new we must in our allegations keep to the substance so the Apostles in alledging Scriptures of the old Testament they kept to the substance not regarding the circumstance as innumerable instances may be given Take this one Rom. 10.15 the Apostle proving that faith comes by hearing of a Preacher that is sent saith out of Isa 57. As it is written how beautifull are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace and bring glad tydings of good things Now the place whence it is quoted Isa 52.7 is thus How beautifull upon the MOVNTAINS are the feet of him that bringeth good tydings c. Because the Word was to go forth out of the mountain of Zion Moriah and other mountains on which the Temple and Jerusalem stood Now this place is to be applied to Ministers now though they come not upon those or other mountains or else the Apostles proof fals to the ground So if the command of the seventh day may not be alledged for a seventh day we have no command for the Lords day Chap 2. in our answer to Mr. T. his 4. Except 1. partic To that of Lot Melchisedech and Job we adde by way of answer beside that spoken afore that if Lot Job Melchisedech were not nor were to be circumcised there may be speciall reasons First not Melchisedech alias Shem 1. because he was baptized in the Ark 1 Pet. 3.20 21. Secondly he was to be a speciall type of Christ in that he came not of the tribe of Levi that ceremonious Ministerie and so to be exempted from that ceremony in the shell circumcision For Lot and Job God would shew in them that he was not so tyed but that he could save without an outward ordinance when he will not extend it or if he please to take ☞ away the opportunitie of having it A faire item for the Anabaptists that put so much in Baptisme that the want of it say they doth unchurch Churches c. Lot and Job had churches in their families And the Israelites in the wildernesse fourty yeers is called a Church Act. 7.38 all which time there was no circumcising among them nor but two Josuah and Caleb circumcised left among them Josh 5. 2 Saith Mr. T. It may be so understood Exercit. p. 5. as if the right of baptisme then began when the right of circumcision did or was of â—ight to end but this is not to be said for John Baptist and the disciples of Christ baptized Joh. 4.1 2. before circumcision of right ceased and they who were circumcised were after baptized being converted to the faith as is manifest concerning Paul Phil. 3.5 Act. 9.18 Answ Yet before Mr. T. saith p. 4. that circumcision did sigcifie Christ to come Animad If Mr. T. pincheth upon that of Christ to come of Isaac we say we see no more in the analogie of circumcision nor in the words of institution for it to signifie Christ to come of Isaac then of Abraham or Jacob. 3 Saith he It may be understood as if Baptisme did succeed in the place of circumcision in respect of signification Exercit. p. 5. which is true in some things First it is true that both signified the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 1 Pet. 3.21 Secondly it is true both signified sanctification and this is all may be concluded out of the place alledged Col. 2.11 12. To which I think it meet to adde that if the text be looked into that place speaks not of any circumcision but of Christs circumcision in whom we are compleat and by whose circumcision we are said to put off the body of the sins of the flesh Nor doth the text say we are circumcised because we are baptized but we are compleat in Christ because we are circumcised in him and buried with him in baptisme in which or in whom ye are also risen together through the faith of the operation of God that raised him from the dead Answ If they agree but in those two significations Animadâ— they agree sufficiently in signification to favour the argument out of Col. 2.11 12. that baptisme comes in the room of circumcision and fitly that as circumcision signified and signed those two to beleevers infants so baptisme now signifies and signes the same to beleevers infants But whether this be all that may be concluded out of the place alledged Col. 2.12 as Mr. T. affirms I shall appeal to the ingenuous Reader of our observations on this place of Scripture which are from the analysis scope argument and method of prosecution which if not exactly attended we may easily feign plausible interpretations for our own turns but loose the drift and argument of the Apostle The Apostles designe is to take off the Colossians from false doctrines of false teachers teaching with entising words Philosophy vain deceit traditions of men rudiments of the world among which were the shels of Jewish ceremonies as circumcision considered in the shell of the outward signe c. And the argument the Apostle useth as the best means to fetch them off was to advance Christs fulnesse to the full worth before the eyes of their minds This designe and this manner of pursuance of it are so oft mentioned and repeated combinedly that they cannot be hid from an ordinary eye looking upon the text Once v. 3 4. again v. 6 7. a third time v. 8 9. Now the Apostle saying ye are compleat in Christ v. 10. Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filled up or made compleat he intimates what need the Colossians hearken after Jewish ceremonies as circumcision c Now because the Colossians might object that Abraham and the Patriarkes had Christ and yet were circumcised too he anticipates and prevents this objection v. 11. saying they had inward circumcision which is the chief In whom also ye observe the also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of sins c. Your persons are not onely circumcised in the circumcision of Christ who is as our common nature and so imputed to you as in Adam the common nature of man we finned and so his sin was imputed to us but you are circumcised with the vertue of Christs grace signified in circumcision to make you put off the body of sins even as Adams sin was not onely imputed to us but his corruption of sin derived into us But because the Colossians might object again that though Abraham had inward circumcision before Rom. 4. yet he had outward circumcision too and so others and therefore they were not so compleat in Christ as beleevers in the old Testament The Apostle preoccupates and prevents this objection too in v. 12 saying that instead of outward circumcision they had been baptized and baptized effectually into Christ Buried with him in baptisme wherein also ye are risen through the faith of the operation of the Son of God c. As if the Apostle should say
Infants For they to whom the secrets of divine mysteries were committed did know that there was in all the very filth of sinne which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit c. In which words we have no mention of an unwritten Tradition But of a tradition from the Apostles that is the Doctrine of the Apostles in the Scriptures Tradition being taken in the Scriptures and Fathers not * So our orthodox schools distinguish passively for an unwritten doctrine of tradition but actively for the act of tradition or delivering the holy Scriptures from hand to hand in succession of ages to our fathers and so down to us in these instances 2 Thess 2.15 Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS which wee have been taught whether by word or our Epistle So in Epiphanius * Contra Haeres l. 3. T. 2. Contra Haerâ—s â—0 cumpendiarver doct But saith he other mysteries as concerning the laver of baptisme and internall mysteries are so performed as the TRADITION of the Gospel and the Acts hath them So Augustin as we shall see after in the Quotations of him And that Origen takes Tradition in this sence appeares by the ground he layes upon the Scriptures which tell us a sinner must be born again of water and the holy spirit That sinne is taken away by the blood and spirit of Christ and that this is sealed to us by Baptisme in respect whereof we are said to be baptized into Christ Rom. 6. Now that cannot be called an unwritten tradition that hath footing upon the Scripture as baptisme hath and baptisme of beleevers infants as wee have proved and are still upon the proofe 2 ORIGENS words on Levit. Hom. 8. are speaking of the spirituall uncleannesse of man by sinne It may be asked what cause is there of giving Baptisme also to little children according to the observation of the Church seeing if there were nothing in little children the which remission did concern and indulgence of pardon did belong unto the grace of Baptisme would seem superfluous Here againe Origen layes the ground worke of the washing by Baptisme upon the spirituall pollution of children held forth to us in the Scriptures Thus Origen 3 ORIGENS words in his 14. Hom. on Luke are Little children were baptized into remission of sinnes Of what sinnes Or when did they sin Or how can any Consideration of the Laver of washing be in little children but as we said a little afore no man is pure from uncleannesse though he lives but one day on earth And because by the Sacrament of Baptisme the filth of birth is put away therefore little children are baptized All this he speaks of Baptisme as putting it in the room of Mosaicall purifications And first saith for spirituall cleansing Parvuli baptizabantur that is Little children WERE baptized as relating to the practise of the Churches in former ages And then secondly saith in the present tense Baptizantur parvuli that is little children ARE baptized as noting the continuance of that practise and that upon Scripture grounds viz. for remission and sanctification from sinne Sacramentally and Instrumentally instead of Ceremoniall washings and purifications which had their Gospel meaning as the Apostle expounds in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Thus Origen But Mr T. hath some objections against Origen in his EXAMEN of Mr M. Sermon which we must answer to keep things clear as we go Animadvers upon Mr T. his EXAMEN §. 7. so much as concernes the Common cause Object Perkins and Vsher EXAMEN saith Mr T put Origen in the year 230. Wee answer indeed Origen then abouts succeeded at Alexandria his Master Clem. Animadver Alexandrinus in the Chair of catechising and composed his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Bucholc But for his birth and first opening his schoole we set the reckoning right according to divers learned Chronologers and Ecclesiasticall Writers to which we now adde the words of Bucholcerus in Anno 186. About this year saith he was born Origen the Ecclesiasticall Writer at Alexandria which depends on the year after Christ 203. in which Hieronymus writeth Origen was about 17 years old Object The Works of Origen EXAMEN saith Mr T. as of old were counted full of errours and dangerous to be read so as now they are we can hardly tell in some of them what is Origens what not For the Originall being lost we have onely the Latin Translation which being performed in many of his Works and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romans by Ruffinus it appears by his own confession that he added many things of his owne in so much that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith That a man cannot be certain whether he read Ruffinus or Origen And Perkins puts among Origens counterfeit works his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus 1 As we confesse there are some Errours in Origen and in whom not so there are many learned Animadver pious and most spirituall things precious Gospel truthes such as I have admired when I read them considering those darke times in so much as many now called Preachers of the Gospel may go to Origen if they have but the spirit of discerning to learn to be Gospel-preachers 2 If Mr T. makes these exceptions against Origen why I say why doth Mr T. urge Origen for himselfe in his fifth Argument in his Exercitation as we heard afore Truly a man can hardly with patience enough look upon Mr T. his dealing in this When wee urge three places out of Origen which you had before quoted and translated and formerly urged by Mr M. for the ancient practise of the Church in baptizing Infants then M. T. bespatters Origen as you heare and Origen is not Origen with him But if Mr T. urge but one only place of Origen to blast Infant-baptisme with the scar of tradition and to contradict all approved Antiquity afore then Origen must be received Or else to what purpose did M. T. alleadge him urging no other by which to pretend Infant-baptism to be a tradition 3 Mr T. hath nothing to say against Origen on Luke and therefore he intimates an acknowledgement of one place urged by us from Origen to stand good 4 Wee gave you all the places out of Origen as translated into Latin by Hieronimus as the best Editions promise us 5 Perkins his noting Origens Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans as not faithfully translated by Ruffinus doth not conclude it to be a counterfeit worke 6. If Ruffinus did say he added many things of his owne in the translation of Origen on the Romans and Leviticus for there is nothing said of Luke sure he would not confesse he had destroyed the sence of Origen or made him speake that he never meant This were to suppose Ruffinus would disgrace himselfe under his owne hand But Mr T.
ratified their Covenant made in Baptisme and so were confirmed in their Church estate by imposition of hands which imposition of hands is therefore reckoned one of the six principles of the foundation of Christian faith Heb. 6.2 For it could not be a principle of faith it must be therefore a principle of the foundation of Church-estate and Order So Mr Cotton with much more before recited Chap. 7. Now let the world judge whether these mens readings and reasons or Mr Tombes his strained glosses give us rightlyer the meaning of Heb. 6.2 To Mr T. his second Answ We reply first That the learned men afore quoted gave us the sum of Antiquity * Tertul de Baptismo Dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem c. Cyprian Ep. 3. 70. Nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in ecclesia baptizantur per praepositos ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manus impositionem spiritum sanctum consequantur August Tract 6. in Joan. Epist Nuac quidem um loqui linguis quibus imponuntur manus post baptisnum tamenrevera accipere spiritum sanctum latenter alque invisibiliter infundi charitatem That there was an imposition of hands upon beleevers children to confirm that Baptisme they had received being Infants upon the confession of faith when grown up and to testifie the Churches receiving them now unto full membership and compleat fruition of all Church priviledges as to partake of the Lords Supper c. And that this the Text here calls The Doctrine of imposition of hands whereas the recitall of the Articles of faith by those that were past Infancy being children of Heathens fitting them for Baptism is by the Apostle precisely and distinctly from the other called The Doctrine of Baptismes And is not this a proof sufficient that the common and ordinary imposition of hands was used after the Baptisme of Infants onely 2. If Mr T. could prove out of Antiquity for this Text of Heb. 6.2 hath it not for him that a ceremony of imposing hands upon the riper aged children of unbeleeving parents when the said children made confession of their faith for Baptisine crept into the Church this doth not overthrow other Antiquity much lesse the Text of Scripture That the Doctrine of imposition of hands that is that imposing of hands belonged to beleevers children after they had been baptized But thirdly to answer Mr Tombes his Quotation of Tertullian about this De coronâ Militis c. 3. By the leave of Mr Tombes that doth if not scorn so score with the nail in his examen those Antiquities of the Fathers we usually alleadge we must tell the world first what a peece and place of Tertullian Mr T. hath here alleadged viz. such a one as wherein Tertullian disputes for receiving unwritten Traditions Quaeramus an traditio non scripta debeat recipi c. saith he Let us enquire Whether unwritten tradition be not to be received We shall deny it to be received if it were not prejudged or fore determined by the examples of other observations which without the instrument of any Scripture or Writing by the title of tradition onely we from thence defend under the patronage of custome Moreover to begin with Baptisme when we are about to enter into the water even there but also too a little afore in the Church under the hand of a Bishop or Prelate we bear witnesse or make serious protestation that we renounce the Devill Pomp and his Angels After this we are plunged or drencht or dipt three times answering something more then the Lord hath determined in the Gospell Then being * Suscepti which alludes to God-fathers Office Jun. Note on the place undertaken for we take a tast of the compound of milke and honey And from that day we abstain from washing in the common laver or place of washing for a whole weeke Thus far Mr Tombes his place of Tertullian Now let the Reader weigh all the circumstances of the place and judge whether Turtullian here alludes to any Scripture Authority or to any approved Antiquity 2. Such a place of Tertullian that doth not prove the thing Mr Tombes intends For he well knows that sub manu is a phrase that hath so many sences as it is no wayes certain that here sub manu under the hand signifies imposition of hands Haply it may rather signifie the Ministers lifting up of his hand in prayer As Pacianus hath it we obtain saith he in prayer pardon and the holy Spirit in Baptisme by the mouth and hand of the Antistes Touching Mr T. his quotation of Chamier Pans Cathol tom 4. l. 4. c. 11. Sect. 14. We give the world this account that we have run over and that twice that 14th Section with as many more following to the end of the Chapter as make up that 14th to be 59. And we finde but foure Quotations touching imposition of hands All which serve little to Mr T. his purpose The first is in Sect. 23. quoted out of Areopag and is this After questioning and profession he puts his hand upon his head and commands him being consigned to be enrolled or numbred among the Priests after other ceremonies puts him into a certain garment and annoints him with oyl were this suppositions Areopagite * Mitto Arcopagiram Hier. Eccles Clementem Rom. Constitut Apostol Nee libri isti corum sunt quibus tribuuntur vulgo Jo. Voss Thes Theol. Hist See also Perkins prepar to dem of the problem an author of credit and free from the ceremonious fooleries here mentioned yet the Baptisme here mentìoned is of one of ripe years at which time unbeleevers children had the first seal to whom this imposition of hands was applyed rather to make him a Priest as we conceive by the words then to accompany Baptisme The second is of the same hogge-sty Leo the first and rather against Mr Tombes If any saith he shall be baptized by an Heretick he is not to iterate that Sacrament but onely that to be conferred which was wanting that by Episcopall imposition of hands he may obtain the vertue of the holy Ghost Here imposition of hands follows baptisme at distance which is for us The third is out of Cyprian viz. It were to small purpose to impose hands on Hereticks to receive the holy Spirit unlesse they receive the Churches Baptisme Here imposition of hands presupposeth precedent Baptisme though in men of ripe years The fourth is out of a false-named * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a forged Eusebius as Chamier calls him in his first Decretall Know yee that those that have been baptized in the faith of the sacred Trinity we receive or undertake for by imposition of hands If this fellow be of any credit he is for us not against us Thus few doth Chamier quote touching imposition of hands because his design was chiefly to pursue the dispute of the other part of confirmation as he calls it
shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe shall not enter therein It is spoken occasionall as in a parenthesis which may be left out and the sence of the story of blessing the little children as to whom heaven did belong stand full and perfect Or as that which may be put last as done last after Christs whole speech and action to the little ones and so it is put last Luk. 18.17 spoken by Christ to quip those that kept off the little ones from Christ as esteeming them or the motion of bringing them to Christ contemptible as if Christ said to them you had need look to your selves that ye be so happy as little children c. By all which it appears that this speech about men is not of the body or substance of the solemnitie of blessing the little ones or of the doctrine why they should be permitted to be brought to Christ but is onely a circumstance and cause made to the standers by As for Mat. 18.3 4. there is not a tittle of Christs blessing little ones but the pride of the disciples occasioning Christ to set a childe before them for a text out of which to preach humilitie to them Obj. But lest this exposition of such that is humble men should not stand firm but fall before some such reasons as we have given Mr. T. provides another exposition That of such must not signifie all infants of beleevers but onely them whom he blessed and those persons who either are so blessed or are converted and humble as little children Answ 1. Christ doth not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such 2 Christ speaks indefinitely who shall presume to restrain him with Ifs and And 's The Apostle saith Act. 2. more precisely to you are the promises yet may not we apply that to us when we are pincht in heart for sin being whatsoever things were written afore as the Apostle speaks Rom. 15.4 were written for our instruction or learning that we through patience and COMFORT of the Scriptures might have HOPE for us and ours 3 What ever persons else this may be extended to by Mr. Tombes that doth not exclude other beleevers infants Positâ una affiematione c. one affirmative doth not take away another For Mr. Tombes his denying major or minor we leave the Reader to judge by that which hath been said Those on whom Christ layed his hands must be supposed to have been baptized afore Or if Mr. Tombes could evince they were not contrary to the custome of the Scriptures yet they must be as fit or more fit for baptisme then imposition CHAP. VIII THe Argument from the place * Eâ—cercit Sect. 7. The argument from Act. 15.16 c. for Infant Baptisme examined Act. 16.15.32.33 Act. 18.8 1 Cor. 1.16 is thus formed If the Apostle baptized whole housholds then Infants but the Apostle baptized whole households Ergo Answer This Argument rests on a sleight conjecture that there were Infants in those houses and that those Infants were baptized whereas the words of the Text evince not these things yea those things which are said Act. 16.32 He spake the Word of the Lord to him and to all in his house and vers 33. He rejoyced beleeving God with all his house Act. 18.8 Crispus believed the Lord with his whole house do plainly prove that under the name of the whole house are understood those onely that heard the Word of God and beleeved Whence it is answered by denying the consequence of the major Proposition We reply * Animad If this be but a sleight conjecture whether there were Infants in these houses why do the Anabaptists proclaim with such confidence that for certain there was none and that there is for certain no instance in the New Testament of any baptized Me thinks they should leave it at least uncertain when they say it is uncertain 2 It is not so sleight a conjecture to all as to Mr. Tombes whether there were children For the Syr. in the story Act. 16. hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He the Goaler 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his house Vid. Schindl de voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Buxt Sure enough a son of eight dayes old is a son And if sons of the house then some sons of the father of the house what ever notes may be put on the text different from the words in the text 3 It is not so plainly proved that under the name of the whole house children or infants are not understood First because when the holy Ghost mentions house it means children too if there be no expresse exception Gen. 50.22 for they abounded with children Exod. 1. So 1 Tim. 3.5 for there is mention of the children v. 4. I omit many other instances for brevities sake Secondly where by house children are not included they are expresly excluded Gen. 50.7 8. And Joseph went to bury his father and all the house of Joseph went onely their little ones they left in Goshen Numb 16.32 33. And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up and all their houses and all the men that appertained to Korah Numb 26.11 notwithstanding the children of Korah dyed not Thirdly it is distinctly said Act. 16.32 that Peter spake the word to the goaler and to all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IN his house which is more then to all OF his house The holy Ghost makes some such distinction Rom. 9.6 They are not all Israe that are of Israel So that all IN the Goalers house seems to be put to include those prisoners at large and others that were not of his family but onely in his house at that time by reason of the hurry and noise of the prison open c. running together to see what was the matter Fourthly He spake the Word to all in his house is a speech that may not absurdly in some proportion be extended to children when something by it redounds to children as it is said John leaped in the wombe of his mother Elizabeth And Elizabeth was filled with the holy Ghost at the salutation of Mary And Act. 2. The promise is to you and your children for they should be the better for this The Word was spoken was extended to the goalers children in that by his faith they were nearer to and in a readier capacitie of salvation then before when the father was an enemie What means else that v. 31. Believe THOV and thou shalt be saved and THINE HOVSE Can we possibly exclude here some that were not able to hear the Word distinctly Fifthly it is said signanter acuratcly and by way of distinction for him and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And HE was baptized and all THOSE that were HIS How can this be true if those children he had were not baptized And therefore Mr. Tombes was too bold to speak that latter clause
Churches it is Endoctrinez teach ye Of the High Dutch Lebret teach ye of the Low-Dutch Leert teach And likewise in Hutter his N. Testament set forth in 12. Languages in so many of them as I can guesse at it is rendred onely teach ye His Syr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach ye Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach ye Lat. Deâ—â—te teach ye Ital. Insegnate teach ye Of German Dutch French we heard afore Mark the Euangelist also renders it Mark 16.15 onely by preach Secondly it is evident the word in the Greek is taken divers wayes and here is no note of circumstance in Matth. 28.19 to prove that it must signifie to make-disciples Thirdly the command is for the Apostle to preach to all Nations though they should not disciple or discipulate all If it s objected that if the word in Matth. 28.19 according to Mar. 16.15 signifies but to teach or preach yet mention of baptizing immediately follows teaching or preaching We answer So is baptizing expressed to follow believing saying He that beleeveth and is haptized shall be saved But in converting the Proposition that is in turning it negatively it is not said He that is not baptized shall be damned because Infants as Mr. T. confessed afore though of a day old unbaptized may have the sanctifying Spirit Therefore may be baptized Act. 10.47 Our Answer then is that Teaching and baptizing doth not run evenly together Secondly we now observe that the Lord having said go preach to all Nations he addes baptizing them indefinitely not expressing all or some for them doth not in the Greek agree Grammatically with Nations and so must needs leave us to compare this Text with other Texts afore-written As with Gen. 17. where though Noah 1 Pet. 3.19.2.2 Pet. 2.5 and Enoch Jude v. 14. had preached to all the old world yet so contrary to teaching were they that but eight persons were left alive by the Flood and of these that remained alive even to or quite to the time of Abraham but few were taught-men as Noah that dyed the yeer before Abrahams birth Shem alias Melchisedech and Abrahams father Terah and Lot few more about this time Job was long after about Moses his time were taught persons Now among the these taught men God would to Abraham communicate the first signe or seal and he being signed he should signe his children also Or with John Baptists practise who as it is said expresly baptized the parents confessing their sins but doth not exclude by any expression their children So then we must needs conclude that here is no determinating word in Matth. 28.19 to exclude believers Infants And that this Text doth but give in the two main parts of the Apostles commission but not expresly all the parts as the Administration of the Communion nor all the main circumstances of those two as touching childrens baptisme Secondly we answer to the comparison of that place of 1 Cor. 11.28 with Matt. 28.19 Let a man examine himself that the 1 Cor. 11.28 relates as the Apostle there expresseth v. 23. I have received of the Lord that which I delivered I say relates to an expresse institution wherein Christ gave the communion to his Disciples that were of ripe yeers and not to children But that place of Matth. 28.19 relates to no such expresse institution of the first seal excluding Infants but rather refers to such places as do include them as we shewed afore Secondly to that collation or parallel comparing Matth. 26.26 27. with Matth. 28.19 first we reply that 1 Cor. 11.28 declares that Matth. 26.26 27. is intended for an exclusion of unbelievers from the Communion but there is no place to declare to us that the meaning of Matth. 28.19 is to exclude believers children from the first seal Baptisme Obj. But Mr. T. saith he will make it appear in the next Argument that there are places to declare that Matth. 28.19 did intend the exclusion of believers Infants from Baptisme Ans We shall by Gods leave shew that there are none to make any such declaration when by and by we come to answer that Argument Mean while we say secondly that there is no other place to shew that apparent unbeleevers whiles such were admitted to the 2. Sacrament and therefore that institution Matt. 26.26 27. is sufficient to exclude from the Lords Supper But we have largely shewed that there are no places of Scripture to exclude Infants of believers from the first seal but many for including them as belonging to it and therefore we cannot take that generall expression go teach and baptize Matth. 28.19 to intend to exclude them from Baptisme CHAP. I. MR. Tombes his third Argument against Infant-Baptisme Exercit. Argum. 3. Sect. 16. From John Baptist and the Apostles practise is from the Apostles and John Baptist which saith he is the best interpreter of our Lords institution from whence this Argument is formed That tenet and practise which being put Baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles did administer it agrees not with the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles But the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme being put baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred it Ergo. 1. We answer Animadvers This Argument doth not in terms conclude the thing in question For make the supposition that John Baptist and the Apostles the best interpreters of our Lords institution had never any opportunitie or occasion offered to baptize any believers Infants would it therefore follow that the institution did not allow it when it doth not forbid it but leaves it to be referred to the institution of the first seal in the old Testament Moses the best interpreter of the Ceremoniall Law and so of the institution of Circumcision given by God had not any occasion that we read of to our remembrance of circumcising any Jews of ripe yeers would it follow therefore that he might not have done it according to the institution 2. We answer That when Mr. T. is to answer our Argument that the Apostles baptizing whole families likely baptized some Infants he makes it doubtfull whether they baptized any Infants and now Mr. T. puts it out of doubt that they baptized none Or else he would prove one doubt by another But let us come particularly to the Argument The minor namely the tenet and practise of Infant-baptisme being put Baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred is denyed For it doth not appear that they baptized no children But Mr. T. will prove the minor thus Before the baptisme of John even the Jews did confesse their sins the Apostles afore baptisme did require shews of faith and repentance Matth. 3.6 Luk. 3.10 Act. 2.38 Act. 8.12 13 37. Act. 9.18 Act. 20.47 Act. 11. 17 18. Act. 16.15.31 32 33. Act. 18.8 Act. 19.5 Act. 22.16 But this cannot be done in the baptisme of Infants Ergo. We answer by limiting the major That
in baptizing people of ripe yeers de facto in fact confession of sin c. did precede and forego But neither John Baptist nor the Apostles make any such expresse rule that de jure of equitie none should be baptized by them but those that could make confession of sin or profession of faith Nor doth all the Scriptures brought by Mr. T. prove any such rule Mr. T. himself intimatedly confesseth that John the Baptist did not make a rule for confession but onely in practise those Jews of ripe yeers that John Baptist did baptize did first confesse their sins And that Act. 2.39 Act. 16. c. have been alreadie discussed that they shewed children were baptized who could not make confession or profession But Mr. T. objects Act. 8.37 If thou believest with thy whole heart thou mayest be baptized Where the Apostle implies in his speech to the Eunuch that defect of faith was an impediment of baptisme We answer Mr. T. afore confesseth p. 24. Infants may be sanctified If therefore he means the defect of manifestation of faith we answer It is true in men of ripe yeers For there it is known that they are worse then Infants So was it in circumcision If Ishmael be a known scoffer he is cast out and so his children are not circumcised unlesse perhaps after at yeers they gave good testimonie of their due subjection to the Law So that to the whole argumentation we say that here is mention of the manner of the practise of that first administration of baptisme to the parents with confession and profession by many examples and intimations but not a rule set down that thus it must be in the succession of believers children We list not to speak any thing more of this major Proposition and the proofs onely wonder that among the crowd of Scriptures Mr. T. quotes he would thrust in that of Act. 19.5 for baptisme of water which was onely a conferring of the miraculary gifts of the holy Ghost by imposition of hands as many arguments from the place can evince But Mr. T. objects this for a confirmation of his Argument That if it be rightly argued from 1 Cor. 11.28 that the Lords Supper is not to be granted to Infants because self-examination is pre-required by like reason we may say Baptisme is not yeelded to Infants because repentance and faith are pre-required Act. 2.38 Act. 8.37 and that of those that descended from Abraham and to whom the promise was Besides what we said afore we answer to this Argument great in shew that there is not the like reason between those places for Baptisme and that for the Lords Supper For 1. That of the Lords Supper speaks of every Communicant viritim as counting one after another Let the partie whosoeuer it be enter into self-examination before eating But that Act. 2.38 speaks in the gub or generall to the parents And that Act. 8.37 is spoken to one onely man and in that phrase that cannot be found elsewhere on that occasion 2. There is no intimation in the New Testament of children admitted to the Lords Supper But in that Act. 2. presently in the next verse v. 39. there is an intimation of their Infants admitted to Baptisme as before we have evinced That clause of descending from Abraham and the belonging of the promise is of no weight in this Argument For 1 The parents by putting to death Christ had made themselves in wickednesse worse then Gentiles 2 That confession and profession is expresly called for onely from them that were so apparently wicked 3 That if they did come in by repentance the promise saith the Apostle presently runs to their children CHAP. XIII THe fourth Argument saith Mr. T. is taken from the next Age after the Apostles Exercit. Sect. 17. The 4. Argument against Infant Baptisme from the practise in the next age after the Apostles That tenet and practise is doubtfull of which it cannot be proved that it was in force or use in the next age after the Apostles But it cannot be proved that the tenet or practise of Infant-Baptisme was in force or use in the Age next after the Apostles Ergo. The major is of it self manifest The minor is proved by the testimony of Lodovicus Vives above-recited to which Vossius in the sibus Historico-Theologicis of Infant-baptisme joyns the testimony of Walafridus Strabo and by the examining of places brought to that purpose and by the continuation of questions propounded to the baptized in Ages following and others tokens from Councils and Ecclesiasticall Writers which in historicall businesse are wont to beget credit The words of Walafridus Strabo who lived about the yeer 840. in his book Derebus Ecclesiasticis Chap. 26. are these We are also to note that in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont onely to be given to them who by integritie both of body and minde were already come to this that they could know and understand what profit is to be obteined in Baptisme what is to be confessed and believed what lastly is to be observed of them that are born again in Christ Thus farre Mr. T. and his quotation of Walafridus 1. To Mr. T. his major we say Animadvers that it is not of it self manifest For what if we cannot produce any Records of Antiquitie for the use and practise of many things in the Age next to the Apostles are they therefore doubtfull when as we have the Word of God for them Therefore the meer failing of the Votes of humane Writers do not make a thing doubtfull though the Papists urge us with the like Argument that the Protestant Churches are not true because we cannot produce Histories c. to shew their succession in all Ages If we fail in Records of Antiquitie we may thank the Papists chiefly who as we may say martyred by fire and otherwise as well good books as godly men and yet the Truth according to Scripture stands where it did To Mr. T. his minor we say In generall 1. That Mr. T. tels us beside of Lodovicus Vives and Wal. Strabo of places brought to that purpose of the continuation of questions propounded to the baptized in ages following of other tokens from Councils and of Ecclesiasticall Writers but quotes them not which is not the way to beget credit in the judicious Reader It were too much to believe every Author upon his bare word without other circumstances and therefore by much more too much to believe Authors not produced but onely intimated by Mr. T. 2. Mr. Tombes gives us in two late-men in comparison of the stream of ancient Antiquitie which is contrary to those two 3. If those two had been a considerable number or had produced to us any considerable Reasons or quotations of Antiquitie higher then themselves or any fair probabilities or circumstances how they gather it they would sooner have begot credit then as they are now proposed In particular first to Ludovicus Vives we answered
procure health to their bodies as is plain by his words epist 23. ad Bonifacium Nec illud te moveat quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt vt gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem non enim propterea illi non regenerantur quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur celebrantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter so as to excuse if not to justifie their fact who made use of Baptisme in so prophane a manner as to cure diseases by it which is no marvaile if it be true which is related of the approbation that was given of the Baptisme used by Athanasius in play amongst boyes 5. You may consider that in the same Epistle when Bonifacius pressed Augustine to shew how Sureties could be excused from lying who being asked of the Childs faith answered He doth beleeve for even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before He defends that act in this absurd manner Respondetur credere propter fidei Sacramentum and thence he is called a believer because he hath the Sacrament of faith Which as it is ridiculous playing with words in so serious a matter before God so it is a senslâ—sse answer sith the interrogation was of the Childs faith before it was baptized and the answer was given before and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the Sacrament of faith which came after 6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle that Infants were then admitted to baptisme whether they were the children of believers or not it was no matter with what intention they brought them nor whose children were brought yea it was counted a worke of charity to bring any children to baptisme and in this case the faith of the whole Church was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith So that whereas the present defenders of Infant-Baptisme pretend Covenant-holynesse a priviledge of beleevers it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients but they baptized any Infants even of Infidels upon this opinion That Baptisme did certainly give grace to them and if they dyed without Baptisme they did perish And thus I grant that it is true the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Augustine But neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it nor doth it advantage your tenet that you have cited his citation of it Thus farr Mr T. his long answer to Mr M. short quotation of Augustine Wee answer and Animadver First to that That the Authority of Augustin was it which carryed the baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controul we answer three things First that Augustine flourished not till long after the first age from that that was next after the Apostles which was the time Mr T. said afore wherein baptisme of Infants began to be in use as an unwritten Tradition For Mr T. saith Augustine flourished not till 405 or 410 years after Christ So that his authority prevailed not but in his and the times following him But what was it that carryed the Baptisme of Infants the 300 or 400 years afore Augustin For all that time it was frequent as we have abundantly shewed out of good Antiquity Secondly if any after were carryed by Augustin to hold Infant-baptisme sure they heard or read Augustin arguing the thing by Scripture and divine reason * As against the Donatists Pelag. c. And then doubtlesse they were carryed by the Scriptures and Reasons he urged and so not by the authority of the man ** Mr T. himself confesseth in a matter of 40 lines after that Councels c. that did depend on Augustine depended on his Arguments Augustin himselfe had taught them better who in his works professedly rejects some of the Fathers when he thought they went not along with the Scriptures Thirdly It cannot be said that Augustines authority did in his time carry Infant-baptisme in a manner without controle seeing he had so much bickering with the Pelagians about it who under some notion did contend against it as wee shewed afore 2 To Mr T. his quoting of Walafridus Strabo we answer first That seeing that author is in such credit with Mr T. in that he quotes him so oft we expect he should be believed as well for as as against us Now Walafridus is for us against Mr T. in these things 1. About Imposition of hands that it did suppose baptisme which Mr T. denyed upon the discussion of Heb. 6.2 in his 14. Sect. of his Exercitation But Walafridus affirmes it De rebus Ecclesiasticis chap. 26. sub initium Saith he * Primis temporibus impositione manuum baptismum confirmari solere In the first times Baptisme was wont to be confirmed with Imposition of hands 2. About Athanasius that in Athanasius his time to his knowledge there was Baptism of little children Mr. T. doubts of it in his Examen Sect. 6. But Walfride shews us that Legitur quoque in ultimo Ecclesiasticae historiae libro Athanasius adhuc puer c. That saith he we read in the last book of Ecclesiasticall history that Athanasius being but a little child did act the imitation of Baptisme among his childish companions which being done with recitall of the words that the baptizer did aske and the baptized answered when those able to speak were baptized Alexander the chiefe Minister of Alexandria knowing the same judged they should not be re-baptized but ratified with confirmation Thus Walafridus 3. About Infant Baptisme which Mr T. denies but Walafridus Strabo quotes many authorities and antiquities for it As that it In concilio Gerundensi unius diei infans si in discrimine sit baptizari jubetur In that Councill it was commanded that an Infant one day old if in danger of death should be baptized Divers passages he hath to the like purpose 2. We answer to the Quotation of Walafridus Strabo that he faulters and is much faulty in the thing he is quoted for For first He calls the times of Augustine who is but of late in comparison of many Ancients we have quoted Prima tempora that is the first times for Walafridus quotes Augustins practise that was not baptized till of ripe years to proove that in the first times as Walfridus calls them men were not baptized till able to know well and make profession when as Augustin himself as we have shewd and Mr T. hath confessed did refer himselfe to ancienter times a great deal as to Cyprian that was almost 200 years afore him for the practise of baptizing Infants 2. Walafrid saith illis solummodo c. that is To them onely the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given who were of
Infant baptisme in Augustines time as that it deserves no answer Only we desire but this equitable favour of Mr T. and his friends that upon just occasion we may have but the same freedome to plainly lay downe to the world the strange phantasies of severall ages of Anabaptists or Antipaedobaptists as he hath wrung even to bloud as we say a few unwary expressions and pettie mistakes of the most Godly and learned Martyrs and Saints of God EXAMEN Whereas Mr T. doth paraphrase upon Boniface his question to Augustine about Sureties at baptisme That even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before We anser Animadver 1 We wonder Mr T. will assert confession of faith in all ages before all baptisme from witnesses or Sureties when as we know that the first intimation of touching them was not till about 195 years after Christ And how novel the invention of their confessions is who can justly tell 2 I propose it to grave consideration Whether confessions of Sureties were not at first in imimation of Christian parents in whose stead they stood So that as children were baptized when their parents had formerly made confession So Sureties confessed in relation to themselves that they might be reputed fit to stand as a kind of parents to a child of an unbeleeving parent to be baptized even as Abraham profession of his beliefe in God Gen. 15. Gen. 17. made him stand as a parent to all his houshold The last thing Mr T. objects against Augustine EEAMEN and through him against Antiquity is that in those times they baptized all Infants whether of believing parents or not or whether with this or that intention they brought them We answer 1 Too much Animadver doth not overthrow enough in antiquity to prove Infant-baptism in those times which is the dispute now in hand 2 That this argues against Mr T. that Infant-baptisme hath been anciently more universally practised then adult baptisme 3 That in Augustine's time Boniface scrupled whether the sinnes of parents might not praejudice the baptisme of their Infants seeing the faith of believing parents did advance the baptism of their Infants Augustin Epist 23. And Augustin himself there answeres that Infants are regenerated he means baptized by the spirituall will of them parents or in place of parents that bring them And in effect hath this further in his first book de animâ ejus origine chap. 11. That those children that are born of wicked parents and are not commited into the hands of any godly persons that may stand instead of parents * As Abraham did to all his family of strangers c. and so dye unbaptized are damned by the traduction of originall sinne from their parents 4 You heard before how Antiquity looked upon the discent of the Covenant of grace from parents to children Thus by many instances and vindication of ancient Writers you have seen that that particular of Mr T. his Minor in his fifth argum of his Exercitation That in some ages after the first from the Apostles the Tenet and practise of Baptisme was in use as a Tradition not written I say you have seen it proved to be most false and have vindicated the Ancients from Mr T. his objections in his EXAMEN Exercitat §. 17. Now let us returne to his Exercitation § 17. Where Mr T. will undertake to prove it that at one time at least in one place where Origen lived by one author to wit Origen that Infant-baptism went for an unwritten tradition And for this he quotes only one place and only quotes it not giving us the words he intends in any language But we have given you the place afore in the beginning of this 14 chap. of our Animadversions Animadver in our quotation of Origen And that place out of him in his fifth book on the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Rom. Mr T. quotes here by the name of Hom. on Rom. 6. where we have cleared it that Origen cannot understand by Tradition an unwritten Tradition To which we add now that which is very considerable to clear the mind of Origen from holding any baptisme to be a meer tradition namely in that he speaks so often in his 6 Hom. super Iesum Nave that Baptism without limitation is the second Circumcision And once hath there these words Sed ex quo venit Christus dedit nobis secundam circumcisionem per baptismum regenerationis c. that is But since Christ came and hath given us the second Circumcision by baptisme of regeneration he hath purged our souls So Origen So that now Mr T. may take his choice Would Mr T. accept of Origen on Rom. 6. for his witness for an unwritten tradition of Infant baptisme We have heard his witnesse examined him by circumstances he speaks no such thing Or would Mr T. impeach and disgrace his own witnesse as not competent saying that he is uncertain whether he reads Origen or Ruffinus that reads that enarration on the Ep. to the Romans Why then doth Mr T. quote that one place thereby before the ignorant to assay to blast all the best antiquity almost since the Apostles that constantly say Baptisme of Infants came from Christ and the Apostles and ground it upon severall Scriptures and divine reason Why did Mr T. hang so huge a weight on so small a wyer Hee hath produced but one pretended place on Rom. 6. for himself and that he weakens too with a glance at Origens works on Leviticus to prevent our quotation of any thing thence But as we have given him one place out of Origen on Levit and another out of him on Rom. 6. both as they are translated out of the Greek by Hierom as the best Editions promise us so we have given him a place out of Origen on Luke against which Mr T. hath made no exception And we say further if Mr T. be not sure whether he reads Origen on Rom. Then he is not sure whether he reads Ruffinus for his doubt lies between them two To that of Mr T. concerning Augustine and Hieromes relyance as he supposeth onely on Cyprians 59. Epist Exercitat §. 17. to Fidus for Infant Baptism we say onely this Let the Reader turn back to what we have translated out of those Authors or turn to our Quotations of them and read their Scripture Arguments and then judge whether Mr T. doth not much mistake I confesse since I took thâ—s work in hand to Animadvert a little upon Mr T. his Exercitation I have oft wondred that he speakes sometimes so unwarily that had such long time to consider sometimes gives forth great things with small hints and glanceth intimations for positions and probations But I answered my self with this likely he remembred he was propogating a now-taking-opinion He therfore that will not consider but will be mistaken let him be mistaken if he
will be mistaken Thus of Mr T. his first particular in his minor That Infant Baptisme was an unwritten tradition in some ages after the first of the Apostles but he cannot tell when as we have proved To his second particular of Jewish imitation Exercitat We have spoken already in answer to the Major Animadver And we have shewd that the pious learned ancients had other Scripture reasons then only Circumcision or their greedinesse to increase the number of Christians who so oft gave warning to take heed to whom they gave that sacred thing baptisme * Caeterum Baptismum non temere credendumesse sciunt quorum officium est Nolite dare sanctum canibus ne participes a liena delicta c. Textul lib. de baptis cap. 18. or Mr T. his perhaps a fine word for an argument and in divine things heathenish lustration of little ones When Justin Martyr Tertullian c. apologized against heathenisme for Christianity and many of our quoted authors sealed their opposition against Heathenisme with their blood And if there were any true Jewish imitation of Circumcision in Infant-baptisme it was in Fidus that thought children might not be baptized till the eight day and not in Cyprians Epistle that confuted him Nor do they more intimate the necessity of baptisme to salvation then Christ himself Iohn 3.5 Except a man he borne again of water and the spirit c. which is a place they oft quote or the Apostles that say we are baptized into remission of sinnes and for receivall of the holy spirit which they Hierom and others also alleadge And it is most sure there is such a necessity in regard of Gods precept and means as to us in the use of ordinances as let them venter their salvation on the willing neglect of them that dare I dare not As it is a sinne to put more in an ordinance then God ever put in it as the Anabaptists talke of wonderfull strange manifestations at and in the act of dipping I know what I speak or to think one is damned without an ordinance when God prevents the having it by death or otherwise so greater is the sinne to contemne an ordinance injoyned when it may be had As Tertullian speaks in his book de Baptismo chap. 13. Hic ergo scelestissimi illi c. Here those most gracelesse follows provoke questions So that they say baptism is not necessary to whom faith is sufficient c. To Mr T. Exercitat §. 17. his third particular in his Minor that Infant-baptisme was not universally practised for Constantine was not baptized whiles an Infant though his mother Helena were a Christian Nor Augustine though his mother Monica was a Christian c. We answer 1 No wonder if baptisme of Infants be not universally practised in all ages Animadver when so many Sects under one notion or another more or lesse stuck at it First Arrians in one age after that the Pelagians in another after them Arminius then the Anabaptists in Luthers time then the Anabaptists in Ainsworths time and now the Anabaptists in our times Shall these men make a practise and then make of it an argument for themselves who will be swayed with such an argument as that They should make out their practise from an argument and not make an argument of their practise 2 Mr T. doth not here so much as say that Helena was a Christian at Constantines birth or that Monica was a Christian at Augustines birth which to have cleared was necessary to the argument 3 Who doth not know that histories make mention of Helena as of a very weak and wonderfull I had almost said superstitious Christian Socrat. schol Ecles hist lib. 1. chap. 13. according to the English trans in digging for the crosse of Christ at Hierusalem and finding three to wit those two also on which the theeves were crucified on and being perplexed which was Christs a miracle of curing a dying woman with that which was Christs resolved which was his and so shee locked up some of it in a silver chest and the rest was set up upon a pillar in the market place at Constantinople so called of Constantine for the preservation of that City As also that she finding the nayles that fastened Christ to the Crosse shee sent them to her sonne Constantine the Emperour whereof he caused bittes for bridles helmets and head-peece to be made which he wore in battail So Socrate Eccles You see how vaine a story here is And that all the Christianitie by this appearing in Helena relates to the time of her sonne Constantines being Emperour And therefore what Mr T. can make of it to his purpose I know not 4. At this time of Constantines birth were great persecutions risen now almost towards the highest it cost after that Constantine many a battle before he could quiet things and therefore Helena the Emperesse the wife of Constantius the Emperour Religion then daring little to peepe forth more then in notorious suffering for it might well be affraid if she were then a Christian to doe such an act as to carry her sonne to Baptisme as Ministers might be afraid to doe it Constantius the father not being a Christian though politically moderate 5. For Augustine 1. It is cleare out of Aug. Confessions The first Booke and 11. Chap. that his father was not a beleever at his birth nor when he was growne up to be a little boy of some understanding For he sayth there in the description of himselfe while he was Puer a little boy or lad Ita jam credebam et illa et omnis domus nisi pater solus c. So I and my mother and all the family did now beleeve except my father onely who notwithstanding did not controule my mothers power over me whereby I should not beleeve in Christ For shee rather endevored that thou O my God shouldest be my father rather then he so Augustine Now the want of the fathers concurrence in carrying a child to baptisme in those difficult times might be some delay of that Sacrament For secondly We say persecution was walking among Christians about that time for Augustine in his third Booke chap. 25. Contra literas Petiliani saith that after the death of the great Tyrant he went into Africa Intimating also that his mother lived a very private life his father being then dead Thirdly Augustine tell us in his first book of confessions and 11. chap. That Cum puer * One is said to begin to be a Puer from 〈◊〉 4 yeere old so upward to 14. essem et quodam die pressus stomachi dolore c. When I was a little boy or lad being a certaine day oppressed in my stomacke and sick even to death thou O God sawest because thou art my keeper with what motion of minde and with what faith I earnestly desired from the pietie of my mother and of thy Church
What connexion and inference it hath to make an Argument 1. For the proofe And first for that Mr T. doth but intimate in the words and others It is true that in the eighth Sermon upon the Words of the Apostle This a true saying and worthy of all acceptation c. put among Augustines workes in the tenth Tome are these Expressions Infantes sunt c. That is They are Infants but they are Christs Members they are Infants but they receive his Sacraments they are Infants but they are made partakers of his table that they may have life in themselves But * Censura patrum Rob. Cooke * Cens tom 10. Erasmus and they that put forth the Lovaine Edition * In that Edition Augustine name is not praefixed do doubt whether the 2.4 6.8 Sermon with many more of them there on the said words of the Apostles be Augustines or no. Secondly for that proof Mr T expresseth the first part of it is here out of Cyprian de lapsis quoted by August in Epist. 33. the second part is in his Examen out of Augustine in his 1 book of merit and remission of sin chap. 20. on the words Iohn 6.53 and Maldonat on Iohn 6. who confesseth that Innocentius the first Bishop of Rome held it necessary for Infants and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 years in the Church though it be now rejected by the R. Church in the Council of Trent Thus Mr T. Now we answer to these things in the Generall thus 1. That here is produced onely matter of fact but no rule so much as pretended out of any Scripture Councell or any Father for it by those that used it 2. That this fact was for about 150 years From Cyprian till Augustine very rare As before Cyprian Helvie from whom up to the last of the Apostles are neer 140 yeers I finde no mention of it at all in the best antiquity And for this reason it was rarely used because the Ancients upon Scriptures swaying them were all along so confident as we have heard that baptisme alone was as Ordinance fully sufficient to assure them of the salvation of Infants which caused the universality of practise of Infant-Baptisme all along in those times In particular 1. To Cyprian we say if this place be not interlined and corrupted with patches by others inserted as those books that are altogether accounted Cyprians are * So Revet Perkins Cooke Possevin and if in this silly story of a phantisied miracle unworthy of learned pious Cyprian ** The story in a word is That a mayden Infant being made by the Idol worshippers to suck in a little of a bit of bread sopped in wine left by them that had there sacrificed she being after brought by her mother to the communion the Deacon forcing into the Infant some of the Sacramentall wine she presently vomitted c. which is taken as a miracle to discover the sinne before unknown of her partaking of the Idol-sop Popish Pamelius indeed huggs this story to prove miracles since the Apostles and transubstantaition But for Protestants they maybe rather ashamed of it then own it this wine were given to the child not as aliment but as a Sacrament why was not the Sacramentall bread given to it too And if it could not sucke downe a crumme of that bread as it is said they gave it the idol-sop because it could not suck upon the flesh how is it said to receive the Lords Supper For it is said by the Apostle The bread that we break is the Communion of the body of Christ We leave this uncertain and simple Testimony of Infant Commuuion in Cyprians time Let us come secondly to Augustine letting passe his weaknesse in too credulous quoting that weake passage in Cyprian his rash asserting that the child received the Lords Supper and his in considerate application of it to warne persons of ripe yeeres of unworthy communicating whereas more fitly he might have inferred that it shewed what a sinfull humaine invention it was to force the wine of the Sacrament into an Infant I say letting passe these things in his 23. Ep. Let us consider what is alleadged out of him In his book of the merit and remission of sinnes Chap. 20. upon occasion of his alledging Iohn 6. To which we say 1. That Augustiue doth not speake of Infants receiving the Communion as the common Tenet of those times 2. He brings in some disputing against him that that place of Iohn 6.53 doth not belong to Infants 3. When Augustne weakly endeavours to pull that text to reach to Infants from the verb plural unlesse yes shall eat and that it must belong to children too or else to those only whom Christ there speakes and not to us also in following ages c. In the conclusion he sayth only this That flesh which was given or the life of the world was given for the life of LITTLE ONES and if they SHAL not eat the flesh of the sonne of man nor SHAL they have life speaking in the future tence or time As for Maldonat that Popish Calumniator I think it nor worth while to turne to him if I had him or to believe him if I read him If Innocentius the 1. Bishop of Rome so thought and sayd its wonder there were no letters or Epistles between him and his Coeve friend Augustine concerning this point too And that Boniface succeeding Innocent and was also in Augustines time did not mind Augustine of it nor Augustine alleadge Innocent to Boniface in his 23. Ep. to Boniface Augustine touching upon this very point and alleadging Cyprian for it in that Epistle Howsoever if the 600. yeeres of that opinion and practise were those next before the Council of Trent thâ—n the opinion and practise was rare and privat in Cyprian and Augustines time if the 600. yeeres must begin at Cyprian yee a or at Augustine and his Coeve Innocentius how is it averred that the Council of Trent first rejected it Sure it was a grosse thing in the opinion of all Orthodox Churches that the Council of Trent must reforme Thus of Mr T. his proofe that the error of Infant cummunicating went along with Infant-baptisme Now according to promise a word of the connexion and inference to make it an argument 1. We have proved Infant baptisme to be no error therefore it cannot beget an error in the Administration of the Holy Supper 2. The adjunct or companion cannot necessarily argue the badnesse of the subject or thing The Sunne shineing many men commit evil yet this doth not prove the badnesse of the Sunne-shine 3. The Sacraments are two things specifically different distanced by expresse rules that only selfe examiners may Communicate it s not said so of baptisme therefore they that give the Communion to Infants erre for want of eyes not for want of light distinguishing between Sacraments 4. Many errours for many hundreds of yeeres clave to
the holy Supper to the Disciples 2 Cornelius his and the Gaolers families after the gathering of Churches were not by that numbred to any particular Churches or thereby made particular Churches that we read Now that which exists afore or after a thing without that thing cannot be the forme of that thing 3 That which is common cannot be proper and peculiar But baptisme is common to make men onely visible Christians in generall Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church And therefore though godly men or their infants have been baptized yet the Churches think according to Scripture that there must be somwhat more expressed to make such to own this or that preaching officer to be their pastor or teacher whom they must obey in the Lord and have in singular respect for the works sake Heb. 13. And to cause that Minister to own them as his flock Act. 20. if he meane not to take upon him a power Apostolicall for latitude to extend to all baptized ones Nor can it be pretended that this Minister baptizing them doth make them of his congregation because the Confession of the Anabaptists h Their confession of faith Artic. 41. set forth by the seven brethren of their fraternities say That any preaching Disciples that are no particular Church Officers or pâ—rsons extraordinarily sent but as considered Disciples are designed by Châ—ist to dispence this Ordinance Which we look upon us as a second fault in discipline following upon the Anabaptists Baptisme For we find not that any baptized others but either they were extraordinary Officer as the Apostles or Evangelists Or else particular Churches Pastours or Teachers Nor is there any thing in the Scriptures alleaged in their Confession but to the same purpose we speak Divine reason also concurs with us For a Disciple as a Disciple is only a member of the universall visible Church And so he can conferre nothing but what hee hath And so bring his brother no further in subjection to Church Ordinances than are administred by the universall visible Church and so can never be censured â—in case of lapse unlesse the universall visible Church concur which can never be And so Church discipline falls to the ground 3 Anabaptists have in many ages admitted generally all that will take up their baptisme Epiphan Anaceph p. 408. E dit Lat. Basil Epiphanius shews us in the fore quoted place That they affirme that for a man to stray in some great sin is nothing God required nothing but that hee should be of their faith Augustine in his fourth booke against the Donatists complains and quotes Cyprian as condoling the same That many Corde in melius non mutato c. That many being not changed in heart that renounce the world in words not in deeds were baptized And in another place speaks of it as an error of some in those times Errant qui pâ—aeter delectum omnes ad baptismum admittunt They erre saith Augustine that admit all to baptisme without any choice or difference And one of the late Anabaptists in a book called the marke or character of the Beast sayth that any man upon confession of sin though hee manifest no signes of grace ought to be baptized Thus of faults in discipline 4 By Anabaptisme have been occasioned many unnecessary disputes 1 Whether the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to baptize signifies to dip to rantize or to sprinkle whereas they baptized in old time some in their beds a See afore or couches b Clinidia therefore dipped not them The baptismes of Tables Mar. 7.4 here the word cannot signifie dipping The Israelites are sayd to be baptized in the Cloud and the red Sea But they were but sprinkled in the Cloud and not dipped in the Sea 2 Whether those baptized by men erroneous in judgment ought to be re-baptized Aug. against the Donatists 3 Whether there be originall sinne in infants 4 Whether they have faith 5 How long they must stay ere they be baptized c Of these 3 last we heard afore severally upon other occasions whether till three years old or under or till foure years old or over or how long whether till as old as Adeodaâ—us who was 15 at his baptisme as some will or till they be 30 years old which was the age of Christ As some thought in Nazianzens time Thus I have given you a taste of the manner of M. T. his disputing in those foure Arguments by an easier retorting them If M. T. condemne these our arguments retorted of impertinencie or invalidity he must of necessity also condemne his own And for my part if he will doe so I am contented that these foure arguments on both sides should goe for blank and so to leave the dispute where we found it as no great matter being done on either side to argue for or against by producing the errors and mistakes of men which may be laid aside on either side and yet a truth be held by either Though I doe not hereby mean to give away the Question of the lawfulnesse of baptizing believers infants And therefore we goe on to give particular answers to M. T. his foure Arguments aforesaid CHAP. XVI TO M. T. his first particular Exercitat § 19. of Sureties in baptisme urged in the minor of his sixth Argument touching humane inventions occasioned by Infant Baptisme We answer Animad 1 That sureties are known to have beene in Tertullians time and two hundred yeeres after in Augustines time as we have touched in divers quotations afore Whence I infer only this that the tenet and practice of Infant-baptisme were held in ancient times 2 That by vertue of Abrahams power and Guardianship over his houshold all his male family had the first signe or seal As the family of Cornelius and the Gaoler had the Governours believing and being baptized And usually those sureties that brought children to Baptisme promised to see them brought up in the fear of God or to that effect Whence I infer though I am not in the least for sureties onely I would have M. T. speak justly of things as they are That the sporting of profession of faith which M. T. here abjects was rather in the sureties that performed not that they promised then in thing it self To M. T. his second particular thence Exercitat of Episcopall confirmation We answer Animad that wee have already declared much of the Patriarchs imposition of hands of Christs imposition of hands of the Apostles imposition of hands of Churches imposition of hands since the Apostles upon little ones and usually after the first seal So that there is not so much human-invention in imposition of hands on baptized persons as there was arrogancy in the Bishops to assume this peculiarly to themselves To M. T. his third particular there That the reformed union Exercitat by examination confession and subscription of the received doctrine
are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their Baptisme by that faith of those that bring them to Baptisme So Mr. T. â—is translat and then Mr. T. makes these observations upon it 1 That In those times they did not baptize Infants upon Mr. Marshals ground namely upon the Covenant of Grace made to them and their Infants 2 But they baptized them because they thought the not-baptized should not obtein good things at the resurrection but the baptized should 3 That those baptized Infants obteined those good things by reason of the faith of the bringers what ever the parents were 4 That therefore they baptized the children of unbeleevers as well as of beleevers if they were brought Mr. T. hoping by this translation and these Notes to bring the Author and his words into disgrace as he himself hints it to us But we answer in generall that Mr. T. hath likewise quoted Authors and among them even his much esteemed Ludovicus Vives that have had their harsh expressions and worse as before we have noted 2. The intent and manner of quoting the Quest. to the orthodox was onely to testifie that the baptisme of Infants was a known custome in those times In particular we answer first to his first observation that the said 56. Question was not urged by my self or Mr. T. to prove baptisme of Infants upon the ground of the Covenant But the question being whether in point of Fact the Churches used anciently to baptize Infants to that the quotation of those Questions named Justin Martyrs was alledged and to that it serveth fitly and fully For he was a very ancient Author in the judgement of divers learned men Sylburgius thinks that he was a Justin that might write about the time of Theodoret. But Photius thinks that it might be Iustin Martyr interlined by some other Iustin or other after as Ruffinus dealt by Origen as Mr. T. confesseth To Mr. T. second observation we answer That as we that are believers as it is in the Answer to that 56. Question cannot applaud nor comfort our selves in a willing neglect of baptizing our children according to the Gospel institution as we now stand to maintain so doubtlesse we are to expect good things on Gods part to our children according to the intent of Baptisme We find it so on earth in their comfortable application of baptisme at ripe yeers and why not then to beleeve the fruit of it in heaven if they dye in childhood Why may not Baptisme as well comfort the supposed Iustin Martyr and us as Circumcision did the Patriarks concerning their childrens receiving the first seal This expression in this 56. Question and Answer is esteemed by Grotius on Matth. 19.14 whom Mr. T. so oft quotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To his third observation we answer That there is no such clause or intimation in the said place of the 56. Quest. ad orthodox as Mr. T. here inserts namely what ever the parents be The contrary is more probable the Author calling the bringers of the Infants beleevers And who so likely to bring the children as the parents And therefore the parents here most probably are those believers And whereas Mr. T. renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy worthy of good things he might by warrant from the Gospel * As Matth. 10.11 enquire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is fit or meet that is to receive you as it is expounded in v. 14. have rendred it by a more orthodox and fit terme viz. meet or fit And lastly it being more probable then any thing Mr. T. can bring to the contrary that the children were brought to baptisme by their beleeving parents and so made meet for good things as the fruit of it let the Reader judge whether all this doth not imply that respect here might be had to the Covenant of grace as the ground of baptizing children which Mr. T. but now so peremptorily denyed as if it were infallibly contrary to the Text of the Author To his fourth observation we need say no more but that Mr. T. speaks it without all warrant or such probability from the text of the Author as there is in it to the contrary Now let the world judge whether the words of the Author considering his time are so vain or so impertinent as Mr. T. would meke them had they been alledged in full and beyond that the quotation extended to Thus for Justin Martyr Next we come to Irenaeus IRENAEVS who lived in the same century namely in the next age to the Apostles and not at the last end of that age neither For Bucholcerus one of the most approved Chronologers by Vsher puts him in the yeer after Christ 178. And Helvicus puts him higher namely in the yeer Testis D. H. secum enutritus 170. And both of them put him down as Bishop at that time of Lyons saith Bucholcerus and therefore was famous no doubt divers yeers afore and an observer of the customes of the Churches Having this advantage for that purpose that he was the Scholar of Polycarp as Polycarp was Scholar or disciple to some of the Apostles as divers Chronologers tell us That which Irenaeus hath to our purpose in the point in hand is in his 2 Book 39. Chap. about the middle His words are these Magister ergo existens c. that is Therefore being a teaching Master he had also the age of such a Master not refusing or going beyond a man nor dissolving the law of humane kind in himself but sanctifying every age by that similitude that was in him to it For he came to save all men by himself All I say who by him are BORN-AGAIN unto or into God INFANTS and LITTLE-ONES boyes and young men and elder men Therefore he went through every age and was made an Infant to Infants sanctifying Infants Among little ones a little one sanctifying them that have this age being also made an example to them of pietie and justice or righteousnesse and subjection Among young men being made a young man and sanctifying them to the Lord so also an elder to the elder that he might be a perfect teaching master not onely according to the exposition of truth but also according to age sanctifying the elder being made also an example to them And then he went also unto death that he might be the first-born from the dead holding the primacy in all things c. So Irenaeus Whom we have translated above and beneath the place we are to use that there might be the lesse exception by any that they could not see the coherence and scope of the place The words we stand upon in which Irenaeus intimates the baptisme of Infants in that his time next after the Apostles are All I say who by him are BORN AGAIN unto or into God or according to God INFANTS and LITTLE ONES c. The word Renascuntur that is regenerated or new-born or born again
signifying or implying Baptisme So the Scriptures so Irenaeus and the Fathers mean by Born-again new born or regenerated though Mr. T. denies it Scriptures The first Scripture is in Joh. 3.5 Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit Where the Spirit signifies the inward work accompanying or following where God converts the outward signe seal and conveighance of Baptisme as we have before discussed this place where we have given you the generall consent of orthodox Authors and some Reasons that the water of Baptisme is here understood We now adde first the water of baptisme must be here meant because of the order water is put first the Spirit next Now where a metaphoricall epithite or word is put to set forth the nature of the Spirit the Spirit is put first and the metaphoricall terme or word after Matth. 3. Baptized with the holy Ghost and fire that is with the holy Ghost which is like fire Secondly Christ is speaking to Nicodemus one of the Pharisees who did put much in outward legall and ceremonious washings Mark 7.1 2 c. Therefore doubtlesse Christ would apply his speech sutable to the condition of Nicodemus to take him off that washing by propounding to him the Gospel washing of Baptisme already begun by John Baptist on which usually followed an inward effectuall work of washing by the Spirit Both these Reasons are hinted by Beza who by all means would rather have an externall washing here meant beside the inward of the Spirit And prevents an objection that grace is not here tyed to the Sacrament of Baptisme the peculiar Sacrament of regeneration saith he no more then it is to the Lords Supper Ioh. 6.53 Besides saith he there is mention after of the Spirit without water Thirdly regeneration is attributed to the outward and more common means of preaching the Word 1 Pet. 1.23 why not therefore to Baptisme the peculiar Sacrament of regeneration And so Nicodemus hath here for the businesse in hand which is his conversion all three means compleatly represented to him Christs word Baptisme and the holy Spirit We list not to abound in proof of a thing so plain and commonly received If one or two think otherwise it is not of weight to say so without proof Nor do I know any reason why any should dissent unlesse for a dream of tying grace to Sacraments which Beza and others excellently take off or for fear of mens private interests in an argument which is not considerable The second Scripture is Tit. 3.5 According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost Where washing according to divers learned orthodox Authors signifies or implyes Baptisme The reasons that evince our consent is 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for washing signifies not so much the act of bare washing as the place where the water is and the action is done For it signifies a Bath or laver of water and therefore cannot be so fitly applyed to the inward washing of the Spirit as to outward baptisme 2 The spirituall working of the Spirit follows in the next clause The making of us new by the Spirit 3 It is usuall with the holy Ghost to call the whole work by the name of the outward signe of baptisme Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 even as Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17. though but the signe or seal of the Covenant Thus of the Scriptures that by the words born again new born or the like is signified or implyed baptisme sutably to Scriptures Secondly Irenaeus takes his own word Renascuntur that is born again or new born to signifie baptisme Compare that place of Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 18. where speaking of the corruptions by Hereticks touching redemption and Baptisme c. he hath these words in the beginning of the Chapter This kind that is of Sect was sent by Satan for the denying of the Baptisme of regeneration or new birth towards or according to God and for the destruction of the whole faith This place clears the thing and Mr. T. his exceptions which are 1 possibly this might not be Irenaeus his words 2 That Irenaeus is corrupted by the Latin Translation we wanting the Greek copie To which we answer That this quotation out of the first book and 18. Chap. of Irenaeus takes away both objections For Mr. T. his Rivet confesseth That the first 27. Chapters of the first book of Irenaeus are inserted in Epiphanius his Panarium which we have in Greek And so much of Irenaeus entirely is to be had in Greek in Irenaeus his works And accordingly Epiphanius saith that That circumcision continued serving to the time till the greater circumcision came which is the laver of regeneration So Epiphan lib. 2. cap. 28. We have not time to seek more though he speaks often of baptisme sometimes calling it the great circumcision sometimes onely the laver c. But Mr. T. objects Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 4. that Voss Thes Theolog. de Paedobapt intimates that the proper acception of renascuntur that is born again or new-born is to signifie sanctification We answer Vossius doth not speak so much for Mr. T. but against him in this point Animadvers as we conceive Whether we conceive aright let the Reader judge Vossius his words are these We can prove by apparent testimonies of them that lived before the Pelagian Heresie that Infants were baptized Such a testimony is Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 39. Where he saith Christ came to save all by himself all I say who by him are born-again or new-born by him towards God infants and little ones c. where by the word born again or new-birth is set forth Baptisme according to the common form of speech of the Ancients Although if we take the word born-again curiously yet in as much as Irenaeus saith regeneration is in Infants It sufficiently refuteth the opinion of them who indeavour by this Argument to prove that because regeneration as they think may not be in Infants that therefore they may not be signed with the outward signe So Vossius But Mr. T. objects again M. T. EXAM Sect. 4. that Irenaeus his scope is to confute the Gnosticks that hold Christ did not exceed 31. yeers of age against whom Irenaeus alledgeth that Christ lived in every age that by his age and example he might sanctifie every age We answer Animadvers But Irenaeus layes the foundation of his sanctifying all sorts of ages in this that they are new-born by Christ to Godward both Infants and little ones and then follows he was made an Infant to Infants to sanctifie them having before regenerated them whereof what signe is there to us but Gods institution and act that Infants should have the first seal But Mr. T. yet further objects Mr T. EXAM Sect. 4. that Irenaeus speaks not of baptisme because he saith Born again by him that is by Christ We answer Animadvers That Mr.
Iewish passeover 1 Cor. 5. and of the Iewish Manna and water out of the rock 1 Cor. 10.1 c is therefore all Baptism and is therefore the Lords Supper deservedly doubtfull whether they may be used Yea why doth Mr T. without any limitation call circumcision Iewish as if it had been meerly so when the Apostle calls it Rom. 4.11 The signes and seal of the righteousnesse of faith Note It had been too much for Mr T. to have called it meer Old Testament or ceremonious circumcision seeing it is the first seal of the covenant with Abraham which was Gospell being the main hinge upon which the New Testament moves in the main point of salvation by faith in Christ Act. 2. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. where the Apostles in sending us to Christ by faith urges Gods Covenant with Abraham Circumcision therefore annexed to the covenant must be in diverse respects of the same nature as under the notion of the first seal in regard of the spirituall signification inward sanctification and too in respect of application to teach that still the first Seal as now baptism is to be applyed as to the beleeving parents so to their Infant seed unlesse Mr T. could have all this while shewd us an exception And what if according to Mr T. his third particular of Not universall practise Moses neglected the circumcision of his child at the due time and circumcision was not exercised upon the Jews born in the wildernesse for 40 years and many parts of worship could not be used in the times of the Churches persecution but Churches and their worship were hid in corners as Revel 12. And we have not records to tell us what they did for many hundred of yeeres but intimations how they were abridged of their liberties Now doth this make any of these things doubtfull See Vossius Thes Theolet Histor De Paedobapt And our quotation after Ambros following No more doth the want of universall practise detract from the authority of administring baptism to beleevers Infants especially seeing the Pelagian faction and other Heresies before that so ancient and so over spreading the Christian world being also opposite to the baptism of Infants might be a great cause that it was not universally practized And it is no handsome Argument in the mouth of an Anabaptist to urge the Non-universall practise of Infant Baptism when many of their fellows have been the cause of it Nor is it enough to wave that we have said to these two particulars viz. the second and third by telling us there was an institution of Circumcision in scripture an institution of Baptisme of men and of the Lords Supper in the Scripture for so we have proved there is of Infant Baptisme and we may as well assert this in this our Answer as for the Anabaptists to begge the Question in the objection as if Infant-baptisme were not instituted in Scripture For the fourth particular with its great caetera namely That together with the baptisme of Infants some errour and many humane traditions have gone along in the company as giving Infants the Lords Supper c. It needs no long nor carefull answer For first we know that all the Ordinances of Christ have been for many hundreds of years for the generall daubed with many traditions and darkned with many errours by the Papists doctrines mixt with Legends Note Baptisme be-spitled greased with oyl brined with salt the wine of the Lords Supper mixt with water c. yet this doth not infer that therefore the Ordinances themselves are doubtfull 2. That though you Mr T. Vltrò nos provocasti have voluntarily provoked us here to rip up all the abhominable opinions and dangerous errours and practises that have in all ages accompanied the opinion of Anabaptisme and antipaedobaptisme out of Mr Bullinger Sleidens Commentaries in his 5. and 10. book Lambertus Hortensius of the Anabaptiss of the Low Countries Iohn Gastius of the Anabaptists of Zuitzerland Melancthon Ch. de Nielles Pontanus Osiander c. * All which will more then furnish the Reader with a full answer to the 2 part of Mr T. his EXAMEN the title or sum whereof is set down by Mr T. That Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church or Common-wealth which Authors aforesaid have too many sad instances of both we forbear to name them as having no delight in Catalogues of sins Yet if we should do so you would not take that for a proof of the doubtfulnesse of Anabaptisme or Antipaedobaptisme you would say we did rather endeavour to disgrace it then to confute it as it is your complaint against Mr M. in your first Section of the second part of your EXAMEN why then do you here labour to dazle the eyes of men against the Lawfulnesse of baptizing beleevers children with an aspersion that some odde opinions and traditions have attended it 2. To Mr T. his minor we answer according to the particulars he recites But in some ages saith he after the first from the Apostles the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme was in use first as a tradition not written But why doth Mr T. we wonder speak of some ages after the first 100 years from the Apostles For unlesse he could proove Infant-baptisme to be an unwritten tradition in the first age next after the Apostles all is to no purpose If it were not an unwritten tradition in that age it is not an unwritten one though all the ages following to the worlds end say so and swear it Nor do the words was in use help him For if it be not proved it was an unwritten tradition in the first age after the Apostles though it was not then in use this is nothing to make it then an unwritten tradition Now to the first particular wherein Mr T. saith Infant-Baptism was in use as an unwritten tradition in some ages after the first from the Apostles witnesse Origen First we will bring our proofes of antiquity to the contrary and then secondly answer to Mr T. his quotation of Origen 1 For proof out of Antiquity that Infant-Baptisme was not in use after the first age from the Apostles upon meer unwritten tradition we will take our Authours according to order of time 1 ORIGEN ORIGEN Flourished about the very beginning of the second Century or age after the first from the Apostles times For he was borne * So Butholcer out of Hieron in the first Age or 100 years after that of the Apostles about the yeare of Christ 186. And he being the Disciple of Clement in the 18 year of his age and about the year after Christ 204. opens his schoole ** Helvic ou◠of Euseb Therefore he could not be ignorant of the customes of the Apostles about Infant-Baptisme c. First his words in his fifth booke upon the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans are The Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give Baptisme also to