the condition as bad of an Infant under the Gospell left without any ordinary means of salvation save onely Baptism seeing Christ sayes John 3. 5. Except a man bâ— born of water and of the Spirit be cannot see the Kingdome of God But there are ordinary means of salvation beside Baptism thaâ— Infants out of Covenant are left without for clearing of which by ordinary I mean that which God hath revealed in Scripture and hath left us a word of promise to depend upon By means of salvation I understand all that which condâ—ces to the end and is contradistinguished to the end Thus means of salvation either strictly signifies those things that morally are in our power as for the Catechumeni and them of years whether they will be Baptized heare the Word receive the Eucharist Or those things that are not in our power wherein we are Passives yet performed by others as Proxies for us thus under the Law Infants were circumcised washed sanctified by oblations presented in the Temple under the Gospell baptized engaged by their parents or sureties Or those thing that are neither in our power nor others performed neither by our selves nor others yet by Gods free Charter in our selves and others Thus covenant-holiness prerogative of birth Gods promise to Abraham that he would be his God and the God of his seed That of Peter Acts 2. 39. confirmed to Jewes and Gentiles the promise is to you and your children are ordinary means of Salvation Infants out of covenant are left without all these and would be in the same condition with Gentiles Ephes 2. 12. Without Christ Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel strangers from the covonant of promise having no hope and without God in the World Thus negatively what they are deprived of by being out of covenant Let us see positively the benefits of being in covenant by comparing them with Jewes children with whom they hold proportion Rom. 3. 12. What advantage hath the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision Much every way chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God And Rom. 9 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises there is the same reason of Infants under the Gospell Secondly he sayes that he takes not Baptism to be any ordinary means of salvation without faith what he takes is not much material so long as he mistakes If it be an ordinary means of salvation any way it is enough to prove that Infants are left without that means And in this his amphibological asseveration are cooped three fallacies 1. Fallacia divisionis for the Question is not whether Baptism be an ordinary means of salvation without faith but whether it be a means or no 2. A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundùm quid for the Question is not whether Baptism be a principle means but whether it be a means 3. Non causae ut causae For it is not enquired whether baptism presupposes faith as a cause or qualification but whether Baptism be the ordinary way God hath appointed for salvation And when the proposal is whether baptism be an ordinary means of Salvation To say it is not without faith is as unsavory as when the demand is whether the lungs are an ordinary Instrument of breathing to say they are not without the heart when the Question is simply whether a Colonel hath any command in an Army It would be ridiculous to answer it by saying he hath none without orders from the General And yet there is not that necessary connexion betwixt faith and Baptism that is betwixt the lungs and the heart for the lungs cannot breath without the heart nor the Colonel issue out any word of command without subordination to his generall But Baptism may be true Baptism even in adultis as Hymenaeus without true faith and many other hypocrites who when they became true Penetentiaries none but those Hereticks the Novations and Donatists durst Baptize again But for the Baptism of Infants actuall faith is not necessarie for the bene esse or perfection of it much less for the esse or being of it And that they have the infused habit of faith or the roots and seeds of it he confesses saying they are saved by the work of Christ's spirit which can be no other but the seeds of faith hope charitie and the new creature Thirdly he thinks it no inconvenience to say that Infants are without ordinary means of salvation he means preaching of the word for so he expresseth himself of that we must distinguish Preaching is either manifesting to the understanding that which is preached so Infants are without the means or presenting objectively the benefit of that which is preached as the new creature gifts of the spirit salvation so Infants are not without the means A will is sealed and published by the Father â—n the presence of all his children Wherein there is contained bequeathments and Legacies to them severally now they of age onely understand it but the Infants and sucklings that understand it not have equall benefit by it their honest overseers and Guardians will look to their Interests and shall we think God to be less carefull of Infants to whom he hath proclaimed belongs the Kingdom of God Lastly he sayes Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit without ordinary means This implyes a contradiction of which his forge is full for if God hath revealed in the Covenant of the Gospell and made a promise thereof that Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit then it is not without ordinary means for this is the way that God hath declared himself ordinarily to operate in whose will is a fixâ— Law and if God hath not revealed it in the Covâ—nant of the Gospell and made a promise thereof how doth he know that Infants are saved by the election of God redemption of Christ and work of his spirit Or how dare he avouch it God hath promised no such thing to Infants of Jews Turks Infidels therefore they are out of Covenant and not visible memberâ— if God hath promised such things to Infants of believers they are in Covenant and visible members But perhaps he means Infants are saved without ordinary means that is baptism That if it were true might vindicate a tanto that they are saved without that ordinary means but not a toto that they are saved without an ordinary means But his former grant necessarily infers that they are not saved without Baptism for what can forbid water sayes the Apostle that these may not be baptized seeing they have recieved the Holy Ghost as well as we Now they that have elections redemption of Christ and work of his spirit have received the Holy Ghost which is a thing so clear that Mr. T. himself is forced to confess that if he
and an adding to the word of God against which he hath proclamed a solemn curse The Commination or curse follows in the last words He that beleeveth not shall be damned he does not say he that is not Baptized shall be damned For though the contempt of it is dangerous yet a man may be saved without Baptism he does not say that hâ— that â—s not dipped over head is damned that is a thing indifferent any washâ—â—g in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is Baptism he does not say that he that is not Re-baptized or Baptized again is damned for that is the invention of Man never heaâ—d of in that sensâ— before John of Leydens time who confessed this execution that he had that and the rest of his poysoneâ— Doctrine from Satan Hence observe That all unbelievers though Baptised shall be damned men beleeving though through iâ—vincible necessity Un Baptizâ—d shâ—ll be saved thus we have given you the lively meaning of the Holy Ghost in the Text. Having layd this foundation we 'l make further inquirie into two things which are in controversie First what is meant by Baptism or Baptizing Secondly whether Infants ought to be Baptized or no. First Baptism in the Original signifies nothing but a washing as Pareus upon the Hebrews says Baptismus Graecis est quaevis ablutio Baptism is in Greek any washing whether by dipping or sprinkling to Baptize is to dip or sprinkle says Ravenel so says the Churches old Catechism dipped or sprinkled in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost so the Directory Baptize the child by pouring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child without adding any further ceremony And as many kinds there are of washing so many there are of Baptizing whereof the Pillars of the Greek Tongue Hesyehius Budeus Stephaâ—us Scapula Arius Montanus Pasor mention four First tingere to die or tincture Secondly mergere to drown or plunge Thirdly madefacere to wet or moysten and lastly abluere to wash or cleanse I confess there are some that distinguish betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rantise as they call it or sprinkle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to plunge to the bottom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to swim upon the top and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is as they criticise upon it to swim betwixt the top and bottom these three last are mentioned by Casaubon in his notes upon the third Chapter of St. Mathew as was quoted by our adversary but with what fidelitie or advantage to his cause I leave it to the Godly and learned to Judge for he left out the last words wherein the whole state of the question is determined by Casaubon against him for thus he concludes horum sententia jampridem merito est explosa c. the judgement of those men is deservedly long since exploded and trampled down that would have Baptizing to be by dipping and he gives a reason quum non in eo posita sit mysteriâ— hujus vis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the force and efficacy of Baptism this mysterie consists not in that that is the manner of washing Which is confirmed by Aquinas Immersio non est de necessitate Baptismi dipping is not of the necessity of Baptism And Dominico Sotus Ablutio est de essentia Baptismi washing is of the essence of Baptism but the manner of washing whether by dipping pouring or sprinkling is accidental Many places of Scripture confirm this 1 Cor. 10. 2. there the Israelites were Baptized in the red Sea when their feet did but touch the water not as if they were Baptized when they were not as the Ana-baptists gloss upon this place and that the Egyptians were really Baptized for the Egyptians were not Baptized in their sense but sunk to the bottom like stones Exod. 15. 5. Baptized under the Cloud not that the Egyptians were Baptized and the Israelites as if they were as they descant under the Cloud for the Egyptians were never under the Cloud for the Israelites went before the Egyptians and the Cloud part of it was over the Israelites part of it went before them There is mention made in the Gospel of Baptizing or washing of themselves when they came from Market of Cups of Vessels of Tables which cannot be meant of plunging in water so often where that Element was so scarce but rincing John's Baptizing in Jordan Philip's going down to the River with the Eunuch proves nothing at all for what strange consequence would this be especially from the Anabaptists that must have express Scripture for all things John Baptized in Jordan Philip went down into the water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or to the water with the Eunuch therefore they were dipped seeing it might as well be by pouring or sprinkling of water upon them for any thing that appears out of the Text. Object John Baptized in Enon because there was much water Answ This will seem to be no wonder in those hot Countries where there are many miles without a Spring of water especially seeing Geographers and Travellers tells us that Enon is a little Brook that one may stride over scarce Knee deep and therefore not capable of dipping Object But Baptism say they must resemble the death of Christ Rom. 6. 4. We are buryed with him by Baptism which is not by sprinkling but dipping Answ I answer the scope of the place is to shew that one end of our Baptism is to Seal our Communion with Christ in his death but to press a necessity of resemblance by descending into the water and coming out again we see no ground in Text and if our abiding under the water must answer Christs Burial in exact representation then as Christ lay three days and three nights in the Grave so they must lye three days and three nights under the water which if it were put in execution the dispute would quickly be at an end But should we grant this resemblance I appeal to any man whether our pouring on of water in Baptism does not more resemble our Christian Burial which is by pouring on of Earth or Dust than by plunging over head Thus you see it proved that Baptizing is any kind of washing In the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost we do not deny with Master Perkins that if we were to Baptize converted Turks or Pagans of ripe age in hot Countries we might Baptize them by dipping Provided that their Garments were not first Baptized or washed for that is conceived to be no less superstition than Beptizing of Bells Baptism says Vossius non est immersio vestium sed humani Corporis is not a washing of the Garments but of the Body we account the Church of Rome Idolaters for presenting that worship First to the Image which is terminated in Christ the Garments are first washed or dipped and the Body but at the most wet or moystned through them But to affirm that no Baptism
my attention and to make some ostentation of himself I replyed not to his vain talk but called for Scripture proof Reply THe Argument drawn from the Essence of Baptism was not a new one as he mistakes but a continuation and confirmation oâ— the former for when after four Syllogisms orderly proposed he had no way of evasion but petere principium to fly back to his first Sanctuary I was forced again to prove the consecution of thâ— propositions that they were both actually true especially that iâ— controversie that some Infants may be baptized which I diâ— thus To whom belongs the Essence of Baptism they may be baptized to some Infants belongs the Essence of Baptism ergo some Infants may be baptized Here he confesses he denyed the Minor where he should have denyed the Major And which is worse though he perceived by my next Syllogism he was mistaken he could not recall himself by reason of my quickness and multiplying words would not permit him pittifull figge leaves Did not he first heare the Argument from me and then repeat it himself what quickness Is not the Syllogism briefly couched that took away his Minor what multiplying of words But now he makes amends and repaires the loss by a distinction of a twofold Essence of Baptism which is a meer Cymera or rather an Ens fictum impossible never heard before for as Ens is unum but one so Essentia una essence is but one who ever read of this new Divinity and Metaphysicks that the essence of Baptism belonging to Infants may have two senses First as he glosses it that the baptism of Infants is true Baptism that is according to transcendental verity such as hath the nature of Baptism And in this sense he grants the proposition is true that the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants The other sense is the essence of Baptism that is that which is of the essence to the right administration of Baptism belongs to Infants in which sense he sayes he denyes that the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants as if the essence were not indivisible that they that had one part had all wanted one part wanted all For as Eustachius hath it Metaphys pag. 21. every created essence consists of parts Physical or Metaphysical eatenus tamen dicuntur indivisibiles quod nulla sit natura quae secundum naturam specificam inaequaliter participetur ab individuis Therefore essences are called indivisible because there is nothing of nature that according to the specifical reason may be unequally participated of Individuals As appears by induction humane nature belongs not more to one man than another so that one man cannot more be said to be a man than another and he gives a reason because nothing that belongs to the essence of a thing can be added or withdrawn but presently the nature and essence is changed whence Aristotle Metaphys 8. cap. 3. Tom. 10. compares essences to numbers to which if we add or substract but an union the same specifical number is changed hence the result is if the essence of Baptism belongs to Infants then indivisibly and equally to them with those of riper age but Mr. Tombes being Judge the essence of Baptism according to Transcendental verity belongs to Infants therefore Baptism belongs indivisibly and equally to Infants with them of riper years Neither will his parallel instance relieve him that Infants eating bread and drinking wine is true eating and drinking the Lords Supper and have the essence of it which is his groundlesse dictate and hath no truth in it for upon supposition that Infants are excluded the Lords Supper in the divine institution which is the fundament and gives being to the relation they are no more capable of the essence and true eating of the Lords Supper while Infants than degs and mice which how ridiculously the Canonists of the Church of Rome Dispute whether they eat the Lords Supper or no every man of common sense knowes As for the other part of the distinction which he also calls the essence of Baptism it is so farr from being the essence of it as his own terms right administration implies that it is but an accidental perfection superadded to the essence If his distinct on had been of the truth of Baptism it might have had some ground in it though not as applyed to Infants for as the Church of Rome and other Churches that holds the fundamentals according to Bishop Hall and Davenant are true Churches in transcendental verity but in relation to their erronious superstructions they are not true Churches eatenus in moral verity Baptism with water in the Church administred by a Priest in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is true Baptism in Transcenâ—ental verity though in respect of their additions of salt spittle exorcism and other superstitious circumstances morally not true But Baptism of Bells is neither Transcendentally nor morally true much lesse have they thâ— essence of Baptism as wanting the fundament which is the root of the entâ—tie Whereas Mr. Tombes confesses Infants may have the essence of Baptism or that it belongs to them which the Argument from the definâ—tion further proves in forme thus To whom belongs the definition of Baptism to them belongs the essence to some Infants belongs the definition of Baptism therefore to some Infants belongs the essence This is no Identical probation or all one as he sayes as to argue Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore it is right Baptism it is not Identical for an Argument taken from the definition is a demonstration â priori notiori from the former and better known It is not all one to argue Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore it is right Baptism but it concludes Infant-Baptism is Baptism therefore Infants may be baptized which is the Question by this inference put out of Question And if we make a deeper Scrutinie into the parts of the definition we shall find that their Baptism is right Baptism and that Infants may rightly be baptized for the entire definition of Baptism comprehends in its wombe these parts 1. The fundament which is the divine Institution infolding Infants in all Nations in several families 2. The principal cause the Holy Ghost of which they are capable what then can forbid water 3. The Instrumental cause the Minister whose commission extends to them go baptize all Nations 4. The matterial cause water of which Christian children are as capable as the Jewish children were of Circumcision 5. The formal cause also into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost 6. Tho correlative Christ of whose Union children are receptive 7. The final cause grace and glory from which they cannot be excluded for to such belongs the Kingdom of God And this is the Argument perticularised by which I proved the definition of Baptism belonged to Infants thus The definition of Baptism as of all other relations is made up of the fundament correlative and Termini but all these three
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
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
Infant-Baptism could they be believers and Catechumem at that age The other indeed would have the Baptism of some to be put off till they were of competent age to answer for themselves but were they not as Pamelius and others prove children of heathens which is apparent because he speaks of the danger Sponsorum of the Sureties and nothing of the parents Secondly the Author in that Chapter speaks of the Baptism of such as were born of Jewish or Heathenish parents as S. Paul and the Eunuch and therefore he desires that the Baptism of such Infants may be deferred till they made confession of sins and profession of faith their parents being Infidels and their Sponsors Mortal the most of their kindred and neighbours as it is probable being Heathens This doctrine differs nothing from that we hold But Master Tombes further sayes the Popish doctrine of the necessity of Baptizing Infants of their inheriting heaven was taught by the writers called Fathers Called Fathers and were they not so This is in patrios mingere cineres to defile the urns of the Antients Pinge duos angues pueri sacer est locus extrà Mejite Juvenal Paint here two snakes it ill becomes Children to pisse on fathers Tombes In comparison of whom what conceit soever some have of themselves they are but Imps and Zanies But to the matter two untruths are here by him asserted First That the Fathers held the necessity of Baptizing to Salvation Secondly That it is Popish Doctrin For the first they maintained a threefold Baptism 1. Fluminis of water 2. Flaminis of the Spirit 3. Sanguinis of Blood Either of the two later might supply the want of the first So Basil the great discoursing of this point in the Homilie of the 40 Martyrs says of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was baptized not b◠another or by the faith of another but by his own faith not in water but in his own blood And Austin himself that was conceived to be a hard father of Infants and of all that dyed unbaptized retracted his opinion and acknowledged that Baptism was not absolutely necessary to Salvation lib. 5. de Baptis contra Donatistas Etiam atque etiam considerans invenio c. I again and again considering saies he do find that not onely the passion for the name of Christ to be able to supply that which was wanting of Baptism but also faith and conversion of heart if haply by reason of the strait of time they can not be relieved by celebrating the mystery of Baptism Thus the Fathers are cleared from this aspersion Neither is it Popish doctrine or a general Tenet of the Papists that Baptism is necessary for inheriting of heaven Bernard that lived in the mists of Popery and was an Abbot confesses that not the want but the contempt of the Sacrament damnes and discoursing upon this subject in his 77 Epistle avouches out of Ambrose and Augustine that invisible sanctification was sufficient to Salvation without a participation of the visible Sacrament Blesensis another Papist that lived near Bernards time saith sufficiet Spiritus solus quia ipsius testimonium pondus habet The Spirit alone that is the spiritual and inward Baptism will be sufficient because the witness thereof hath weight intimating that the party might be saved when outward Baptism through invincible necessity was denyed True it is Baptism does not conserre grace ex opere operato all are not saved that are baptized nor all damned that are not baptized yet under the Gospel we have no promise of any to be saved that are not Candidati or to use Tertullians language designati sanctitatis in covenant visible and capable of Baptism Of which I have insisted more largely to give light to that which followes Master Tombes 6. Section AS false it is that the Baptizing believers called by these Anabaptism had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and others there named it being commanded by Christ practised by the Apostles continued in the first ages without any Infant-Baptism and when Infants were baptized it was very rarely onely in case of danger of the nearness of death to the Infant and when reformation of other Popish abuses was sought the reformation of this was sought with the first some hundred of years before Luther Reply IN the former Section nine untruths out-vying the number of the lines are asserted by Master Tombes 1. that the Epistle affirms that the baptizing of believers had its rise and spring from Nicholas Stork 2. That we call Baptizers of believers Anapaptists 3. That it is false though the Epistle mentions it not baptizing of believers without infants had it spring and rise from Nicholas Stork 4. That it was commanded by Christ 5. Practised by the Apostles 6. Continued in the first ages 7. When Infants were baptized it was very rarely 8. That it was onely in case of danger of the neerness of death to the Infant 9. That when reformation of Popish abuses was sought the reformation of this was sought with the first some hundred years before Luther These are his nine Worthies besides which many more deserves censure that come now to be stripped that their deformity may be discovered First the Epistle does not affirm that the Baptizing of Believers had its rice and spring from Nicholas Stork The words are these as all errours so it that is Anabaptism had its beginning after truth The husbandman first sowed good corn then the enemy tares and then mentions the most notorious Hereticks that arose in the six first Centuries at the end of which the Mystery of iniquity began more fully to work which was first nascent then crescent then Regnant then Triumphant And no sooner appeared a Reformation in Luthers time but there were Herods that sought the life of this Babe Dragons watching while the woman was travelling to devour the child amongst whom the Anabaptists of Germany were most venomous the Author whereof was one Nicholas Stork then Phiser Knipperdoling Muncer with their Tayler King John Becold of Leyden Now by what Chymistery will Master T. extract from hence that the Epistle affirms that the baptizing of believers had its rise and spring from Nicholas Stork This will be strange Logick the Anabaptists of Germany in Luthers time were the most venomous or greatest disturbers of Reformation the first Author whereof was Nicholas Stork therefore baptizing of believers had its rise and spring from hence It is as inconsequent as this The Anabaptists of England have been great disturbers of our late Reformation the first Author whereof was Master T. Therefore baptizing of believers had its spring and rise from Master T. True it is it will follow secundum quid that those Anabaptists of Germany had their spring from Nicholas Stork These of England from Master T. But that simpliciter all Anabaptists had their spring and rise from them is a palpable inconsequence much more that the baptizing of believers had its rise from thence