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.
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
objects that if we read the passages themselves we cite EXAMEN and consider how they are brought in and how plain the expressions are against the Pelagians we would quickly conceive that those passages were put in after the Pelagian heresie was confuted by Hieronimus and Augustin who often tells us that the fathers afore that controversie arose did not speak plainly against the Pelagians And of all others Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing We answer Animadver First for our parts we have read the places wee quote out of Origen with the coherence of the preceding and succeeding words as Mr T. may perceive by our touches of observations on the places Some hints there are wee confesse against some peice of Pelagianisme which might be conceived by some few in his time which others in after ages might confute plainly when borne named and grown up to a sturdy fellow Secondly for Origen to hint in some places against Pelagianism in others to Pelagianize a little is not such a contradiction as is not found in divers fathers that wrote much and struggled with contrary Errours as Augustin c. we thinke Mr T. himself clasheth sometimes against himselfe Thirdly however Origen in all the places constat sibi is the same man for Baptisme of Infants But Mr T. objects further that Vossius saith EXAMEN For Origen wee will the lesse contend because what we cited out of him is not extant in Greek Wee answer Animadver 1 Then we were best cast away almost all worthy Irenaeus because wee have but a little peice of him in Greek 2 That Mr T. quoted out of Origen for his turn is not extant in greek 3 Vossius shall heal the wound Mr T. gives by the hand of Vossius First saith Vossius Although some thinke Origens Commentaries on Levit. to be Cyrills yet they savour of Origens phrase and mistakes Secondly saith Voss You may read gemina this and his 14. Homilies on Luke as Twinnes that is they both speake alike to the same purpose of Infant-Baptisme which place on Luke Mr T. excepts not against Lastly EXAMEN Mr T objects that if Origens testimony be accepted yet he calls Infant-baptisme a Tradition and an Observation of the Church To this we have sufficiently answered a little afore in our quotations of those three places out of Origen Animadver that ORIGEN cannot mean unwritten Tradition or meer Custome See more after at our quotation of Augustin in which you have a full answer to Mr T. his note out of Aug. l. 10. c. 23. De Genesi The next witnesse is CYPRIAN CYPRIAN who flourished about the 248. yeare after Christ * Helvic and so also was in the second century 100 years or age after the first from the Apostles according to Mr T. his language others ** Bucholc put him higher to wit about 222. after Christ His testimony as Vossius notes for Infant-Baptisme in his time and higher is beyond all exception His words in his Epistle to Fidus in his third book and eighth Epistle * Alias Ep. 59. are these As concerning the cause of Infants which thou saidest ought not to be baptized being within the second or third day of their birth and that the law of ancient Circumcision ought to be regarded so that thou shouldest not think that one born should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day it seemed far otherwise to all in our councell We all of us that is in a Councell of 66 Bishops have judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to no son of man or to none born of men And by and by after he saith There is among all whether Infants or those that are elder one equality of the divine gift And a little after that he addes For as God is no excepter of persons so nor of Ages seeing that he holds forth himselfe with an equall poysed evennesse Parem as some read a like patrem as others read a father to all for the attaining celestiall grace And a few lines after he hath these words If remission of sins be given to them that have more greivously sinned against God when afterward they have beleeved and so none of them is kept back from Baptisme and grace how much rather ought not an Infant to be prohibited and kept from baptisme who being lately born hath not sinned at all but as born of Adam according to the flesh he contracted the contagion of ancient death in his first nativity And therefore my dear brother this was our judgement in the Councell That from baptisme and the grace of God who is mercifull and bountifull and pittifull to all no man ought to be debarred So with much more Cyprian repeated by him again tom 2. l. de lapsis This Epist of Cypr. to Fidus is a Famous place saith Goulartius concerning the Baptisme of Infants against the Anabaptists And so we finde it accounted among the pious and Learned Ancients by their frequent and respective quotation of it * Cyril or Johannes Hierosolymit Catechis Mystag 1. Greg. Naz. Orat 3. in sanctum lavacrum Chrys Hom. ad Neâ—phyt Hom. in Gen. in Ps Ambros in Luc. Hierom. sub â—inem l. 3. Dialog contra Pelagian August Epist 28 ad Hiâ—â—â—n lib. 3. de pec merit remissic 7 8 9. Ubi totam fere hane Epistol citat lib. 2. contra Julian cap. 3. lib. 4 contra duas Epist Pelag. c. 8. And saith Vossius the judgement here given in about Infant Baptisme is so much the more to be esteemed in that it was the Decree of so famous a Councell and that the adversaries durst not deny it but onely doubted whether Baptisme should be given the eighth day And now give us leave to adde our observation namely That the learned Ancients did look to the Covenant made with Abraham whose seal was circumcision as to a ground of Infant Baptime as appears by Fidus his Argument from Circumcision onely he looked then too much at the circumstance of such a time of childhood as the Anabaptists now do at such a time of ripe years So that it appears by this and the Argument of Cyprian and of that Councell according to their light that that age held not Infant-Baptism from unwritten tradition as Mr T. asserts Now we must turn to Mr T. his EXAMEN EXAMEM Sect. 7. where he hath somewhat to say against most of the Fathers usually alleadged for Infant-Baptism and so against Cyprian 1. He Objects that though Cyprian â—e placed at 250 by Vsher or at 240 by Perkins and consequently though at 248 by us yet Tertullian was before him and counted his master Now in Tertullians time It appears saith Grotius in Mat. 19.14 there was nothing defined concerning the age in which they were to be baptized that were consecrated by their Parents to Christian Discipline because he disswader by so many reasons in his book
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
of God for he excepts none nor Infant nor c. * So Basil long afore Ann. 372. In his exhortat to Baptisme To Ambrose Mr. T. answers nothing in his EXAMEN but onely takes notice that Mr. M. quoted him But makes no exception against him All these Ancients that we have translated were before the rise of Pelagianisme a Pelagius was about An. 104 Helvic or 413. El. Reusner whose abettors were for the generall great sticklers against the baptisme of Infants And before them the Arrians opposed the same b Arius was about the yeer 315. Helvic or 319 El Reusner Bucholc Of these see somewhat before in our Animadversions on Mr. T. his 2 Argument in his 15. Sect. Next let us touch those Ancients who after the rise of Anabaptisticall-Pelagianisme or Peleganian-Anabaptisme wrote for Infant-baptisme none of them urging it as onely the custome of the Churches others of them arguing it from the Scriptures and therefore took it not up as an unwritten tradition Chrysostome who flourished about the yeer after Christ CHRYSOSTOME 382. as Helvicus reckons was Bishop of Constantinople about 389. as El. Reusner computes upon those words 1 Tim. 3. Not a Novice that is a new tender plant saith the Apostle means not one so in regard of age for many such of the Gentiles or Nations came to the Church and were baptized There are other passages in Chrysostome but I promised but to touch these last Authors Hierom who flourished about the yeer after Christ HIERONIMVS 384. so Helvicus about the yeer 392. wrote his Catalogue of famous writers so Bucholcerus saith thus of Infant-baptisme in his Epistle to Lata The good or evil of a childe is much to be imputed to the parents meaning education unlesse saith he thou thinkest that the children of Christians in case they have not received baptisme are onely guilty of that sin and that the sin is not to be layed upon them that would not give it them especially at that time when they that were to receive it were not able to oppose As on the other side the salvation of Infants is the gain of the parents or ancestors So likewise Hierom in his third book of Dialogues against the Pelagians Thus. CRITO Tell me I pray thee and so deliver me from all questioning why Infants may be baptized ATTIC That their sins may be done away in baptisme CRITO What sin have they committed Is any man loosed that is not first bound ATTIC Doest ask me The Evangelicall Trumpet c. shall answer thee Rom. 5. Death reigned from Adam to Moses even upon them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression c. He that is a little one is loosed in baptisme from the bond of sin of the parent c. And lest thou shouldest think that I mean this in an hereticall sence the blessed Martyr Cyprian in his Epistle he wrote to Bishop Fidus concerning baptizing Infants minds us of these things And there Hierom transcribes a great part of that Epistle of which you heard afore And then addes Eloquent Augustine saith Hierom wrote long since to Marcellinus c. two books of baptizing Infants against your that is the Pelagian heresie by which you will assert that * NOTE how the Pelagians opposed Infant-Baptisme Infants are baptized not into remission of sins but into the kingdom of God according to that Joh. 3.5 Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit be cannot enter into the Kingdom of God He wrote also the third to the same Marcellinus against those who say as you Pelagians do that it is possible for a man to be void of sin without the grace of God He wrote also a fourth to Hilarius against thy doctrine Pelagius Also he is said to have written other books in speciall to thee by name which are not come to our hands c. I will onely say this that I may end my speech That either thou Pelagius must make a new form that after ye have baptized them into the Name of Father Son and holy Ghost ye baptize them into the kingdom of God or if you have one and the same baptisme in little ones and men then Infants must be baptized into remission of sins c. Thus Hierom. To all this of Hierom in this last quotation Mr. T. answers in his EXAMEN that the same answer will serve as to Augustine Well therefore let us come to Augustine Augustine flourished about 391 after Christ AVGVST Helvic and hath abundance concerning Infant-baptisme in his 28. Epistle in his book of originall sin Chap. 40. In his second book of Marriage and Concupiscence Chap. 20. In his third book of sin merit and remission Chap. 7 8 9. In his second book against Jul. ca. 3. In his fourth book of Baptisme against the Donatists Chap. 24 * So hath THEODORET epit divin dogmat ca. de Baptismo He flourished about the yeer 422. And so GENNADIVS de Ecclesiast dogmat c. 31. He flourish about the yeer 458. In his fourth book against the two Epistles of Pelag. Chap. 8. It were a tedious businesse to translate all these places for me that intended more brevitie having too much other businesse and too little time for this work and for many Readers which delight no more in reading these then I in quoting of them but that Mr. T. leads me to them therefore and because I shall translate somewhat of Augustine by and by I will onely note particularly of Augustine these two things First that Augustine in that place of his 7 8 9. Chapters of his third book of sin merit and remission quotes almost all Cyprians Epistle to Fidus. Secondly that Augustine doth not build his judgement onely upon Cyprian because in his fourth book of baptisme against the Donatists he proves Infant-baptisme by many Arguments from the Scriptures Now all these especially the last we onely touch that we may not toyl our selves and the Reader There are of the Anabaptists that can tell whether those Authors be not for us or no. We shall onely adde some observations upon them and so passe on 1. That these five last Authors Chrysost Hierom August Theod. Genn wrote for Infant-baptisme after the rise of Pelagianisme * See also Voss Thes Theol. hist Though some of the men were afore it yet those things afore quoted were written after it 2. That they wrote those things at least 300 yeers afore Mr. T. his Walafridus was a Writer to tell us that tale against Infant-baptisme of which you heard afore we gave our Answer to it 3. That these did argue out of Scripture and no otherwise determine the question that Infants ought to be baptized then as the pious learned Ancients had held in former ages long before * See before in the notes in the margin on Cyprinan Augustine shall here for brevities sake speak for them all who being one
of the youngest and learnedst and most orthodox and pious knew well the last generation in which they lived His words are very considerable in his tenth book De Genes ad literarum cap. 23. The custome saith he of our Mother the Church in baptizing little children is by no means to be despised nor altogether to be reputed superfluous nor by all means to be beleeved but that it was an Apostolicall tradition Where he means by Apostolicall tradition the Apostles Doctrine delivered brought down to us in the book of the New Testament by tradition or handing of it from one generation to another So to be his meaning is plain 1. Because Augustine in his dispute against the DONATISTS for Infant-baptisme Li. 4. de Bap. cap. 21. prove it from the Scriptures 2. Because in his first book De pecc mer. remiss cap. 26. saith thus Some of the PELAGIANS do grant under some notion that little children are to be baptized who cannot go against the Authority of the universall Church which without all doubt was delivered to them by the Lord Christ and his Apostles 3. In his tenth Sermon of the words of the Apostle speaking of the Baptisme of little children saith let no man whisper unto you strange Doctrines This the Church alwayes had alwayes held This it received from the Faith or Faithfulnesse of our Ancienters And this it keeps with perseverance to the end 4. These things to be most truly spoken by Augustine we doe know saith Vossius by this that the Pelagians some of them durst not deny them For Augustine writes in his second Booke against Coelestius and Pelagius that Coelestius himselfe in a booke which he put forth at Rome confessed in these words Infants are baptized into remission of sinnes according to the rule of the universall Church and according to the SENTENCE OF THE GOSPEL But observe his cunning in what sence he meant that Infants were baptized into remission of sinnes to wit into future remission if they lived to commit actuall finnes and thereby stood in need of pardon not into present remission of sinnes whiles Infants as not standing in need of pardon or else they that is Pelagius Coelestius and their Sect said onely in words that Infants were baptized into remission of sinnes but thought otherwise in their Principles they held This is plaine out of the Affrican Councell held under Boniface and Celestinus in the 77. Canon whereof it is thus Item placuit qui parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat c. that is It pleaseth the Counsell that whosoever denieth that little ones newly borne from the mothers wombe are to bee baptized or saith that they are baptized into remission of sinnes but they contract or draw nothing of originall sinne from Adam which need to be expiated by the laver of Regeneration whence it followes that by them the forme of Baptisme into remission of sinnes is not truly but falsly understood let him be Anathema Thus the said Counsell By the playster made by this Counsell you may perceive the disease of Pelagius c. And in the Epistle of the Councell of Carthage Anno 416. Bin. to Innocentius which is word for word the 90. among Augustines Epistles there is this mentioned that Pelagius and Coelestius deny the Baptisme of Infants because say they Infants perished not neither is there in them that that needs salvation or to be redeemed with so great a price for as much as in them is nothing vitiated nothing is held captive under the power of the Divell neither is it read that bloud was powred out for them unto remission of sinnes Albeit Coelestius in his Booke hath already confessed in the Church of Carthage that Infants also are redeemed by the Baptisme of Christ And then to explaine this how many and how or in what manner confessed this with Coelestius the following words fitly serve But many who are represented to us to be or to have been their Disciples doe not cease to affirme these evills whereby they endeavour by all the craft they can to overthrow the Fundamentalls of the Christian Faith So that if Pelagius and Coelestius be corrected or if they say they never thought those things and deny those writings to be theirs what or how many-soever they be that are brought against them yet is there not whereby to convince them of a lye So the Epistle of the Councell at Carthage Mr. T. EXAMEN Sect. 8. But Mr. T. hath many things to say against Augustine in his EXAMEN That the Authority of Augustine was it which carried the baptisme of Infants in the following ages almost without controul as may appear out of Walafridus Strabo placed by Vsher at the yeer 840. who in his book De rebus Ecclesiasticis chap. 26. having said That in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given to them onely who were come to that integrity of minde and body that they could know and understand and what profit was to be gotten in baptisme what is to be confessed and beleeved what lastly is to be observed by them that are new born in Christ confirmes it by Augustins own confession of himself continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized But afterwards Christians understanding Originall sinne c. Ne perirent parvulisi sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur statuerunt cos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod et S. Augustinus in libro de bapismo parvulorum ostendit Africana testantur Concilia aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and addes one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these wordes Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem vt sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem carnalem Quod si casu evenerit non habebunt carnalis copule deinceps adinvicem consortium qui in communi filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant To which I adde that Petrus Cluniacensis placed by Vsher at the yeare 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis who denyed Baptisme of Infants sayes of him that he did reject the Authority of the Latine Doctors being himselfe a Latine ignorant of Greeke and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas therefore he runnes to the Scriptures he alleageth the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infants Baptisme by and then addes Quid vos ad ista Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis negate From these passages I gather that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedo-baptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures and the Greeke
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