things have been done to them who though of age knew not for the present what was done unto them yet not absurdly nor to no purpose as when Peters feet were washed John 13. 7 c. Christ told him What I do thou knowest not now yet was it not absurdly or to no purpose done 3. No circumcised Infants knew what was done to them for present yet was it to purpose done to all either to salvation or further condemnation That Tenet and Practise which being put or supposed Baptism cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred it agreeth not with the Practice of John Baptist and the Apostles But the Tenent and Practice of Infant-Baptism being put Baptism cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred it Ergo. We answer Here is an Ignâ—ratio elenchi the argument driving at that which is not in question The question is not whether John B. and the Apostles did baptize Infants for in case they had not opportunity so to do it follows not that when opportunity was baptizing such agreed not with their practice no more then to have circumcised men of years had not agreed with Moses Institution of Circumcision because we never read that he ever did circumcise any Jews of years 2. The Minor can never be proved How know you that John B. or the Apostles never baptized any Infants You have been often told à non Scripto ad non factum followeth not No man can certainly say that John B. and the Apostles never baptized Infants The contrary appeareth in that which hath been said CHAP. II. Mr. Fishers Objections at Folkstone in Kent March 10. 1650. answered IF Baptism of Infants be no Ordinance of Christ then it is unlawful But the Baptism of Infants is no Ordidinance of Christ Ergo. We deny the Minor If the Baptism of Infants is not ordained in the New Testament of Christ then it is no Ordinance of Christâ— But it is not ordained in the New Testament of Christ Ergo c. We deny the Minor If it be ordained in the Testament of Christ then it is to be found where Ergo c. We answer 1. The minor is again denyed for the matter in question is to be found in several places from firm and good consequence 2. If otherwise you argue negatively from Scriptures in respect of express terms We further say 1. That the like reason might be urged against baptizing of women and administring the Lords Supper to them there being no express or particular precept in terminis for either nor express example of the latter nor promise to it in all the Scripture And if you say women are comprehended in the general precepts we answer so are Infants of believing Parents as parts of Families and Nations If you say women are admitted to the Communion because Christ dyed for them as well as men We say so to and that he as certainly dyed for Infants 2. The command for baptizing Infants is Matth. 28. 19. The examples Acts 16 33. 1 Cor. 1. 16. And the promise Acts 2. 39. If Infant-Baptism be an Ordinance of Christ then it is expresly set down But it is not expresly set down Ergo c. We answer 1. If the question be concerning the example of Christ or his Disciples baptizing Infants and you would reason thus They did never baptize Infants because it is not expresly written We have often said à non scripto ad non factum non valet argumentum Christ and his Apostles did many things which are not expresly written 2. We may understand this word Expresly to signifie either a writing in terminis that is so many words and syllables Go and Baptize Infants if you would have it so strictly understood that it is not the Ordinance of Christ that any should be baptized but such as are so mentioned in Scriptures then you must also conclude that the Baptism of women is no Ordinance of Christ and indeed there might appear more colour of doubting concerning their baptizing who were not sealed under the Law then of male Infants which were and then giving the Eucharist to women must be no Ordinance of Christ nay baptizing of men and women of ripe years must then be no Ordinance of Christ for where can you shew us where Christ expresly said Go and baptize men and women of ripe years Where can you shew us in terminis Thou Thomas John Andrew c. shalt be baptized and saved This you will put upon necessary consequence where you have no express word And why shall we not have the like liberty for Infant-Baptism Or we may understand this word Expresly in a greater latitude to import a general and implicite command in such terms and grounds quibus positis alia necessariò consequuntur So we say Christ expresly commanded Infant-Baptism where he said without any limitation or exception to Infants Go baptize all Nations whereof Infants then and ever were and are a great part because except in case of some evident incapacity eadem est ratio partis totius 3. Taking Expresly in a proper and strict sense as it seems you here do for in terminis so many words and syllables We say from other instances that your assertion may appear false and erroneous For 1. There is no express place of Scripture which nameth three persons in the unity of the Deity which yet we must believe again there is no Express Precept for abrogating the Jewish Sabbath and religious observation of the Christian Sabbath as hath been noted If Matth. 28. 19. Christ gave Commission to teach those whom they were to baptize then not to baptize Infants But Matth 28. 19. he gave commission to teach those they were to baptize Therefore there he gave no commission to baptize infants 1. We answer Your major is Amphibologiâ—ae For it is doubtful whether you affirm by those whom they were to baptize all those or only some of those If you mean All your minor is false For Christ gave them no commission to teach Infants as such though he gave them commission to baptize them into future faith and obedience If you mean thus Christ gave commission Matth. 28. 19 20. to teach some of those whom they were to baptize therefore he gave them not Commission to baptize Infants then the Sequel of your major is lame and cannot follow for though Christ there gave them commission to teach and baptize the Parents first it follows not thence that therefore he gave them not commission to baptize their Infants but contrarywise he therefore gave them commission to baptize the Infants of such For the Parents being taught and sealed entituled their children to the Seal of the same Promise and Covenant of God which is joyntly to sealed Parents and their Children Gen. 17. 7. and so Christ commanded them to teach those who were capable of doctrine and only to baptize them who were capable of
Baptisme by a kind of self-excommunication Again we say Thâ—t to condemne the Doctrine of Anabaptists upon great grounds of Reason seems to lay too narrow a ground and possibly too unsound a foundation for our profession specially if we consider what is here said Sect. 10. Num. 2. concerning the pretended authority of Reason and following his guide so far as his Reason goes along with him Or which is all one he that follows his own Reason c. which guidance by Divine Revelation and I know not what other good means he meaneth he saith hath great advantages But to leave ambiguities of words and confusion of senses we affirm That the word of God is our ground and guide in matters of Faith and Religion which even the greatest pretenders to humane authority and undervaluers of holy Scriptures do acknowledge in their soberer fits and that the Spirit of God illuminateth the elect whom he calleth guideth and enableth to obedience against the dictates of carnall reason and the corrupt affections ofâ—flesh and blood If he mean any other Divine Revelation then that which is consonant to the known and invariable Rule of Gods word I know not what greater advantage Satan could desire for leading beguiled souls to hell blindfold then to find them following their own reason and putting their salvations upon pretended revelations our faith is on Gods truth not humane Reason which in this life is not so absolutely purged from the contagion of sin ignorance and error since the Apostles being furnished with infallibility of Spirit but that it is subject to some errors and therefore though we disclaim all blind obedience to man in acts of Religion yet we submit to God in believing every thing which he saith adoring his Truth which we cannot by any strength of humane Reason examine Moreover we say seeing that only may and can be the ground of our Faith which cannot erre or be false and seeing that we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone Ephes. 2. 20. we cannot consent to be taken off from that infallible certainty and to be set upon the moveable and loose sand of onely Great grounds of Reason or any thing lesse known certain and infallible then the holy word of God which we know cannot deceive us It will neither be unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short Scheme of plea for each party the result of which possibly may be that though they be deceived yet they have so great excuse on their side c. Surely unpleasing to God it is to make sport with matters of so high concernment and to play with holy things for so this plea must be except you are in earnest for the Anabaptists or for fear or favour of men so to temporize as thereby to endanger as much as you can the Cause and Truth of Christ. And how it can be either pleasing to any good Christian which displeaseth God or profitable which causeth any to erre from the truth in pleading for that which you acknowledge to be a Doctrine justly condemned I confesse I understand not Possibly Joash would here have replied to such a short Scheme of plea will ye plead for Baal That their error is not impudent or vincible To say an impudent error is but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and impropriety of speech which in more exact expression I suppose you would render they are not impudent in defence of their error If so I onely appeale to experience As for that which you say They have so great excuse on their side that their error is not vincible seems a contradiction in the adject who believes any error to be invincible who believeth that Christ the Truth John 14. 6. hath sufficiently delivered that heavenly light in the Gospel which though God permit it sometimes to be clowded shall shine clear and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it but it shall put to flight and overcome every darkness of error specially in things pernitious and about the foundation I say not to the sense of those whom God justly giveth over to strong delusions that they may perish who receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved but to the Goshen and Israel of God appointed to salvation How else should it be that our faith should be the Victory that overcometh the world except it be in the invincible truth and faith in him who hath overcome the world John 16. 33. For by World Christ here meaneth and comprehendeth all that which is contrary to the salvation of the Elect specially those falsehoods and errors which Satan by any means broacheth to corrupt and overthrow the true Faith See Heb. 11. 1 c. Mat. 16. 8. The Baptisme of Infants rests wholly on this Discourse If that were true your plea for Anabaptists were lesse condemnable but the contrary will appeare in due place But whether they have originall sin or no Indeed the Pelagians an old Sect of Hereticks denied that Infants were born in originall sin And Celestius affirmed That Adams sin hurt onely himself but not mankind And others that Infants are born in the same state in which Adam was before his transgression But the holy Scripture plainly condemnes this Heresie See Job 14. 4 Psalm 51. 5. John 3. 5. 1 Cor. 15 50. Rom. â— 12. 1 Cor. 15. 22. Eph. 2. 3. So do all the Reformed Churches and Papists too vid. Bellar. l. 4. de amissione gratie stat peccati Besides woful experience teaching us that children die demonstrateth that they brought that guilt into the world with them which subjected them to the sentence of death and participation of the punishment of Adams sin which could not be except they were partakers of his guilt because God is just That they have contracted the guilt of Adams sin you confesse pag 230 Num 16. Infants cannot by any act of their own promote the hope of their own salvation which men of reason and choyce may by acts of vertue and election Faith and hope of salvation are not of our selves but the gift of God Eph. â— 8. And what hope infants have or acts of reason how God applieth the merit of Christ to Infants who became an infant that he might also save them is a secret unknown to me and therefore I do neither anxiously enquire nor rashly determine That men of reason and choyce may promote their hope of salvation by acts of Vertue and Election must cautiously be understood seeing they neither can do any thing hereto as they have reason or election both which are naturall and so corrupted that they are utterly inactive to any moral good without the help of Gods preventing and quickning grace supervenient The Scripture is expresse You hath he quickned who were dead in trespasses and sins and were by nature the children of wrath even as others
rejoined what ere they professe they may be hypocrites and then no more spirituall Infants then Judas or Simon Magus were If you say that in charity you take them for spirituall I answer That an opinion that may be so easily false and in which any man without speciall revelation may be deceived is a very unproportionable ground of so sharp a controversie as causeth your Clients to forsake the Church of Christ. Next I say had you but as much charity towards infants whom no actuall sins have yet stained you would as freely judge them spirituall infants and so by your own Principle to be baptized as those of years of whom possibly you may know much evill without all controversie they have many sins to be repented of and why should you not afford harmless Infants who cannot dissemble as much charity as you do to many hypocrites of whose spirituall regeneration or being spirituall Infants you cannot be certain And this seems to have been the sense of the primitive Church for in the age next to the Apostles they gave to all baptized persons milk and honey to represent unto them their duty that though in age of understanding they were men yet they were babes in Christ and children in malice c. Indeed we read of such a custome in Tertullians time but that was two hundred years after Christ but I find not the sense of the Church therein by him expressed to your purpose And Hierom mentioneth the same custom but giveth no such sense as you pretend to it being well known that he was for Infant-baptism And it appears not by any thing you here cite or say that such a custom proveth any thing against Baptism of Infants for whom milk and hony is fitter nourishment thâ—n for the strong 1 â—orinth 3. 2. Hebr. 5. 12 13. Your other conjecture is but feebly grounded yet you say But to infer the sense of the Pedo-baptists is so weak a manner of arguing that Augustine whose device it was and men use to to be in love with their own fancies at the most pretended it but as probable and a meer câ—njecture To which we answer 1. That things which Christ commanded to his Apostles could not be Augustines or any humane invention but a divine Institution such was baptizing of Infants as will appeare in due place And this is the ground of this whole controversie 2. That it was none of Augustines device or fancy with which he was therefore in love as being his own Augustine his self clearly testifieth S. Cyprian saith he not composing any new decree but holding the most firm faith of the Church to correct their error who thought that an infant might not be baptized before he were eight days old he with certain his fellow Bishops was of this sense that a new-born infant might rightly be baptized As for the words of Cyprian we have cited them a little before Cyprian with a Conncell of 66. Bishops resolved so not out of any then new-born opinion or decree but maintained that which was of old the firm faith and doctrine of the Church which was long before him And Cyprian flourished about the year of our Lord 22 and was crowned with martyrdom under the persecuting Emperour Valerian about the year 260. And St. Augustine flourished about the year 410. and died about the year 430. So that had Augustine as you say devised it iâ— must have 150 years years before Augustine was born been devised by Augustine which had been a singular device indeed Origen of whom you say Augustine had this tradition of Baptizing Infants pag. 237. N. 25 saith because we are all conceived and born in sin the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to administer Baptism to little childâ—â— Now Origen lived about the same time with Cyprian How you can reconcile your self in that you here affirm that Pedobaptism was Augustines device and yet confesse that Augustine had it from Origen who died so many years before Augustine was born I say not to the truth but to your self I do not understand Justin Martyr whom Tertullian mentioneth as an Ancestor he lived under the Emperour Antoninus Pius and. Irenaeus speaketh of Infants baptized in his time Irenaeus speaking of Christs Baptism and entrance into his publique Ministery saith He sanctified every age by that similitude which was to himself for he came to save all by himself I say all who by him are regenerate to God infants and little ones boys young men and old therefore passed he through every age for infants he became an infant sanctifying infants c. This Irenaeus was so ancient that he saw Polycarp who was an hearer of some of the Apostles of Christ. It was therefore none of Augustines device 3. Whether this be true which you affirm that Augustine at the most pretended it but as probable and a meâ—â—conjecture to baptize infants as infants were circumcised let Augustine speak for himself who saith If any man in this thing look for Divine authority although that which the universal Church holdeth being no Decree of any Councell but hath been always observed that we must rightly believe to have been delivered no otherwise then by Apostolicall authority yet we may truly apprehend of what value the Sacrament of Baptism of Infants may be from the circumcision of the flesh which the former people received Abraham was justified before he received it as also Cornelius was endued with the gift of the holy Ghost before he was baptized c. why therefore was â—e commanded thenceforth to circumcise every male child on the eighth day seeing they could not yet believe with the heart c. but because the Sacrament it self is of it self of great moment so untrue is it that Augustine either devised Infant-baptism or so slightly pretended to it as you report But you go on And as ill successe will they have with their other Arguments as with this And what is that for which you cry victory in your former encounters I will not be so expensive of time or so much entrench upon the Readers patience as to repeat let him judge of what he hath read But what other battalio's come next up You say From the action of Christs blessing Infants to inferre that they are to be baptized proves nothing so much as that there is great want of better Arguments A gallant flourish indeed but seriously Did Christ take them up in his arms and bless them and are they not blessed Doth not Gods blessing give both end and means that we may be so Or spake Christ onely concerning the carnall seed of Abraham and not of the spirituall when he said Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Surely if Christ adjudge and give the Kingdom of heaven which himself onely can give and in which none but the elect shall be to an infant it must be no less then impious in
But you say A wicked adulterous generation seeketh after a signe c. Possibly Mr. Fisher at his Ashford-conference was beholding to you for this opprobrie and abuse of holy Scripture but we entreat you seriously and timely to consider the severity of the Judge who hath said concerning any that take his name in vain I will not hold him guiltlesse and whether pernicious playing with holy Scripture and willfull perverting the sense thereof fall not under the sentence of self-destruction consider the terrors which Christ useth Matth 12. 38. 39. and Matth. 16. 4. the thing which the Scribes Pharises required was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word though it signify divers things as may appeare by comparing Mat. 14. 3. 26. 48. Luk. 2. 12. Rom. 4. 11. 2. Thess. 3. 17. yet is it more then manifest that they required a miracle and that extraordinary and above all those divine works of Christ which hitherto they had ever seen as casting out devils raising the dead c. they required a signe from or out of heaven Matth. 16. 1. Mark 8. 11. and then Christ answered a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a signe that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wonder which words are often joyned to expresse the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly signifies a prodigie or monster Suidas gives it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeter ordinariamrationem formatum praeter naturam genitum such a signe as begetteth admiration and amazement in the beholders and so the Syriack Joh. 4 48 expresseth it by a word comming of that verbe which signifieth to be amazed or very much to admire now I appeale to your conscience do we seek any such signe or miracle from heaven when we bring children to be baptized is not this froathy Rethorick you confesse baptisme to be the ordinary inlet into the kingdome of heaven and is an ordinary thing a signe or miracle consider also the persons of whom Christ spake they were a wicked and an adulterous generation for though they pretended to be Abrahams children yet neither heiring him in faith or works but degenerating from him they deservedly heard ye are of your father the devil if this present generation be such consider who makes it so and whether you have any commission to judge them wicked who professe true faith and obedience to Jesus Christ and his holy gospel in all things that any shall or can make appeare to us to be the truth But you say The truthâ—out is this argument is nothing but a direct quarrelling with almighty God The untruth of this assertion is so evident that it were but lost labour to bestow more words to refute it Now since there is no strength in the doctrinall part c. I appeale to the judicious reader let him judge what strength hath appeared in your oppositions concerning the words which you here multiply to little if any purpose I shall say no more but onely marke the strength of the pleaders present argument the sum whereof is Some Apostolicall traditions were pro loco tempore accommodate to place and time as the forementioned love feasts saluting with an holy kisse anointing the sick absteining from blood c. therefore no Apostolicall traditions passed an engagement upon following ages We answer we contend not for any such traditions as were pro loco tempore yet doth it not follow that because all Apostolicall traditions engage not posterities therefore none do as in that instance concerning the sabbath I suppose you will accord with us But you say Because other parallel expressions of Scripture do determin and expound themselves to a sense that includes not all persons absolutely but of a capable condition as Adorate eum omnes gentes psallite Deo c. Suppose all that granted what then you would inferre that infants have not a condition capable of baptisme because some other places of Scripture are relating to capahcity what makes this against the baptisme of infants who beeing within Gods covenant are therefore capable of the feal thereof as they were under the law although even then the Scripture saying psallite Deo omnes c. said that to those only who could sing to God and praise him and not unto infants of eight-dayes old to be circumcised who know's not that God commanded severall things with respect to severall capacities doth the incapacity in respect of one command conclude an incapacity of all women were not capable of circumcision nor of the office of teaching in the congregation nor of execution of priestly offices yet they also could and ought to sing to the Lord and were of that part of nations commanded to praise the Lord. Psal. 148. 12. Psal. 149. 3 5. Exod. 15. 20 21. â—udg 5. 1. Infants had not a capacity of singing praises to God they had of circumcision and therefore they were then circumcised though they could not sing infants cannot sing now therefore that precept sing unto the Lord c. concerneth them not for present but they can be baptized as such therefore that precept baptise all nations reacheth unto them you say more As for the conjecture concerning the family of Stephanas at the best it is but a conjecture and besides that it is not proved that there were children in the family yet if that were granted it followes not that they were baptized because by whole families in scripture is meant all persons of reason and age within the family Admit that to be conjectural and we take it for no more yet it is no light conjecture the Syriac gives it filij domus â—jus omnes speaking of the keeper of the prison Act. 16. 33. that children were baptized with the rest of the family for though â—â— there also may signify any domestick yet certainly it signifieth a child also and children were usually domesticks but it can be no more then a light conjecture of Anabaptists that there were no infants in this family or that of Stephanas which Paul baptized howsoever it can be no conjecture but certaine truth that in all nations there ever were and still are a great part infants and it is more then conjecturall that the Apostles did as Christ commanded them saying baptize all nations as for that which you say in Scripture is meant all persons of reasons and age within the family because it is said that the ruler at Capernaum believed and all his house is that proposition universall doe you affirme that by whole families is ever meant all persons of age within the family and such only if so your assertion is apparently false but if your proposition be particular it falleth short of our cause for what can it hurt it if by all or whole families in Scripture sometimes is meant all persons of reason and age deale ingenuously then do you affime that by whole or all the Scripture doth alwayes meane persons
of reason and age what doth God when he said to Abraham and in thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed doth he meane only all persons of age are children in their nonage excluded from the blessing in Christ Nay but the Apostle saith expresly the promise is unto you and to your children and such Christ blessed and of such is the kingdome of heaven Doth the Scripture 21â— saying all flesh dyed every man meane onely all of reason and age were the infants excepted many places of Scripture may shew the vanity of this your assertion but if your proposition be particular that is that sometimes the Scripture by whole families means persons of reason that is who have the use of reason and age we can grant it you I adde somtimes all signifieth only a great part as Mat. 10. 22 ye shall be hated of all men for my name sake that is of many times in the Hebrew manner of speaking it signifies none or not any one as Psal. 147. 20. he hath not done so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all or every nation that is not to any so Exod. 12. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. every son of a stranger shall not eate thereof that is none now would you have the sense of Christs words goe and baptize all nations to be go and baptize some nations or a major part of the nations the evidence of the truth is against that as well as against the other go and baptise none but you would faine have it go and baptize those that are persons of reason and age within the nations shew us any such precept of Christ and we will obey it in the meane time we must do that which we know he commanded us that is baptize all nations all against whom we finde no exception and why should we look for exception in families seeing we find none mentioned by our Saviour in nations but you would have here a limitation to capacity which you think infants have not first we say shew us any Scripture-proofe for such limitation secondly we say that although the incapacity of an infant limit a command where there appeareth a present impossibility of doing that which God in generall commandeth as where he saith believe repent confesse your sins sing unto God praise him c for God commandeth no impossibilities yet where it is possible that the command may be fulfilled there lieth no such limitation now you will not say that 't is impossible for infants to be baptized if you say they ought not to be baptized untill they can actually believe repent c. we must answer you with your own this is unmanlike to build upon such slight and aery conjectures as are humane fancies to forbid infants baptisme and when you can bring us no solid ground for that you would have to beg the question But you say Tradition by all meanes must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a tradition Apostolicall that infants were baptized c. You seem here to speake three things first that when we cite traditions we use them in place of Scripture or for defect of Scripture-proofe which to deny is confutation enough untill you can shew which of us so pretend to tradition Secondly in your following words you pretend that we sometimes reject Apostolicall tradition for of that you speake to which we say that when the quaestion is concerning a tradition of the gospel or Apostles as Epiphanius speakes we receive it and with an ancient Council wish that those things may be done in the Church which were delivered by divine Scripture or Apostolical tradition which we adde hereto though we have no reason to admit of all that is alledged for such as for those things which the Apostles desivered in complyance with particular times places or persons as anointing with oyl saluting with an holy kisse love-feasts c. they were necessary then and to that people who had been long accustomed thereto of whom a gospel-Church was now to be gathered but they were neither universally prescribed neither do they concern us now Next we say with S. Augustine the whole Church holdeth by tradition the baptism of infants and that beeing continually observed we justly believe to have been delivered and confirmed by Apostolicall tradition But you say So farre as it can appeare it relies wholly upon the testimony of Origen for from him Augustine had it c. Yet before you affirmed that infant-baptisme was Augustin's device how had Augustine it from Origen if it were Augustin's device That it was neither his device neither that it relyeth wholly upon the testimony of Origen many other testimonis by us alleaged make manifest as Dionysius Jrenaus Cyprian Ambros Jerom Cyril Gre. Nazianzen Basil c. as also ancient Councils as that of â—arthage Anâ— 407. the Milevitan Anâ— 420 c. to conclude we rely not upon the testimony of man though we reverence holy antiquity but on the command of Christ and the Apostles practises baptising whole nations without any appearing exception to infants of believing parents and therefore you following inferences either nothing concern or nothing hurt us You say further There was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it No command to children to oblige them a dainty caption neither was there any command to infants to oblige them to the susception of circumcision for they could neither act nor understand that or any other command The command was to the parents for present and to children for the future therefore if you meaâ—e that there was no command of Scripture to oblige â—s to the baptizing of infants the contrary appeares Matth. 28. 19. But you require expresse termes we rejoyns what expresse termes in Scripture have you to prove that there is an holy Trinity in the unity of the deity or for the abrogating the Jewish Sabbath and observation of our Lord-day Sabbath or for womens receiving the Lords supper or for your rebaptizing or dipping over head and ears But you say The necessity of pedobaptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Councel never till then What necessity speak you of de necessitate medii in respect of infants salvation as if they could not be saved without it we maintain it not if you mean such a necessity on our part as bindeth us to obedience that is to baptize infants of believing parents we say with S. Augustin the custom of our mother the Church in baptizing infants is not at all to be despised or by any means to be esteemed superfluous nor to be believed any other then an Apostolical tradition the ground hereof is laid down l. 3. c. 24. Contra Donat. before by us cited to which I refer the reader the sum is That whatsoever is universally observed in all Churches and no man can say by what
to come What is this to our deferring Infants Baptism in the Rule which in some cases may reasonably and lawfully be done As for example Suppose an infant neer some Mahumetan border were found and the parents not known we may and ought to demur But what makes this against baptizing infants of parents known to be within the Church But you say To which if we add that the parents of S. Augustine S. Hierom and St. Ambrose although they were Christian yet did they not baptize their children before they were 30 years of age it will be very considerable in the Example and of great efficacy for the destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles This may make a formidable noyse in some vulgar ear 't is true which Mr. Homes notes pag. 188. that the opinions or practices of some few conclude no more against the generall tenet and practice of the Church then the Hills and Vallies do against the roundness of the world But to what purpose do you propose any of these examples to your clients imitation If not why inferre you them Possibly the parents of some great and excellent men might erre in such omission of duty or there might be some in vincible lets or obstructions to their desires however you would not have your childrens Baptism deferred â—0 years To the particulars I say Possidonius in the life of Augustine saith that he was born of honest and Christian parents and that he received of St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan both the wholesome doctrine of the Catholick Church and the Divine Sacraments But Augustine saith he believed and desired baptism from his childhood the cause of the delay thereof he putteâ—h on a sudden great sickness and his fathers unbelief but if the parents were then Christian when he was born and either understood not or neglected his Baptism what is this to our cause I know nothing hence following but that if so they neglected they were culpable We read of his dangerous estate while he was a Maniche and his mothers constant and importunate tears and intercession for his conversion as her sorrow for the delay thereof which at last happily obtained according to that which the Prelate answered her It cannot be that the son of those tears should perish After his conversion he seriously learned and happily taught others not to defer infant-baptism as may appear by that which hath been alledged out of him As for St. Hierom they also say that both his parents were Christian and that he was diligently taught and brought up of them at home and that with Bonosus presently even in his Parents embraces and Nurses gentle language he received in Christ and presently he was instructed in the rudiments of Christian piety which very probably importeth his infant-baptisme rather then that he had any Nurses at his being â—0 years old That which Erasmus who gathered his story out of other Authors after saith on Hieroms Epistle to Damasus that he would follow the saith of that Citie in which he had received the garment of Christ as the same Erasmus gives the sense in the life of Hierom proves not that he was not baptized before he was 30 years old for Hieroms words are to this sense because the Eastern Churches have rent the seamless Coat of Christ by their schismes so that it is hard there to know where the Church is therefore I thought it meet that I should consult with Peters Chaire and the faith commended by the Apostles mouth Rom. 1. thence now requiring food for my soul where long since I tooke on me the garment of Christ. What was it which he called Peters Chair What the Citie of Rome Was that faith which the Apostle commended onely there or then when Hierom wrote in all the Western Church his words concerning the Eastern Churches divisions by reason of the Arian faction and the following concerning the great distance at which Hierom being then in Syria near Antioch was make it plain that he spake of the Western Church in which he was baptized probably in oppido Stridonis where he was born not in Rome As for Erasmus's opion of his being baptized in Rome 't is grounded but upon an opinor I think saith he he meaneth it not of his Priesthoâ—d or orders And what solidity is there on these conjectures to conclude that Hieroms parents though Christian defer'd his baptism until he was 30 years old or what wil it advantage you if it were true there may be such lets to sealing as to Israel in the Wilderness and God bare with them 40 years together yet they should have circumcised the male children at eight dayes old upon a severe penalty Gen 17. 14. an inevitable necessity varieth not the rule Concerning the last instance in Ambrose I find that his Father was Deputy or Governor of France but whether Christian or not I find nothing in Paulinus who wrote his life and you avouch no Author for that you say We read that after he was chosen Bishop of Milan after Auxentius the Arian by the joynt suffrages of the discordant parties and being though much against his own will confirmed in that charge by Valentinian the Emperor he was baptized and with the Church held Infant-baptism against Pelagius and the Donatists upon this ground Because every age is subject to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament let the reader mark how this also is very considerable in the example and of what great efficacy it is for the destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles as the pleader saith But seeing he can raise no stronger batteries against it he might more easily and certainly conclude that it will stand whether he will or no. But however saith he it is against the perpetual analogie of Christian Doctrine to baptize infants This is gallantly spoken if he could tell how to prove it or any part thereof Besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptize them c. This is his Argument all that for which Christ never gave any precept for the doing it and which neither himself nor his Apostles that appears did is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine but Christ never gave any precept to baptize them c. ergo I answer This foundred Argument lame on both feet doth poorly charge 1. 'T is not true that all is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine for which no express precept of Christ or practice of himself or his Apostles appears for there are many things circumstantial and indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden which yet on second thoughts you will not say are against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine I might instance the postures or numbers or sexes or places where in the receiving the Lords Supper Where do you read of any command of Christ or practice of himself or Apostles that the Communicants should stand or sit or
out to fill up the measure of impious calumny You say They invocate the holy Ghost in vain doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a stone or a tree 1. I wonder what they will be ashamed to say who blush not at such assertions 'T is true that the Apostle useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be illuminated for to be baptized as the Syriac Interpreter gives it Hebr. 4. 6. Hebr. 10. 32. and that the Greek Fathers so commonly used the word and it is no improbable conjecture that there was an allusion to the Hebrew manner of speaking who by one and the same word express illumination and a River or Source of water and by a Metaphor Illumination of the mind For they who are baptized by water and the spirit of Jesus are in Gods good time and the measure he knows fit illuminated and find not only a River of elementary water but of that water which floweth to eternal life whereof Christ spake John 7. that is the spirit of illumination and sanctification 2. I would desire you again consider is the case all one or alike when we pray that God would be pleased to illuminate sanctifie and save an elect infant for whom Christ shed his precious bloud for whose salvation he came from heaven became an infant and man of sorrows to the death whom he blessed of whom he said Of such is the kingdom of heaven and except ye become as one of these ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven Is I say the case all one when we pray according to Gods word and promise for these as if we should pray God to illuminate sanctifie and save a stone or a tree hath a stone or tree any habitual faith or reason or any capacity of the holy Ghost illumination or sanctification Do any creatures under the degrees of man bear the image of their Creator in immortality sanctity and light of understanding Would God you could be ashamed of blaspheming and laying such pernicious stumbling-blocks before the blind to make them fall Since you say there is no direct impiety in the opinion of Anabaptists nor any that is apparently consequent to it and they with so much probability do or may pretend to true perswasion they are with all means Christian fair and humane to be redargued or instructed I hoped that the Plea being ended the Pleader would have come to himself again but this and another strain promise no more but a lucid interval I answer As to your charitie towards the persons of the Anabaptists I also wish they may by all Christian fair and humane means be reproved convinced or instructed but that there is no direct impietie in their opinion nor any that is apparently consequent to it is apparently untrue for that which is displeasing to Christ is directly impious and such is with-holding Infants from him that which is uncharitable is direct impietie and such is that opinion which barreth Infants from the Seal of Gods Covenant with them and the Communion of Saints as also in that it damneth so great a part of the world presupposing that God had no Church in the world for so many hundred years as Infant-Baptism hath been the general inlet to the same except a little while in the schism of Pelagians and Donatists and again when the same Heresie revived in Germany in Charls 5. his reign and now again in these distracted and calamitous times much more hath been and might be said herein but I shall be so far from being their accuser that I heartily pray the Lord to open their eyes that they sleep not in death only I say to the Pleader who would so courteously vail others impietie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly you say that you think That there is much more truth then evidence on our side and therefore we may be confident as for our own particulars but not too forward peremptorily to prescribe to others much less to damn or to kill or to persecute them that only in this particular disagree That we may be confident of the truth on our side I assent likewise that none be too forward peremptorily to prescribe except where the Word of God and necessary consequence from thence prescribeth that none should persecute kill or much less for opimons less then blasphemous against God or destructive to Religion and salvation of souls saving to Supreme Authoritie their lawful right agenda est ut sit voluntas Longe diversa sunt carnificina pietas I also assent to but can by no mean◠be of your opinion that there is less evidence then truth or our side as any ways intimating a defect of evidence therefore I say 1. That evidence sensu forensi in common sense of controversies or matters of judicatuye importeth sufficient proof so we say that witnesses give in evidence that is not alwayes in terminis and express words as in actions of case is requirable nor as they say ore rotundo as to say Verres is a Thief c. but from considerable circumstances or necessarie consequences sufficient to evince and to inform to sentence This evidence on our side you will not denie in this case nor I suppose affirm that falshood hath more proof or evidence in Scripture then truth 2. Sometimes we speak of evidence in relation to the partie or parties to be informed in which not only his or their capacitie is considerable but also other circumstances as the Informers expression which possibly may be defective the Informeds attention for want whereof that may not appear which were otherwise sufficiently evident Again In case of Gods judgment over the disobedient given over to strong delusions that they should believ lyes and he damned who received not the love of the truth of it self evident enough ◠that they might be saved here of see Isa. 6. 9 10. Mat. 13. 13 14 15. To a blind man or one that winketh in the clearest most evident light no colours or proportions are evident because men if blind cannot if obstinate schismatical wil not see understand 3. There is a notius natura and a notius nobis if in the evidence you speak of you mean the first and that errour and falshood is more known in nature that is manifestly false for the truth is first and best known in nature If you mean the second that is that we less know the truth then the evidence what blame you in our cause or advantage your Clients If you say we see no evidence nor can the blind see the Sun what can you gain hereby it may be and certainly is that the Gospels light is hid to some the Apostle will tell you to whom and why 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. It is hid to them that are lost in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine