the washing of the new birth or regeneration as is manifest to every one Now what is this washing of Regeneration but Baptism Which could not succeed circumcision unlesse children that were circumcised were in his judgment baptized These are the Evidences in part of the Greeks concerning Infants interest in Baptism proving that de facto in their times and from the beginning of Christianity they were baptized The Latine Fathers come up with a full body to joyn with them whereof Tertullian marches in the front who as Helvicus records wrote his book of Prescriptions about the year 195. Which was about 97 years after the decease of St. John So that by this calculation he lived about 70. or lesse years after St. John in which short tract of time the Apostolical practise of Infant-Baptism could neither be clouded nor forgotten Neither would he have commended his private opinion as more profitable that the Baptism of some Infants for some respects should be deferred but have called it down as an Innovation if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the sun-beams That Infant-Baptism was in practise in Tertullians dayes it appears by this Question libr. de Bapt. cap. 8. Quid sestinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatâ—rum Why does innocent age meaning children in their infancie make hast for remission of sins meaning Baptism which is a clear case whatsoever Semi Socinian Grotius say to the contrary That Tertullian was for Infant Baptism himself appears that in his book de Animâ cap. 39 he presses it when the child is in danger of death and gives his reason libr. de Bapt. cap. 12. praescribitur nemini sine Baptisme competere salutem it is prescribed that salvation is to none without Baptism That cavill of his advice to deferr Baptism in some cases I shall answer anon Cyprian succeeds who flourished as Trithemius and others observe about the year 240. in his 59 Epistle ad Fidum is not onely expresse for Infant-Baptism himself but mentions a Councell of sixty six Bishops who had declared the same and all this to satisfie the said Fidus who was not aginst the divine Institution and Apostolical practise of Infant-Baptism but conceived that Infants might not be Baptized before the eighth day because they might not be circumcised Cyprian tells him that Infants might not onely be baptized before the eighth day but any day Austin approves of this Epistle and his judgment saying Epist 28. ad Hier. Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servaÌ„s That Cyprian did not devise any new decree but faithfully observed what the Church had done before him Augustine that bright day-star of Afâ—ick gives further evidence Sermon 15. de vâ—rbis Apost speaking of Infant-Baptism says hoc Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuiâ— hoc a majorum fide accepit hoc usque in finem persâ—veranter custodit The Church always had it always observed it received it from the faith of their Ancestors keeps it with perseverance to the end Neither do those exceptions against him any whit impeach the credit of it much lesse the fact First because he calls it an Universal Tradition Not denying that it is grounded upon Scripture as before but with the Oxford Convocation avouching that which in general terms by consequence and sub obscurely is delivered in Scripture is more plainly interpreted by Tradition as following the River Nilus the heads that are somewhat obscure are found out And that Constantine Augustine Alipius Adâ—odatus were not baptized when Infants was either because their parents were not Christians or they were not converted till of age or were tainted with some heresie or afraid of persecution as Philip the first Christian Emperour no sooner baptized â—ut privately made away The second exception is that Austin held that Infants dying without Baptism were damned This Rivet fathers upon him de patrum authoritate cap. 9 Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat infantes sine Baptismo morientes Austin adjudges to Eternal flames Infants dying without Baptism To which I answer he maintained Infant-Baptism upon other grounds though partly upon this which afterwards he retracted Thirdly it s excepted for that of giving them the Eucharist is impertinent that he held a certaintie of regeneration by Baptism and he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants I answer he does indefinitly of the species or sort of baptized Infants seeing God hath promised to be a God of those that are in covenant with him and their seed and we have a promise and consequently faith of none else But he does not say that every individual baptized Infant without limitation is regenerated but the contrary cortâ—cem sine nucleo the shell without the kernell as he averres there are some quirem Baptismi absque Sacramento Baptismi consequuntur that have the matter of Baptism that is the outward Elements without the Sacrament of Baptism that is without the inward and invisible grace The other Antients are of the same judgment as Ambrose â—â—stifies of Valentinian quem in Evangelilio geniturus eram amisi sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit I have lost him whom I was a begetting by the Gospel but he hath not lâ—st the grace he desired but enjoyes eternal life and how seeing he was not baptized He gives the reason he was baptized inwardly in will though not outwardly with water The last exception is that Austin maintained that not onely Infants of Beleevers but Unbelievers also might be baptized It s true if Christians had the Tuition of them and would engage for them they might as well be baptized as the children Abraham's posteriâ—y boughâ— wâ—th mony or captives might be circumcised therefore Tertullian pleads both prerogative of birth and education as giving capacity to baptism To these I might add Ambrose that sayes that every age is liable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Lactantius Fulgentius Prosper Aquatanicus the Milevitan Councel with all the succeeding worthies enough to swell a Volume goes in the same Equipage But says Mr. Tombes Infant-Baptism as it is now used was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Which Argument made into form sounds thus That which was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen was not held by the whole Church but Infant-baptism was opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen Therefore Infant-Baptism was not held by the whole Church I deny both propositions first the Major for if it were true two mens opposing does not weaken an Evidence of fact not interrupted for so many Centuries Secondly the Minor is most false for it is formerly proved that Tertullian and Gregory were both for Infant-Baptism True it is the one advised to deferre it till the Infants were two or three years old unless they were in danger of death as it is conceived least dipping impair their health what is this against
ones and boyes These that were new born are the baptized in Scripture-phrase Tit. 3. 5. baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which to be so meant Master Mead in his Diatriba thinks none will deny Master Tombes 25. Section ORigens speeches are in the Latine books translated by Ruffinus into which many things were foysted by him and these its probable were so as being so express against the Pelagians nor do I find he was ever alleged by Austin who gathered the most antient testimonies he could for originall sin and infant-baptism Therefore saith Vosâ—ius in his Theses of infant baptism we less care for Origen because they are not in Greek Cyprian's testimony is granted to be in the third Century and Ambroses and Austins and the Milevitan Councils and inâ—umerable more but all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswade from it except in case of danger of death in appearance near out of which case the antients did not baptize infants and in that case the Communion was given them But otherwise they baptized not infants no not of believing Parents till they came to years and then they were first Catechized in Lent and then solemnly baptized at Easter and Whitsuntide as may be gathered even from the Common Prayer Book in the Rubrick before Baptism Reply ORigen that lived in the beginning of the third Century sayes The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin what is added is ingenuously confessed by Ruffinus the Translator himself Erasmus Perkins nor any that plays the Critick upon him impeaches him in the fore quoted place A negative argument from Scripture in matter of fact will not conclude shall Austins non-allegation then of Origen or which is more ridiculous Mr. T. not finding it disparage the authority of Origen Vossius in his Theses of infant baptism less cares for those parts of Origen that are not in the Greek yet does not wholly discard them some testimonies may be more authentick than others yet all creditable Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century Though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument If Infants had not Originall sin what need they baptism He answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-baptism not to purge sin by past but to prevent it for the time to come This Mr. T. ingenuously passes by as unanswerable and by silence gives consent Cyprian confirms it in his 59. Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of sixtie six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be baptized Ambrose sayes because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is â—it for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzen sayes it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin Serm. 15. de verb. Apost speaking of Infant-Baptism sayes The Church alwaies had it alwaies observed it received it from the faith of their Ancestors keeps it with perseverance to the end The Milevitan Councill decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from the Mothers wombs might be Baptized should be accursed All this he grants yet blasts it as his brethren of Transilvania did the Trinity with this infectious breath that they were all upon the Popish errours of giving grace and the necessity to save a child from damnation when Popery was not yet nor was this the errour of all or any of them finally as Dr. Hâ—mes hath proved or if it were shall the abuse of a thing take away the lawfull use much less the evidence of fact which is the Question How Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian before him disswades from it except in danger of death is formerly answered It was either Pagans or if believers to consult their bodyly health they did the like to young men unmarryed that were converted and widows neither do we find they prevailed in the least against the generall practice of Infant Baptism which was so inviolable that as the Question is stated I think he cannot shew one instance to the contrary If some gave them the Communion iâ— no more impeaches the lawfulness of their Baptism than the Jesuits joyning spittle Salt exorcism in Baptizing the Indians of years does Mr. T. supposed Baptism of believers That unless in danger of death the antients Baptized not Infants is as loud a lye as any is in the Golden legion Ovidâ— Metamorphosis or Lucians Dialogues The Rubrick of the Common Prayer book before Baptism makes no mention of Catechizing in Lent much less that believers Infants were not Baptized till they came to years but that the Sacrament of Baptism in the old time was not commonly ministred but at Easter and Whitsontide He that thus falsifies an evidence that every Boy or Girle that can but read may check him in Judge what he does with the Greek and Latine Fathers Mr. Tombes 26. Section IT is most false that all ages all Churches agree in infant baptism some Churches never had it Some Churches five hundred years agâ— of the godly and learned that then were did oppose it and practice the baptism of believers onely If Mr. Fox and others did account Anabaptists Hereticks it was for other Tenents than this Master Baxter himself saith no sober divine did ever reckon the Anabaptists as Hereticks meerly for the errour of rebaptizing plain Scripture proof c. part 1. chap. 1. yet Mr. C. bespatters Antipaedobaptism thus it robs the Scripture of its truth infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory Sure he hath learned the art of him in the Comaedian to calumniate boldly imagining something will be believed though there be not a word true But there is more of this venom behind That it is the mother of many other errours Hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Quakers Levellers they that are above ordinances Antiscripturians will any believe that from the Tenet which doth so stifly maintain an ordinance should spring the errour of being above ordinances Or that the errour of Antiscripturians should spring from that Tenet which doth sâ— strictly insiâ—t on the Scripture Let Mr. C. shew any the least connexion between Antipaedobaptism and the errours he names and he saith something else if onely the persons and not the Tenet be guilty of these errours he doth but calumniate He might with like reason say The Christian Religion is the Mother of many other errours hence sprung Ebionites Corinthians Nicholaitans Gnosticks c. such kind of criminations are most stinking and base slanders unworthy a sober minded man much more a Divine in the Pulpit speaking to many people who examine not but take all for true which such Rabbins talk with confidence
obscurely the necessary circumstance of the time would have been as precisely observed and agreed upon to be but one Thus the former proposition is cleared The latter by him denyed is this That Infant-Baptism was not alwayes he cunningly alters the subject of the Question and says that Infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church nor do we say so for it was and may be as well by pouring on water or dipping if infants bodâ—es in these cold Climates would endure it the usual way that we practise is either by pouring on water on the face of the Child if it be weak or dipping in part of the head if it be somewhat strong Gods Ordinances are not destructive to Nature who requires mercy and not sacrifice And that Infant Baptism was thus held alwayes is apparent To pass by divine Institution and Apostolical practise of which anon Dionysius the Areopagite and Clemens in the Apostles constitutions both makes for Infant-Baptism if the books be theirs as they have been entituled these many hundred years the cause is ours so farâ— if not theirs they must not expect any proof of men living in the first Century being extant none beside them Justin Martyr who lived Anno 150. in his 56 Question disputes the different condition of those Children which dye baptized and of those children who dyed unbaptized Two things are objected against this Testimony 1. That the reason of Baptizing of Infants was not the Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed but that they might obtain salvation at the resurrection This is so far from overthrowing that it confirmes the reason being in Covenant with the parents for of such speaks the Author whose parents are believers gives the children capacity to be baptized and they are baptized that they may have salvation at the resurrection for we have no promise of the salvation of any out of the pales of the visible Church The second objection is that Perkins Rivet and others questions whether it be Justin Martyrs book or no. To which I answer there is scarce a book in Scripture any Article of the Creed or part of Antiquity but it hath been questioned by some If we should reject all things that are questioned we must turn Academicks Scepticks and Seckers in all things howsoever it gives evidence to matter of fact that Infants were Baptized in that age in which it was written Irenaeus that lived in the same Century says lib. 2. cap. 39 Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God Infants and little ones and boyes c. Who are those that are new-born The Baptized Which suits with the language of the Holy Ghost in Scripture Tit. 3. 5. The Apostle calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the new birth which is so clear that Mr. Mead in his Diatriba upon the place thinks that none will deny that by washing of regeneration baptism is meant or pointed at Besides its the dialect of the Greek Fathers near whose time he lived Justin Martyr speaking of those that are brought to be baptized says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are born anew or regenerated after the same manner we are regenerated being washed as it followes in the name of the father and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost Dioâ—ysius Hierarch cap. 2. calls the materials of Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine signes of Divine generation Basil and Nazianzene calls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the regeneration of the soul all this makes it appear that Irenaeus did drive at the regeneration of Infants by Baptism as well as them of years Origen whom Perkins places at the year 230. says upon Rom. 6. lib. 5. The Church received the Tradition of Baptising of Infants from the Apostles affirming the same thing in substance Homily 8th upon Leviticus and Homily 18. in Lucam Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum Little ones are baptized for the remission of sins The exceptions against these are three 1. They are translations Origens Greek in the Original is lost The same may be said of S. Matthews Gospel which he writ in the Hebrew or Syriack now lost the Greek Copy onely extant And of the Septuagints Translation of the Old Testament which our Saviour himself followed more exactly than the Hebrew Original Translations agreeing with the Original Copy being equally Authentick But secondly it is said that the Translation is censured by Erasmus and Perkins as in something contracting adding or altering What is added is ingeniously confessed by Rufinus the Translator himself neither does acute Erasmus nor Judicious Perkins nor any of the Ancients most Critical impeach him in the fore quoted Testimonies Therefore this Exception is blank The third thing objected is that he calls it a Tradition So does the Apostle things contained in Scripture 2 Thes 2. 15. Epiphanius calls Baptism and other divine truthes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions and yet quotes Scripture for them Bellarmine calls Infant-Baptism a tradition and yet brings ten places of Scripture to prove it Austin affirms lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genes That the custom of our mother the Church in Baptising of little ones is in no wise to be despised nor to be thought superfluous nor at all to be believed unlesse it were an Apostolick Tradition and yet proves the necessity of it from John 3. 5. Vnless one be born again of water and the Spirit c. Gregory Nazianzen who as Dr. usher and Mr. Perkins sayes lived in the year 370 or 380. commands Children to be Baptized and gives a reason Orat. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they not misse of common grace nothing is excepted against this but that he gave his opinion of others to defer their Baptism unlesse they were in danger of death which I shall clear anon To these may be joyned Athanasius who interpret Script Quest 94. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the dipping of the Child quite under the water thrise and raising of it up again doth signifie the death of Christ and the Resurrection the third day In his second Question ad Antioch he enquires how one shall know that he was truly baptized and received the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who when he received Baptism was but an Infant He answers that it may be known by the motions of the Spirit as the woman knowes she hath conceived when she feeles the Child stir in her womb And Question 114. he being asked whether Infants dying go to be punished or to the Kingdome Says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Infants are holy here you see many hundred years before Zuinglius covenant-holiness is acknowledged and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Infants of Believers that are Baptized do as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome Epiphanius amongst the Greek Fathers brings up the rear avouching that Circumcision had its time untill the great Circumcision came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is
the root that is the parents the lump the branches that is the Children and posterity And Rom 11. 17. if the Jews were broken off and the Gentiles graffed into their place it will follow that if the Jews were broken off Parents with Children then the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in Parents with Children 9. Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel many dangerous absurdities would follow First Infants would be losers by the comming of Christ and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant which was Circumcision and not Children with Parents to Baptism Secondly if Infants should be in Covenant then and not now Grace would be larger under the Law than under the Gospel Thirdly there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian and of a Pagan but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks Tartars or Cannibals Fourthly they would be without God without Christ without hope in the world not the Children of God but of the Devil would all be damned for out of Covenant and visible Church ordinarily there is no salvation 10. Arg. Lastly that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Therefore Infant-Baptism is lawful We 'l begin with the first Centurie or hundred years after Christ Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens says Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to Baptize Infants Clemens who is recorded by some of the antients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptzie your Infants Irenaeus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake that little ones might be received into Covenant Origen that lived in the beginning of the third Century says The Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants and gives a reason because they are born in impurity of sin nay Pelagius a great Scholar who lived in the latter end of this Century though he denyed Original sin yet confessed Infant-Baptism for when they pressed him with this Argument if Infants had not Original sin what need they Baptism he answered that Christ appointed and the Church practised Infant-Baptism not to purge sin by-past but to prevent it for the time to come Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be Baptized Ambrose says because every age is lyable to sin therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism though they know it not than to leave them unsealed Austin is conceived to go too far who denyed possibility of salvation to them that died un-baptized pressing that place John 3. 5. Except a Man be Born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God The Millevitan Councel in the fifth Century decreed That whosoever should deny that Infants even taken from their Mothers wombs might not be Baptized should be accursed All Churches All ages since agree in this the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches the Church of England in the Apologie the old Catechism the twenty seventh Article the Directory the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines the late Parliament by a further Declaration all confirm it The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare but the Lawes of our Land did punish Anabaptists as hereticks Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses Waldenses Wickliffists Lollards Poor men of Lyons Brownists Barrowists as members of the Reformed Churches but wholly excludes the Anabaptists as erring fundamentally I 'le say no more for confirmation of this polemicall discourse but wind up all with a word of exhortation I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous errour this is that robbs the Scripture of its truth Infants of their right Parents of their comforts the Church of its members Christ of his merits God of his glory That is the mother of many other errours hence sprung the Ranters Socinians Antitrinitarians Shakers Levellers they that are above Ordinances Antiscripturians An errour that God hath expressed many signall judgments against as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany and some of our worthies in England have declared As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Apostated flock that had his house burned and his Children in it No wonder that fire seised upon his house and God denyed water to quench it who denyed that water should be brought to Baptize his Infants Secondly consider that much benefit redounds both to Parents and Children by Infant-Baptism First much comfort comes hereby to the Parents when they consider Gods free grace to them and theirs that he is not ashamed to be called their God and the God of their seed after them Hebr. 11. 16. Secondly much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism which the Devill knowes well when he causes Witches to renounce their Baptism when they enter into Covenant with him for they are thereby addmitted into the bosome of the Church devoted and consecrated unto God his Name is put upon them they wear his Royall badge and by it they are distinguished from Heathens And this is so clear from Scriptures truly and spiritually understood That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Now the God of Peace and Truth by his Spirit lead us into all truth keep us pure and unspotted in this houre of Englands temptation and triall keep us faithfull to the death that so we may receive a crown of life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE Arraignment and Conviction OF ANABAPTISM The first Part. Mr. Tombes 1 Section A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists against the vanity and falshood of scribled papers Entituled The Anabaptists Anatomiz'd and silenc'd in a publick Dispute at Abergaveny in Monmothshire Sept. 5. 165◠betwixt John Tombes John Cragge and Henry Vaughan touching Infant-Baptism By John Tombes B. D. Job 11. 2 3. Should not the multitude of words be answered And should a man full of talk be justified Should thy lies or devices make men hold their peace And when thou mockest shall no man make thee ashamed To be sold at the signe of Sir John Old-castle in Py-Corner Reply A Plea for Anti-Paedobaptists and why Does Mr Tombes intend to commence a suit against the Universal Church and to overthrow the divine institution of Infant-Baptism with the Antiquity Vniversality and Succession thereof Let him first consider whether his Action will hold Plea and whether there may not be
and actions be made publick What was in private proposed unto and yielded by Mr. Vaughan is a mystery to me I doubt not but he will clear himself But whereas he sayes he had two copies of my Sermon sent him and within two lines after calls it notes received and afterwards imperfect notes and that he sent some Animadversions of them to Abergaveny and yet did not publish any thing seemes to me a Chaos of contradictions Untrue it is that I did own the Copy that was shown me otherwise than misshapen rapsodies and snatches here and there as the Gospel may be owned in the Turkes Alcoran and as tunrue that he writ to know whether I would own them as may appear by his letter and my answer which I subjoyne SIR I Am informed that you have preached at Abergaveny since my being there and have pretended to overthrow what I preached against Infant-Baptism on Mark 16. 16. and to maintain it even from that Text I request you that I may have a copy of your Sermon or the substance of your Arguments formed by your self I being unwilling to put any thing upon you which you will not own And therefore I have requested this bearer Mr. Price to deliver this letter unto you and to return me your Answer As I shall judge meet so you shall hear from me who am Your friend usque ad aras so far as Love and defence of the Truth will permit John Tombes Reverend Sir I Received yours the 21th of this Instant dated the 18th of November wherein I find that you have been misinformed as in circumstance that I preached at Abergaveny since your being there so in substance that it was with a pretension to overthrow what you preached upon Mark 16. 16. which could not be unlesse I contested with Chimerae's and shadowes who neither heard you nor received any notes mediately or immediatly of yours Onely I was intreated by many whereof some in power to deliver my sense concerning that Text which I did on a sudden letting nothing fall but what harmoniously agrees with the present authorized doctrine of our Church continued since the reformation ascending through the Saxons and British Churches till besides Vniversality it looses it self into Apostolical Tradition and claymes divine Institution for its first spring Wherein if any thing casually cross what others have delivered they must impute it to the novelty and singularity of their by-path And whereas you request a Copy of my Sermon I must tell you if it be upon rational grounds there is greater reason I should have one of yours as being first delivered and entering in or near and imposing upon our charges wherof one of note told you they found themselves agrieved But if your request be out of courtesie I must profess I would be willing to gratifie you in a thing incomparably beyond that if I could find that it either tended to the glory of God who is dishonoured by our divisions or to the peace of the Church which is to much rent and shivered already by factions Too many of us there are that out of an itch of contradiction like a Tetter the more it s rubbed the more it spreads with Nimrod to get us a name builds up Babels to the confusion of our common Mother which causes divisions both of tongues and hearts Sir I should think under correction that your eminent parts and mine such as they are might be better imployed in applying balsoms than receiving the weak in faith to doubtfull disputations A time will come I doubt not when one conscionable Sermon or godly exhortation to a drooping soul will render us more peace than a thousand swelling volumes of controversy I shal be sory that any notions or collections of mine shall be made so publick as to be a ball of contention Yet if upon prudential ground I find so rather than the truth shall be disparaged and God dishonoured by my tergiversation for all the disadvantages I will not fear through his protection whose cause it is to enter the lists and take up the gentlet professing in the interim while we differ in opinion without breach of Christian charity or affection to remain Decemb. 27. 1653. Yours Sir to serve you in the Lord Jesus John Cragge By this I hope you see what truth is in his assertion of the same leaven it is that he accuses us of a shamefull practise which justly reflects upon himself for calling that a verball extemporal dispute on his part touching that Question in the study whereof he hath spent so many years preached so many sermons penned so many books grappled with so many adversaries and came harnessed as being invited by letters and messengers several months before So that we see faction so prevailes with the Anabaptists that like as if they were of the Pelagians or Arrians minds they allow themselves liberty to use any Arts or impious fraud to bear down the Truth of Infant-Baptism And this our Adversary did at Abergaveny with that impetuousnesse as hath actually stirred up the inconsiderate to trample upon us and create prejudice against Truth calling Infant-Baptism a nullity a mockery that no Baptism but by plunging or dipping was lawfull all that would be saved must be rebaptized or baptized after profession And now backed it with terming of us formal pretended Ministers who take upon us to reach â—ut do indeed as Elymas the sorcerer pervert the right way of the Lord His aime being this to trample down with disgrace the persons of them the weight of whose Arguments he cannot elude with wire-drawn distinctions and evasions making good the saying of Maxentius Ap. Bign in Biblioth To. 4. Mens contentioni indulgens non sanari sed vincere cupiens aversa ab eis quae rectè dicuntur tantum intenta est in hoc ut inveniat quod pro partibus suis loquatur A contentious mind desirous of victory and not willing to be reformed but averse from right sayings onely deviseth how to elude truth and to speak for his own part and this is all that necessitates him to write either against us or the whole Catholick Church Mr. Tombes 5. Section WHo the J. T. P. or J. W. is I know not â— What the first Epistle saith of Austins rule it is neither true for then the observation of an Easter and sundry other superstitious Rites should be from the Apostles nor if it were is ittrue of Infant-Sprinkling that the whole Church held it sprinkling being not used in sundry ages instead of Baptism and Infant-Baptism as it is now used opposed by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen and only the Popish doctrine disclaymed by Mr. Cragge of the necessity of baptizing Infants to the inheriting heaven taught by the writers called Fathers Reply WHo the J. T. P. or J. W. is he knowes not nor shall 〈◊〉 for me The six heads to which the former Epistle is reduced he waves The first is what is the relaters sense of the
there were any Infants of whose Baptism they doubted they required they should be baptized why should Master Tombes out of Grotius give this false Echo That Infants in the Primitive times were baptized very rarely The eighth untruth is That Infants in the Primitive times were baptized only in case of danger of nearnesse of death the contradictory whereof is so evident that it need no other refutation but reflexion upon the Premises to which I referre the Reader None of the Anti-Paedobaptists have hitherto which their peremptory assertion requires given us historical evidence that either all or the major part put off their baptism till believers except as is alledged in case of danger of death Nay that any dogmatically and out of scruple of conscience denyed or refused Infant-Baptism True it is that Tertullian that lived about eighty years after the decease of S. John and Gregory Nazianzen after him who lived about 370 years after the incarnation in some cases as hath been formerly alledged advised to put off Infant-Baptism which irrefragably proves that Infant-Baptism was generally in practise in their times that they approve of the lawfulnesse of it onely advises the conveniency of deferring in some cases forementioned neither do we find upon record that either of them prevailâ—d In case of urgent necessity death approaching they more vehâ—mently pressed the necessity of Baptism according to Tertullians own ground Tertul. de Baptismo Praescribitur nemini sine baptismo competâ—re salutem none can be saved sayes he without baptism from that sentence of our great Master unless one be born of water he hath not had life for he hath tyed faith to the necessity of Baptism thus farre he From whence we may gather that as Tertullian elsewhere confesses the universal custome of baptizing Infants so here impliedly he approves of the lawfulness nay the conveniencie of it seeing Infants every moment are liable to death and of a further necessity death approaching which necessity we are not to suppose to be absolute and Medii of the means as if God could not save Infants without baptism but conditionall and praecepti bâ—cause God hath commanded it for I cannot find that God hath promised to save any that walks not in his way and are not actually or at the least habitually disposed to be admitted into the Church visible by his own ordinances God could have clensed Naamans leprosie without washing in Joâ—dan but would not if he had stubbornly refused therefore that was good counsell of his servants 2 Kings 5. 13. If the Prophet had bid thee do some great thing wouldst thou not have done it How much rather then when he saith wash and be clean So that Tertullian's advise to put off Baptism was but either as before till Infants were strengthened to endure the water or a mistake as he also advâ—sâ—d young men unmarried and widowes though professiâ—g Christ to delay their baptism till they were either marryed or confirmed in chastity that is single life Now as this would be a strange Argument Tertullian advised young men and widdowes to delay their Baptism till they were either married or confirmed in chastity Therefore young men and widdowes in the Primâ—tive times when converted from Paganism were not baptized As strange is this Tertullian advised to deferre the baptism of some Infants therefore in his time and the ages before him infants were not baptized save in the case of danger of death every one may see the weakness and this is their main fort which being taken they must needs yeild up their armes The ninth untruth is That when reformation of other Popish abuses was sought the reformation of Infant-Baptism was sought with the first some hundred years before Luther Nunc ad Triarios perventum est This is the Rereward which our Adversaries boast much in as Nestor did of his in Homer but being examined it will end like Nebuchadnezar's image in feet of clay or as Jordan the Dippers talk so much off in Sodomes gulf or the dead sea What! was Infant-Baptism instituted by Christ practised by the Apostles used in the first Centuries a custome so sacred in Pelagius his dayes by Mr. Tombes's own confession as he durst not oppose it And yet a Popish abuse when Popery had yet no being Did Augustine averre the Church was alwayes Popish when he said the Church alwayes held Infant-Baptism Did Origen say the Apostles practised Popery when he said de peccatorum meritis Ecclesia traditionem ab Apostolis accepit etiam parvulis dare baptismum the Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism even to little ones Was it used in Asia Europe Greece before the Bishop of Rome was as much as a Provincial Bishop Nay more frequently as Master Tombes would have it in Africe then Italy and yet a Popish abuse This is a strange Prodigie Indeed there are that under the notion of Popery comprehnds the Trinity Magistracy Ministry Sacraments all Ordinances Scriptures and even the truth of the deity with the Persons and Office of Christ. The Trinitarians and Anabaptists of Transilvamia Anno 1568. in their Antitheses of their false and true Christ at Alba Julia have delivered something like this which our Seekers Ranters and Mortalists have improved of late impugning all glorious truths under the Notion of Popery But that Master Tombes would be esteemed a judicious and learned man much versed in Antiquity should account Infant-Baptism a Popish abuse and interpretatiuely accuse the Magistracy and Ministery of all the reformed Churches of Popery is somewhat strange But when or in what hundred years was the reformation of Infant-Baptism sought For he saies it was sought some hundred years before Luther Sought by whom At the hands of what Councell Magistracy Presbytery He mentions here none but Pithagoras like thinks his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sufficient In his Examen of Mr. Marshals Sermon he gives four instances for proof of his pretended allegationâ— 1. Berengarius 2. The Albigenses 3. A nameless Sect out of Bernard 4. The Petro-Busians which whether any or all of these sought reformation of Infant-Baptism as a Popish abuse comes now to the Test For his first instance of Berengarius he sayes that Cassander in his Testimonies of Infant-Baptism in the Epistle to the Duke of Cleve tells us that Guitmand Bishop of Averse mentioneth the famous Berengarius Anno 1030. opposing not onely the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist but also the baptism of little ones For answer observe it is nor said that Berengarius desired reformation of Infant-Baptism but opposed it nay that Guitmund did but say that he opposed it and if he seek further he shal find that Guitmund took it upon the credit of Deoduinus Leodiensis and he took it up as a common fame how far does this fall short Besidâ—s this fame was a lyer for in so many Synods held against Berengarius we never find any saith Bishop Usher thing of this nature laid to
neither have we ground to believe or hope the salvation of any but of them that are in covenant and members of the Church visible Though I deny not but God can by his absolute power and secret will save otherwise extraordinarily Infants of believers are neither negatively nor privatively out of the Church visible for neither want of age to understand the faith nor ability to make profession excludes them more now than it did the Jewes children under the Law who were ordinarily that is according to Gods promise annexed to the covenant saved If any Gentiles children unproselyted were saved it was extraordinarily that is without promise or visible covenant And Anabaptists giving us no more ground of Christians Infants salvation than of these are miserable comforters Mr. Tombes 24 Section HIs last Argument is That which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawfull But Infant-baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times Ergo The Minor is denyed The blessed success he proves not In my exercitation I shew many errours and corruptions which have come from it not by accident in respect of some persons that embraced it onely but even from the tendency of the practice it self I may truely say that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a roote of corrupting the Churches and loosing the gifts of the spirit conferred at first commonly at baptism by laying on of hands as I think except some few any other corruption in the rites of Christian Religion But Mr. C. thinks to draw it down from the Apostles dayes He begins with words of Dionysius Arcopagita â— Holy men have received a tradition of the Fathers which very words shew it was not Dionysius Areopagita mentioned Acts 17. he would doubtless have said I have received it from blessed Paul not have told what other holy men have received from the Fathers whom Mr. C. vainly conceives to be meant of the Apostles But the books that go under his name have been so often by so many learned men Papists and Protestants proved to be meere counterfeits that either it is much ignorance or much impudence that this is produced as his Salmatius sundry times speaketh of them as certain that the Author of them was not till the fift age The Apostolicall constitutions appear by many observations of Sculteâ—us and others not to have been witten by Clement but of much later time Irenaeus his words make nothing for Mr. C. as he cites them nor as they stand in his own works Reply THe last Argument was That which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success must needs be lawful But Infant-baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles Therfore it must needs be lawfull He denyes the Minor saying in his exercitation he shewed many errours and corruptions which have come from it not by accident in respect of some persons that embraced it onely but even from the tendency of the practice it self whereas Dr. Homes Mr. Marshall Mr. Hussey proves the contrary and makes his own accusations recoyle as dung into his face yet like the dragon in the Revelation he casts out a venemous flood to poyson the Churches of all ages saying that Paedobaptism hath been as cursed a roote of corrupting the Churches as he thinks excepting some few any other corruptions in the rites of Christian Religion I make no doubt but the Antiscripturians will say as much of the Bible and the Ranters of marriage But what are his corruptions Infant-baptism hath brought in 1. Private baptism Answ as if we might not as well baptize Infants in houses As the Apostle did the Jayler or two or three of them steal to a river side to duck or cuck a Proselyte 2. Baptism by women Answ Protestant Churches allowes no such thing since Luther but closes with the Councell of Carthage Can. 10. Mulier baptizare non praesumat let not a woman presume to baptize Bold Zippora circumcising must be no president 3. Baptizing of Infants not yet brought into light Answ If he mean the mother with child Councells are against it If he mean the child we know no such approbation or practice 4. Baptism of children of uncertain progeny Answ we approve and know of none if the Parents be not believers and Christians engage for them 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord that know not the Lord. Answ As well as Jewish Infants circumcised with the seal of righteousness of faith in Christ who knew not Christ 6. It admits the ignorant and prophane to the Lords supper because the sacraments are concommitants Answ The Antecedent and consequent are both Scriptureless and false the one is the Sacrament of initiation the other of perfection to which the former is a preparative 7 It. perverts the order of discipline by baptizing before Catechizing Answ In Infants it does as in Isaack and the Jewes males but not in adultis and what inconvenience 8. It s turned to a feast and men forget baptism Answ There was a feast at the weaning of Isaac and feasts of charity at the Lords Supper without prophaness we can minde at ripe years what was bequeathed us by Legacy when we were Infants may we not as well our solemn vow which we are put in minde of dayly Thus his vainly pretended errours and corruptions vanish without impeaching the blessed success of Infant-baptism since the Apostles which briefly here I drew down from the Apostles times more largely before beginning with the words of Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens who said Holy men have received a Tradition from the Fathers that is the Apostles to baptize Infants instancing not in one Apostle as Paul but all former authority whom the converts called fathers as they them children which is no vain but a Scripture grounded conceit vos genui per Evangelium Though I am not ignorant some Papist and Protestants have questioned the authority which censure the most books in Scripture have undergone But that either Councell Synod or University have declared them counterfeit is more than I have heard And to produce them as his whose namâ— they have born in all Libraries in all Countries for many Centuries is modest verity which for one Grammatian Salmatius and one quondam Surrogate M. T. to oppose relishes rather of insolency Clemens who is recorded by some of the Antients to succeed Peter in his Ministery at Rome says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptize your Infants does Master T. think that we will admit of the conjecturall observations of one poore yesterdayes Palatinat Minister Scultetus to overthrow the Apostolicall constitutions when he himself denyes the authority of all Protestants joyntly as convâ—ncing Irenaeus who lived in the second Century says Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est Christ became a little one for little ones sake and lib. 2. cap. 39. Christ came to save all that are new born by him into God Infants and little