tyre S. Paul transcribed verses out of heaÌ„then Poets Virgil raked gold out of Enuius hic muck Christian Apothecaries gather simples to make sovereigne electuaries out of the gardens of Iews and Mahumetans the Lapidaries take out a precious stone called Bufomtes out of the head of a Toad Christ indeed forbids us to cast pearl before swine but no where to take a pearl out of a ring in a swines snowt if there be found any there Secondly this exception is guiltie of as much ignorance as weaknesse they who make it are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as cannot see afarre off of if they could they might have discerned the prayers in our Church-book to be farre more ancient then the Roman Missall The Bishops and learned Doctors who in the dayes of Edward the sixt compiled the Service-book at Windsor had farre more ancient Liturgies in their eye then the Roman Missall or Breviarie they drew not water out of that impure channell but out of a clearer fountain There are the same Epistles and Gospels in our book and theirs but they were not taken out of theirs but out of the Canonicall books of the old and new Testament there are the same Psalmes and Hymnes but they were not taken out of their Psalter but out of Davids and Saint Luke there are many of the same Collects and Orisons but they are not taken out of their Breviarie but out of the Liturgies of Saint Basil Saint Ambrose Saint Chrysostome and other more ancient attributed to the Apostles themselves Lastly if in regard of that little which may seem to be translated out of the Missall into our English Service-book it might be tearmed as Spalatensis when he was present at the Service in Canterburie church called it Breviarium optime reformatum a reformed Breviarie I cannot apprehend how that should be any derogation to it for what saith Solomon take away the drosse from the silver and there shall come forth a vessell for the refiner This was the noble work of the learned Doctors and Martyrs who reformed Religion in England they took away the drosse not only from the Missals but from all other Offices and Service-books then extant all superstitious Rites either heathenish or Iewish all Legendarie fables all invocation of saints prayers for the dead all Dirige's and Trentals and whatsoever was not warrantable by holy scripture and retaining the rest supplyed what was wanting thereunto and hence came forth this Vessell for the refiner this Liturgie of our church more compleat then any now extant in other reformed churches EXCEPT III. Thirdly they except at three Popish absolutious as they tearme them the first in the beginning of the Service after the publique confession the second before the Communion the third in the visitation of the sick But this exception hath in it more strength of passion then reason for none of these absolutions are absolute but conditionall nor in the name or by the authoritie of the Minister but of Christ. The first is nothing but a declaration of Gods mercie who freely pardoneth the penitent and of the Ministers dutie to declare and pronounce this absolution and remission to the people The second is a prayer of the Minister to God to have mercie upon the Communicants to pardon and deliver them from all their sinnes and to confirme and strengthen them in all goodnesse The third is the execution of that Ministeriall power wherewith Christ invested the Apostles and their successours Iohn 20. 23. As my father sent me so I send you whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted whose sinnes ye retaine they are retained Here is our expresse warrant and commission from Christ for what we doe in this kind to revive the spirit of the humble and cheat up the drooâ—ing conscience reaâ—lie to languish in a featefull conflict with despaire EXCEPT IV. Fourthly they except against the reading of the Psalmes Epistles and Gospels in a corrupt translation in which there are many grosse errours as Psal 105. 28. And they were not obedient to his word whereas it should be translated and they rebelled not against his word and Luke the first 36. This is the sixth moneth which was called barren for this is the sixth moneth with her who was called barren And Rom. 12. 11. Fervent in Spirit serving the time for serving the Lord. And Galat. 4. 25. Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia and bordereth upon the citie which is now called Ierusalem for and answereth to Ierusalem And Phil. 2. 8. He was found in his apparrell as a man for being found in fashion as a man And Ephes. 3. 15. Which is the father of all that is called father in heaven and earth for of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named But this exception is of little importance and may soon be philipp't away For first if no translation way be read in the church but that which is free from all errour then none at all ought to be read for there is none in which there are not some mistakes more or lesse with this ferula therefore they rap themselves over the thumbs Secondly those sores on which they fasten their nail have their salves they may see them if they please in Hooker Fisher and many others who have cleared those very passages Lastly neither is the Minister nor are the people tyed to that translation in the common-prayer-book but they may if they please in stead thereof read the Psalmes Epistles and Gospels according to the last and best translation neither were they to blame who in the first setting forth of the common-prayer-book appointed the scriptures to be read in that ancient translation for that was the best then extant neither is there any errour at all in it which concerneth faith or manners and other slips must be born withall in translations or else we must read none at all till we have a translation given
not for every circumstance But the reason and equitie of the law of circumcising children still remaineth for nothing can be alledged why children then should be by circumcision admitted to the church not now as well by baptisme hic aqua adversariis semper haeret Thirdly if the children of Christian parents should be excluded from baptisme they should be in a worse condition then the children of the Jews were under the law for they by receiving the sacrament of circumcision were admitted into the visible congregation of Gods people and accounted partakers of his promises But it were absurd nay as Calvin further enforceth this argument execrable blasphemie to think that Christ should abridge those priviledges to the children of the faithfull under the Gospell which God granted to children under the law ARGUMENT V. All they who are comprised within the covenant and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof may and ought to receive it But children are comprised within the covenant of faith whereof circumcision was a seal Rom 4. 11. and now baptisme is Ergo children may and ought to receive baptisme Of the major or first proposition there can be no doubt for it is unjust to deprive a man of the confirmation of that to which he hath a true right and title And for the minor or assumption it is as clear for so are the words of the covenant Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee ANABAP ANSWER That promise there belongs only to the seed of Abraham according to the flesh and not to us REPLY First this answer is in effect refuted by the Apostle Rom. 4. 13. The promise that he should be the heir of the world was not given to Abraham or his seed through the law but through the righteousnesse of faith as he was the father of all the faithfull and in that notion we are as well his children as the beleeving Jews and we read expressely Act. 2. 39. that the promise is made unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off and even as many as the Lord our God shal call and Gal. 3. 7. Know ye therefore that they that are of faith are of the children of Abraham Secondly the covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed is said to be eternall the chief head whereof was that he would be their God but this is not verified of Abrahams seed according to the flesh for very few of them for these many hundred years have been Gods people being professed enemies to Christ and his church this promise therefore must necessarily be understood of his children according to promise among which all true beleevers and their children are to be reckoned and if they are comprised within the covenant why should they not receive the seal of their initiation and admittance thereunto which was circumcision but now is baptisme every way corresponding thereunto As is solidly proved and clearly illustrated by S. Cyprian l. 3. ep 8. Lactan. l. 4. divin justit c. 15. Augustinus ep ad Dardonuns 57. cont Iul. Pelag. l. 2. ARGUMENT VI. Such who were typically baptized under the law are capable of real and true baptisme under the Gospell for the argument holds good à typo ad veritatem from the type to the truth from the signs in the law to the things signified in the Gospell But children were typically baptized under the law for they with their fathers were under the cloud and passed through the red sea but their washing with rain from the cloud prefigured our washing in baptisme and by the spirit and the red sea in which Pharaoh and his host were drowned was an emblem of Christs blood in which all our ghostly enemies are drowned and destroyed Ergo children are capable of true and reall baptisme under the Gospell ANABAP ANSWER The cloud and the red sea and the rock that followed them were not types but only metaphors and allegories from which no firm arguments can be drawn in this kind REPLY First this answer whets a knife to cut their own throats For as Gastius affirmeth it is the doctrine of the Anabaptists that all sacraments are nothing else but allegories if then the cloud and the red sea were allegories signifying our spirituall washing according to their own tenets they are sacraments and if children were partakers of sacramentall ablutions under the law why not under the Gospell Secondly the Apostle saith expressely ver 6. that all these things were types or figures or lively patterns to us and ver 2. that all were baptized in the cloud and in the sea the cloud therefore and the sea were types of our baptisme and not meer tropes or allegories They may happily object that as we read in the canon law that a Pastor or Rector may have a Vicar endowed sed vicarius non habet vicarium that a Vicar cannot have a Vicar endowed under him and likewise in Philosophie that the voice may have an echo by the repercussion of the aire but that the echo hath no echo so that the promises of God have types or sacraments representing them but that the types and sacraments themselvs have no types and sacrament to prefigure them But the answer is easie for we may say with Nazianzen that either there may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an obscure type of a clearer and a rude draught or imperfect modell of a more perfect such were the legall types of the Evangelicall sacraments or to speak more properly circumcision and the Pascall Lamb were not types of our baptisme and of the sacrament of the Eucharist but of the things represented by them viz. of the circumcision of the heart and our spirituall nourishment by feeding upon the Lamb of God that takes away the sinnes of the world ARGUMENT VII All they who belong to Christ and his kingdom ought to be received into the church by baptisme But children belong to Christ and his kingdom as Christ himselfe teacheth us Mar. 10. 14. and Luk. 18. 16. suffer little children to câ—me unto me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God verily I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child he shall not enter therein vers 15. and he took them up in his arms and put his hands upon them and blessed them Ergo children ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme ANABAP ANSVVER This place is put in to be read at the sprinkling of children for the whore hath sweet words as sweet as oyle with these fair speeches she maketh the nations yeeld to her Prov. 7. 21. but the simple only beleeve her for this place maketh nothing for the baptisme of children the children mentioned in the Gospel were not sucklings for it is said they came to Christ neither did Christ christen any of them though he took them into
were circumcised under the law they ought to be baptized under the Gospell For sith they are comprised in the covenant why should not they as well receive the seal thereof set to it in the new law as well as the children of the Jews received the seal set thereunto by the old Secondly I have produced before both command for baptizing of children Argument 1. and example of it Argument 3. and promise also unto it Argument 5. The command of baptizing all Nations Mat. 28. 29. the examples of baptizing whole families Act. 16. 15. 33. 1 Cor. 1. 16. and the promise made to us and our seed Act. 2. 39. evidently extend to children They argue from Scripture affirmatively our Lord Jesus Christ in that great charter Mat. 28. 18. 19. 20. saith Go teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to every creature he that shall beleeve and be baptized shall be saved but he that will not beleeve shall be damned From these texts they would infer that none ought to be baptized but such who are first taught and instructed in the principles of Christian faith and consequently that no children ought to be baptized because they are not capable of teaching That the placing the word teaching before baptizing in that text doth no more conclude that teaching must alwayes precede baptisme then the setting repentance before faith in those words Repeâ—t ye and beleeve the Gospell Mark 1. 15. and setting water before the spirit Ioh. 3. 5. except a man be born of water and the spirit necessarily infer that repentance goeth before faith which yet is but a fruit of faith or that the outward baptisme with water goeth before the inward baptisme of the spirit whereas the contrarie is clearly proved out of that speech of Peter to Cornelius Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the holy Ghost as well as we Secondly if there be any force in this argument drawn from the order of the words it maketh against them for thus we wound them with their dudgeon-dagger Christ saith baptize them in the name of the Father teaching them to observe all things baptizing therefore must go before teaching especially in children who may be baptized before they can be taught Thirdly they mis-translate the words for Christ saith not go teach all nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things neither is there a tautologie in our blessed Saviours words for his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. go make disciples among all nations baptizing them and teaching them Now though children cannot be taught before they are baptized yet they may be after a â—orâ— made Christs disciples by their parents or god-fathers offering them unto God and undertaking for them that they shall be brought up in the Christian religion Fourthly Christ speaketh here of the plantation of the Christi an faith and the conversion of whole nations in which alwayes the preaching of the word goeth before the administration of the sacrament First men are taught to repent of their sins and beleeve the Articles of the Christian faith and after they have made confession of the one and profession of the other then they are to be received into the church by baptisme This course was taken by the Apostles in the beginning and must at this day be taken by those who are sent into Turkie or the East and West Indies to convert Pagans or Mahumetans or unbeleeving Iews to the Gospell They are to baptize none before they have taught them the principles of Christian religion but after the Gospell is planted and the parents are beleeverâ— and received into the church by baptisme their children are first to be baptized and afterwards taught so soon as they are capable of teaching They argue from examples after this manner such are to be baptized who with the Iews in Ierusalem Mat. 3. 6. confesse their sins who with the Proselytes Act. 2. 41. gladly receive the word who with the Samaritans Act. 8. 6. give heed to the word preached who with those of Cornelius familie Act. 10. 44. receive the holy Ghost by the hearing of the word who with Lydia have their hearts opened to attend the things that are spoken by the Apostles Act. 16. 14. who with the Gaoler hear the word preached and seek after the means of salvation Act. 16. 30. But children can neither confesse their sins nor attend to the word preached nor actually beleeve nor desire baptisme they therefore ought not to be baptized But we answer all that can solidly be concluded from these examples is but this in the affirmative all such who were so qualified as these were viz. hearers of the Gospell penitent sinners and true beleevers unfainedly desiring the means of their salvation ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme which we freely grant but they cannot conclude from these examples negatively that none other ought to be Christened No more then it will follow that those of Cornelius his family received the gift of the holy Ghost and spake with divers tongues before they were baptized with water therefore none but such who have received such gifts of the holy Ghost may and ought to be baptized To confesse sins and actually professe faith makes a man more capable of baptisme yet dumb men who can do neither if they have a good testmonie of their life and conversation and by signs make it appear they unfainedly desire the sacraments may receive them Secondly if there be any force at all in an argument drawn from examples affirmatively it must be from examples in the like kind as from men to men from children to children not from women to men or from men to children or from children to men For it will not follow women in the Apostles times were covered in the church therefore men ought to be so or men may speak in the church therefore women may or children are usually fed with milk and not strong meat therefore men in ripers years ought to use such dyet no more will it follow men in riper years who are capable of instruction ought to hear the word to give their assent thereunto and enter into a strict covenant with God to lead a new life before they have accesse to the Font. Therefore the like duties are required of children who have not yet the use of reason nor knowledge of good or evill By this reason they might starve children because the law is he that will not labour let him not eat It holds in men but no way in children who are not able to labour in any calling by reason of the infirmitie of their joynts and want of reason and understanding Baptisme is a seal of the righteousnesse of faith
the Anabaptists in this section And therefore I come briefly to examine his second assertion or rather aspersion of the whole Christian world in these words in the frontis-peece of his book Against the anti-christian faction of pope Innocentius the third and all his favourites that enacted by a decree that the baptisme of the infants of beleevers should suâ—ceed circumcision These words vertually contain this proposition that the christening children is the practise of an Anti-christian faction which was brought first into the church by the decree of Pope Innocentius the third Of which enunciation I may say as Tertullian doth of the Chameleon quot colores tot dolores or rather quot dicta tot maledicta so many words as there are so many grosse errors and scandalous reproaches For the baptizing infants is not the practise of a faction nor a part but of the whole not Anti-christian but truely Christian church Neither was it introduced by Innocentius the third but is of far more ancient date and was derived even from the times of the Apostles themselvs First it is well known that the Greek and Latine churches or the Eastern or Western were the membra dividentia of the whole church and that the christening of infants was approved of and practised by the Greek church is evident by the testimonies of Gregorie Nazianzen orat 40. in bap Origen hom 8. upon Leviticus and 14. of Luke and that it was likewise approved and practised in the Latine church is clearly collected from Ambrose lib. de Abrahamo Patriarcha Ieron cont Pelag. l. 3. Augustin l. 10. de Gen. ad lit c. 23. Cyp. ep 59. ad Fidum Now if the Greek and Latine churches were Anti-christian where were there any Christians in the world Secondly Pope Innocentius the third as it is well known to all the learned lived in the twelfth age of the Church and flourished about the year 1215 in which year he called the great Councell at Lateran Before him Gregorie the great whom M. Cornwell himself alledgeth page 11. out of M. Fox in his book of Martyrs about the year of our Lord 599. above six hundred yeares before Innocentius the third resolved Austine the Monk that in case of necessitie infants might be baptized as soon as they were born and two hundred yeares before Gregorie S. Austine wrote a treatise de baptismo parvulorum and for the lawfulnesse thereof in his 28 epistle and in his third book de pec mer. remiss and by occasion elsewhere also alledgeth a testimonie out of S. Cyprian to that purpose who wrote in the year of our Lord 250. nay which is most considerable Origen in his Comment upon the epistle to the Romans c. 6. l. 5. quoted by M. Cornwell himself p. 10. affirmeth in expresse tearms that the church from the Apostles received a tradition to baptize children whence I thus frame my argument All Christians ought to hold the traditions which have been taught them by the Apostles either by word or epistle 2 Thess. 2. 15. But the baptizing of children is a tradition received from the Apostles as Origen affirmeth loc sup cit Austine l. 10. de Gen. ad lit c. 23. de bap cont Donatis l. 4. Ergo the baptizing of children ought to be retained in the Christian church Thus M. Cornwell hath spun a fair thred of which a strong cord may be made to strangle his own assertion Yea but M. Cornwell chargeth all ministers deeply to answer this his negative demonstration saying O that the learned English ministerie would informe me lest my bloud like Abels crie aloud from heaven for vengeance for not satisfying a troubled conscience how shall I admit or consent to the admittance of the infant of a beleever to be made a visible member of a particular congregation of Christs body and baptized before it be able to make confession of its faith and repentance lest I consent to separate what God hath joyned together That which God hath joyned together no man ought to separate But faith and baptisme God hath joyned together Mar. 16. 16. Acts 8. 37 38. 16. 33 34. Gal. 3. 27. Ephes. 4. 5. Ergo faith and baptisme no man ought to separate ANSWER This argument is so far from a demonstration that it is not so much as a topicall syllogism but meerly sophisticall therin any who hath ever saluted the University and hath bin initiated in Logick may observe a double fallacy The first is fallacia homonymiae in the premises The second is ignoratio elenchi in the conclusion First the homonymia or ambiguity is in the tearm joyned together for the meaning may be either that faith and baptism are joyned together in praecepto in Christs precept and that no man denieth all that are commanded to be baptized are required to believe and all that believe to be baptized or joyned together in subjecto that is to say all who are baptized have true faith and that none have true faith but such as are baptized in this sense it is apparantly false and none of the texts alledged prove it for the thiefe on the crosse had faith yet not the baptism we speak of as also the Emperour whom S. Ambrose so highly extolleth in his funerall and many thousands besides again Iulian the Apostata and all other who after they came to years renounced their baptisme and Christian profession had baptisme yet no true faith which as M. Cornwell himself will confesse cannot be lost totally or finally Secondly in the former syllogisme there is ignorantio elenchi he concludes not the point in question they who most stand for the baptizing of children will not have faith and baptisme severed for they baptize children into their fathers faith and take sureties that when they come to yeares of discretion they shall make good the profession of the Christian faith which was made by others at the font in their name and for them nay so farre are they from excluding faith from infants that are baptized that they beleeve that all the children of the faithfull who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers and are ordained to eternall life at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit and the seeds of faith and holinesse which afterwards beare fruit in some sooner in some later Neither is this any paradox or new opinion for S. Ierome advers Lucifer and Austin ep 57. ad Dard. and Zanchius de tribus Elohim affirm that the holy Spirit moveth upon the waters of baptisme and that as the Spirit in Genesis 1. 2. rested upon the waters incubabat aquis that he might cherish and prepare them for the producing of living creatures so the holy Ghost resteth upon the waters of baptisme and sits as is were abroad upon them and blesseth them and thereby doth cherish the regenerate and animate the elect S. Leo speaketh most elegantly and fully to this point in his sermons of the birth of
have baptized you with water and he will baptize you with the holy Ghost And in the 19. of the Rev. 21. ver it is in the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is word for word they were slain in the sword yet must it be translated they were slain with the sword not in the sword Notwithstanding I grant that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the river and that such baptisme of men especially in the hotter climates hath been is and may lawfully be used yet there is no proof at all of dipping or plunging but only washing in the river But the question is whether no other baptizing is lawfull or whether dipping in rivers be so necessarie to baptisme that none are accounted baptized but those who are dipt after such a manner this we say is false neither do any of the texts alledged prove it It is true dipping is a kind of baptizing but all baptizing is not dipping The Apostles were baptized with fire yet were they not dipt into it tables and beds are said in the originall to be baptized that is washed yet not dipt The Israelites in the wildernesse were baptized with the cloud yet not dipt into it the children of Zebedee were to be baptized with the baptisme of blood wherewith our Saviour was baptized yet neither he nor they were dipt into blood Lastly all the fathers speak of the baptisme of tears wherewith all penitents are washed yet there is no dipping in such a baptisme As for the representation of the death and resurrection that is not properly the inward grace signified by baptisme but the washing the soul in the laver of regeneration and cleansing us from our sins However in the manner of baptisme as it is administred in the church of England there is a resemblance of death and the resurrection For though the child he not alwayes dipped into the water as the rubrick prescribeth save only in case of necessitie which would be dangerous in cold weather especially if the child be weak and sickly yet the Minister dippeth his hand into the water and plucketh it out when he baptizeth the infant The second error of the Anabaptists which A. R. strenuously propugneth is their decrying down paedo baptisme and with-holding Christs lambs from being bathed in the sacred Font. This foul error or rather heresie for it is condemned for such both by the primitive and the reformed churches he endeavoureth to blanch in part if not to quite clear from all aspersion and justifie by four arguments which I will propound in his own words that he may not say I shoot his arrows without their heads the first I find p. 27. PART I. The administration of baptisme which hath no expresse command in Scripture and which overthrows or prevents that administration of baptisme which is expressely commanded in Scripture is a meer device of mans brain and no baptisme of Christ. But the administration of baptisme upon infants hath no expresse command in Scripture and it overthrows or prevents the administration of baptisme upon disciples or beleevers which is expressely commanded in Scripture Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 16. Ioh. 4. 1. 2. Act. 2. 38. and 8. 37. Therefore the administration of baptisme upon infants is a meer device of mans brain and no baptisme of Christ. This argument stands as it were upon two legs and both of them are lame the one is that nothing may be done in the worship of God without expresse command in Scripture This is an ignorant and erroneous assertion For first there is no expresse precept in Scripture for beleeving and acknowledging in terminis three Persons in the unitie of the deitie and yet Athanasius faith in his Creed that whosoever beleeveth not and worshipeth not the Trinitie in unitie and unitie in Trinitie shall perish everlastingly Secondly there is no expresse command in Scripture to confesse the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son tanquam distinctis personis yet it is not only an article of religion in the church of England but also set down in the confession of the Anabaptists lately printed Thirdly there is no expresse precept for the abrogating of the Jewish sabbath and religious observing the Christian yet no Anabaptists hold themselvs bound to keep holy the Saturday or Jewish sabbath neither have they yet to my knowledge oppugned the observation of the Lords day Fourthly there is no expresse precept in Scripture for womens receiving the sacrament of the Lords Supper For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup is a common name to both sexes yet the Apostle useth the masculine article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so there is no expresse command but for men yet no sectaries upon record no not the Anabaptists themselvs exclude women from the holy Communion Fifthly there is no expresse precept for re-baptizing those who in their infancie were baptized by a lawfull minister according to the form prescribed by our Saviour in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost nay rather there is an expresse prohibition in the words of the Apostle one faith one baptisme and in that clause of the Nicen Creed I beleeve one baptisme for the remission of sins yet re-baptizing is a prime article of the faith of this sect from whence they take their very name of Anabaptists that is re-baptizers If A. R. here will stretch expresse precept to any thing that is commanded in Scripture either immediatly or mediatly either in particular or in generall either in plain or direct tearms or in the true sense of the text so I grant all the four former orthodox tenets may be proved by Scripture And so also I have before proved the lawfulnesse of baptizing children though there be no expresse Scripture for it intormini◠The other leg also upon which his argument standeth is as lame as the former For the baptisme of infants no way over-throws or prevents the baptizing of any disciples or beleevers instructed in the mysteries of salvation of whom the texts alledged are meant but there-baptizing of such who were before baptized in their infancie which re-baptizing is no where commanded in Scriptures and as if all nations were converted to the Christian faith there needed no more conversion so if all were admitted to the church by baptisme in their infancie they should need no other admission by re-baptizing them but there will be alwayes some to be converted till the fulnesse of the Iews and Gentiles also is come in and till then there will be use of that precept of our Saviour Mat. 28. Go teach all nations baptizing them the second Argument of his against paedo-baptisme PART 2. The second I find p. 20. If they ground the baptizing children from
it is resolved that the faithfull may bee constrained by the Consistorie to tell the truth so farre forth as it derogateth nothing from the authority of the Magistrate This constraint could not be by fine or imprisonment or torturing the body for in so doing then they should trench upon the Civill Magistrates right but by imposing of an oath which is a kind of torturing of the conscience Ergo oathes ex officio are just and lawfull in Spirituall Courts ARGUMENT V. If the oath of purgation whereby a man in a cause criminall is required to take his corporall oath that he is not guilty of such an offence wherewith he is charged bee lawfull the oath ex officio cannot be unlawfull for they are either the same or at least stand upon the same ground But oaths of purgation as they have been very ancient so they have bin alwayes held lawfull and in many cases necessary Ergo the oath ex officio is also lawfull Now for an oath of purgation we find it as ancient as the Trojan warres Agamemnon being suspected to be nought with Hippodamia commanded an Host or Sacrifice to bee brought and drawing his sword he divided it in two parts and passing between them with his bloody sword sware that hee had never defiled Hippodamia by incontinence In the eighth generall Councell Action 5. when Photius the heretick was demanded by the Councell whether he would admit of the Ordinances of the holy Fathers and he answered not any thing thereunto the President of the Synod signified unto him that by that his silence he should not escape but the rather be condemned silence in such a case evidently arguing guilt In a Councell held at Tribur a lay-man in case of vehement suspition is appointed to purge himselfe by his oath and a Priest to be interrogated by the consecration of the holy Sacrament and before this Sixtus the third an ancient Bishop of Rome upon the accusation of one Bassus did willingly make his purgation upon oath and Gregory the great injoyned Leo Memius and Maximus three Bishops to cleare and purge themselves of severall crimes by their oathes ANABAP OBIECT But they object out of the law Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare vel prodere sive propriam turpitudinem raevelare No man is bound to accuse or detect himselfe or lay open his own shame But by taking the oath ex officio he bindeth himselfe if he be a Delinquent to discover his own crimes and so lay open his nakednesse therefore no man is bound to take the oath ex officio No man is bound to goe to the Magistrate and indict himselfe and give the first notice of any crime he hath committed but the case is altered when upon a fame or strong presumptions he is legally called before a Judge and according to forme of law required upon oath to testifie the truth For then as saith Aquinas Non ipse se prodit sed ab alio proditur dum ei necessitas respondendi imponitur per oum cui obedire tenetur He doth not detect himselfe but is detected by another when the Iudge to whom he is bound to answer directly by interrogation upon oath extorts the truth from him Neither doth the law nor the Judge principally nor in the first place intend by ministring such an oath to intangle much lesse condemne him out of his own mouth but find out the truth and clear the party thereby if he be innocent and in such case by refusing the oath he wrongs himselfe and his own cause We cannot follow a better President then our Saviour but he when he was examined of his Disciples and Doctrine Io. 18. 19. would give no direct answer whereof the high Preist might have taken advantage but puts him off v. 20 21. to those that heard him saying I spake openly to the world I ever taught in the Synagogue and in the Temple whither the Jewes alwayes resort and in secret have I said nothing why askest thou me aske them that heard me Therefore we ought not to confesse ought against our selves by oath or otherwise but put our adversaries to the proofe In a case where other proofe may be had there is no necessity for a man to give advantage to his adversary by his owne confession but in case there be no other evidence and the lawfull Magistrate to whom we are bound to give a direct answer in obedience to his lawfull command this example of our Saviour doth not warrant us to use any evasion or tergiversation The example of our Saviour was truly alledged above to the contrary for though upon a bare interrogation of the high Preist hee did not discover himselfe unto him what he was yet upon his adjuration which was a requiring to answer upon oath hee acknowledgeth himselfe to be Christ the Sonne of God Every oath ought to be for confirmation to put an end to all strife Heb. 6. 16. But this oath ex officio is not ministred to make an end of any Litigious suite but rather to begin it and set it on foot for as soone as Articles are put in against a man before any pleading of the cause on either side this oath is usually tendered There are two sorts of oathes promissory of things to come assertotory of things past In promissory there is no respect at all had to compose any difference or controversie but to assure loyalty or fidelity in assertory oathes one end is ending strifes but not the only end neither doth the Apostle imply that every controversy may be decided and ended by a single mans taking his oath For this oath may be suspected and the contrary thereunto deposed by others and sometimes evidence of fact controls his oath but the meaning is that in controversies among men the oath of an honest man is a great meanes to set a period to farther waging of Law Even this oath tendeth to the speedier ending of controversies and oftentimes it stops all farther proceedings when the party burthened by presumptions is cleared and dismissed upon his oath Though this oath be given in the beginning of a suit to lay a firme ground and foundation thereon yet the intention of him that ministreth the oath is by clearing the matter of fact to proceed more speedily to the Quaestio Iuris and the pleading it and more maturely deciding it and so this oath tendeth to the sooner ending of strife Either the crimes objected against any man are manifest or hidden if they bee open and manifest there needs no oath ex officio to discover them but witnesses only are to be produced which in such cases cannot be wanting and if they be hidden and secret then the Apostles rule takes place 1. Cor. 4. 5. Therefore judge nothing before the time untill the Lord come who both will bring to light the hidden things of darknesse and will make manifest the Counsels of the hearts and then shall
the Law Presbyters Deacons under the Gospel men set a part for his service some Lands profits and emoluments as gleabs tithes first-fruits oblations and other obventions assigned for the maintenance of the Ministery some utensils as Tables Fonts Pulpits Chalices vestments and the like imployed in the immediate service and worship of God to alienate unjustly detain or purloin any of these things frō any of those places or persons to whom the Law of the Land agreeable to Gods Law hath appropriated or apportionated them is that we call Sacriledge which the heathen themselves by the glimmering light of Nature knew not only to be a sinne but a hainous and capitall crime for this is one of the Lawes in the twelve Tables so much commended Sacrum sacrove commodatum qui rapsit parricida esto Let him that steales away any holy thing or dedicated to a holy use be punished as a parricide that is as such a one who had murdered his father or mother and what was such a persons doome by the Romane Law To be sowed in a sack and cast alive into the sea Neither was the punishment lesse severe among the Ethiopians for if any were convinced of that crime amongst them there was a potion given him to drink made of diverse kinds of poison which they had no sooner taken of but it wrought so upon their fancies that they conceived themselves to be stung with all kinds of Serpents and to rid themselves of the paine they made away themselves Here these prophane wretches will be apt to reply What are the heathen Lawes to us How prove you out of Gods word that sacriledge is a sinne To forbeare other testimonies which might be largely insisted upon Saint Paul not only ranketh it among grievous sinnes but sets it in a degree of impiety above Idolatry thou which abhorrest Idols dost thou commit sacriledge as if he should say thou that so much detestest Idolatrie that thou abhorrest the very name of an Idol dost thou worse namely commit sacriledge sacriledge without all doubt is worse then Idolatry for he more wrongeth the deitie who robbeth the true God of that which is his due then he who through a mistake exhibits honour to another in stead of him And that this kinde of sacriledge we speak of whereby Churches or Churchmen are defrauded of their due is no better nor worse then robbing God himselfe the Prophet Malachi affirmeth Verbis non tantum disertis sedet exertis Will a man rob his gods yet you have robbed me but you say Wherein have we robbed thee in tithes and offerings therefore are ye cursed with a curse for you have robbed me even this whole Nation Ye are cursed with a curse what meanes this reduplication can a man be cursed without a curse are the latter words redundant and superfluous doe they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no such thing the learned know better then so the redoubling of the word is very significant in holy Scriptures as where we read Visitando vistabo in visiting I will visit thee that is I will visit thee in a singular manner and multiplicando multiplicabo in multiplying I will multiply thee that is I will exceedingly multiply thee and benedicendo benedicam in blessing I will blesse thee that is I will extraordinarily blesse thee so here in the Prophet ye shall be cursed with a curse imports no lesse then ye shall be cursed with a strange curse a signall curse such a curse as he that heareth his ears shall tingle aud his knees smite one the other Such a curse as was inflicted upon Xerxes and Caepio and Marcus Crassus and Herod and their associats for attemping or acting this horrible villani◠Xerxes sent an Army of 4000. to destroy the Temple at Delphos and pillage all those precious things which all those Kings Princes and Nations who by their Embassadours consulted the oracle concerning the successe of their warres had laid up there but his whole Army was destroyed by Thunder and Lightening from heaven neither had Caepio the Consul better successe after he had spoiled the famous Church of Tolouse and from thence taken a great masse of gold both he and every man in his Armie that had fingered any of that gold came to a miserable end and gave occasion to that Latine proverb spoken of a man who liveth miserably dies desperately aurum habit Tolosanum surely he had some of the gold of Tolouse in his keeping In like manner Marcus Crassus after he had taken 2000. talents of gold out of the Temple at Ierusalem which Pompey left there was no sooner past over the river Euphrates then his whole Army was routed by the Parthians and part of the gold he caused to be carried out of the Temple was melted and poured into his mouth after he was slaine with these words Now surfeit of gold after thy death wherewith thou could never be satisfied all thy life long Yet Herod who could not but hear of this dysaster of Crassus living in those times parts would take no warning thereby but understanding of vast sums of mony layd up for safety in the Temple and hid in the Sepulchre of David sent his men of war to rifle the place who in digging as they came to the Cave neare the Coffins of David and Solomon there brake out thence a fire that burnt the sacrilegious delvers all to ashes To these we may adde Balshazzar Copronymus Iulian the Governour of the East and servant to the Apostate Emperour of that name and Faelix who all read a sad Lecture to Church-robbers written in Characters of blood As soon as Balshazzar took the vessels of the Temple into his hand and carrowsed in the cups he saw a hand in the wall writing his dreadfull doome After Leo surnamed Copronymus espyed a Crowne beset with Carbuncles in a Christian Church and coveting after it caused it to be fetched from thence and had set it upon his head there suddenly arose a Carbuncle in his fore-head which suffered his Temples afterwards to take no rest And as close did the punishment of the like sacriledge follow at the heeles of Iulian and Faelix for within a few weeks after Faelix deriding at the rich plate Maries sonne was served in together with Iulian had carried away all the rich presents and massy vessels of gold which the devotion of Constantine and Constantius had dedicated to God in the new Temple at Ierusalem built by Queene Helena Gods vengeance seised upon them both Faelix dying of a flux of blood and Iulian of the foule disease called the Miserer◠which I spare to describe lest it should defile my pen as it did his sacrilegious mouth Of this sinne which God so exemplarily punished no sort of ancient hereticks or schismaticks were more guilty then the Donatists from whom our Anabaptists are lineally descended for Saint Augustine in his Epistle to Bonifacius bitterly exclaimes