CHAP. I.

THe present Tenent (saith Mr. Tombes) according to which Infant-Baptisme is practised, is,Exercitation. Section 1. that the Infants born of Beleevers are universally to be baptized. This Doctrine, and practise conform­able, is doubtfull to me, by these arguments.

1 That which hath no testimonie of Scripture for it, is doubtfull; but this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme hath no testimonie of Scripture for it, ergo it is doubtfull.

• 1 We put in caution; that we say not Infants, but Infants of be­leevers may be baptized.
• 2 We retort,
  Animadvers.
  that institution against which there is no prohibi­tion, is doubtfully laid aside. But there is no prohibition against the institution of giving the 1. signe, or seal to beleevers children, whilest children; ergo it is doubtfully laid aside; as the Anabap­tists teach and do.

The minor (saith he) is proved by examining the places that are brought for it, which are these. Gen. 17.7. &c. Act. 2.38, 39.Exercitat. Sect. 1. 1. Cor. 7.14. Mar. 10.14.16. Act. 16.15.32.1 Cor. 1.16.

We answer,Animad. that the confirmation of our minor is proved by examining the Exercitators examinations of those Scriptures [Page 2]that are brought for the baptizing of beleevers children, or in­fants.

The argument from Gen. 17.7,Exercitat. Sect. 1. &c. hath so many shapes, that I may take up here that speech, With what knot shall I hold shape-changing-Proteus?

We are sorry that Mr. Tombes should compare an endeavour fully to draw forth the marrow of a text of Scripture (which every where abounds with sence) to a poeticall fable touching Proteus. Animadvers. If Mr. T. will justifie that, we may with more boldship 1 say of Mr. T. himself, that had he been an Vlisses he might have constrained Proteus, or a Gordius, he might have knit a knot upon him (whosoever he be) that could not be untyed. 2 That if the man for baptizing beleevers infants be a shape-changing-Proteus, what then is the Anabaptist, touching the point in hand, and in his answers to the text now in question, to wit, Gen. 17? For sometimes he saith that this Covenant with Abraham is a fleshly Covenant;So Mr. B. S. P. &c. sometimes a temporall Covenant; sometimes a spirituall covenant; and if a spirituall, sometimes he saith it is a covenant of works: sometimes he confesseth it is a covenant of grace in part. But then one while he doubts whether seed here doth not onely signifie Christ? another while, if it doth signifie more, whether it be not onely a particular covenant to Abraham? To all which (see­ing Mr. T. hath occasioned us to mention them) we desire to speak a little, before we come to Mr. Tombes his answers.

The Apostle makes but two Covenants, Answ. 1 1. of works, and 2. of grace, and this of grace twofold in the administration, viz. Old and New. Hebr. Chap. 8. Chap. 9. where the Apostle makes it his bu­sinesse to set down all the main differences between the old and new Testament-administration of the covenant of grace: but never mentions this of the Anabaptists; that children of be­leevers were to be signed with the 1. signe of the old, in the old Testament, and not with that of the New, in the new Testament.

But to answer. 2 more particularly to the severall reasons.

Obj. 1.P. H. Whether not fleshly, because its a signe in the flesh.

A. So is Baptisme and holy Supper fleshly or carnal in the signe.

The outward shell of an ordinance may be carnall; when the substance is spirituall. Hebr. 9.10. See v. 9. yea see in the Apostles exposition of the whole Ceremoniall Law throughout the Epistle to Hebr.

Ob. 2. Whether not a temporall covenant i. e. of temporall things.

As,

• 1 Whether not of giving Canaan onely, so Gen. 17.
  W. S.
  v. 8. Or,
• 2 Whether not of making Abraham a father of many nati­ons.
  D. P.
  So Gen. 17. where it is mentioned three times, v. 4. v. 5. v. 6. compare Rom. 4.11. Heb. 6.14.

A. You see in the Gospel that the body of the Covenant of grace is, God is our God in Christ. But the appendices of temporals if ta­ken in the shell as, Seek first the kingdom of God, and all other things shall be added to you. Matth. 6.33. And all things shall work together for good to them that love him; to them that are called according to his purpose. Rom. 8.28. And I will not leave you nor forsake you. Hebr. 13.5. do not make two covenants, nor doth the latter make void the former. And as considered in the kernel they relate to heaven: blessed are ye that shall eat and drink in the kingdom of heaven. Luk. 22.32. Behold I and the children. Hebr. 2.13. If our earthly tabernacle: &c. 2 Cor. 5.1. and so fit to be joyned as appendices to heaven. All our mammon made friends to us towards heaven. Luk. 16.9. So in the old Testament, Canaan and children. Considered in the shell. But in the meaning, Canaan signifies the Church militant, Jerusalem above, Gal. 4.26. And triumphant, If Jesus had given them rest. Hebr. 4.8. And children signifie that among them Christ should come, Gen. 22. compare Gal. 3. And that many children signifie he shall have many beleevers to his children, Rom. 4. And therefore hath faith in uncircumcision that he might be the father of the Gen­tiles that beleeve: Ibid. Rom. 4. and therefore these well suited with the Covenant of grace.

Therefore to that Gen. 17. touching Abrahams posteritie, the Lord speaks in that order.

• 1 To settle Abrahams faith and comfort with many priviledges.
• 2 Descends from temporals in the shell, to spirituals in sub­stance.
• 3 In order of nature. 1 Abraham must have children, then Christ, then comes the great part or basis of the Covenant, v. 3. In Christ I am thy God. Its usually in the Hebr. to name last, the main thing to be spoken of.

2 To that Rom. 4.11. its plain to have many children is made a part of the covenant of grace; and the reason is shewed, that he might be the father of all that beleeve, which is a spirituall thing.

3 To that Hebr. 6. its clear of an additionall promise by oath made, Gen. 22. not of the main Covenant.

3 Whether not a covenant of works. As a manuscript would have it. Ans. No, so expresly, Rom. 4.11.

Obj. He saith that there, Gen. 17. it is said, if they did break his covenant on their part, he would be no more their God, but curse them, v. 14.

Ans. 1. The covenant of works they brake long afore in para­dise, Rom. 5. Therefore was this covenant added. 2 He doth not cut them off for breaking the Covenant once taken, but if they did not enter into it, which was to break the command of en­tring into covenant. Ibid. Gen. 17.14. So in the Gospel, He that be­leeveth not shall be dammed. Joh. 3. And except a man be born again of wa­ter and the spirit he shall not enter into the kingdom of God. ibid Joh. 3.

But grant, say some, it be a covenant of grace, yet, say they, the question is, 1 whether by seed is not meant Christ. As the Apostle expounds, Gal. 3.16.

Answ. That in Gal. 3.16. relates to Gen. 22.11. of Gods oath to Abraham; not of the form, or signe, or administration of the Co­venant. Gen. 17. For in Gen. 17. is no such expression. But Gen. 22.18. it is expressed according to this of the Apostle.

Obj. It is said, Gen. 17.19.21. My covenant will I stablish with Isaac, that is, with Christ, for an everlalting covenant.

Ans. Where it is said, that with Isaac, that is, Christ, the cove­nant shall be established; the holy Ghost speaks of the efficacie of the covenant, shewing wherein and whereby the covenant shall be effectuall; namely, by faith in Christ. But where it is said, Gen. 17.7.9. I am the God of thee and thy seed, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, to circumcise all the males of thy house, it is spoken of the out­ward administration of the signe of the covenant. So that in the same chap. where the holy Ghost intimates the efficacie of the co­venant to be onely with Isaac in Christ; yet doth he command the outward administration of the signe to all the males in Abrahams honse, yea to Isinael, though to him the covenant should not be established, as it is expressed, v. 18, 19, 23, 21, 22.

☞ The want of the observing this distinction between the efficacie of the covenant, and the form and outward administration of the signe of the covenant is that which hath bred much of the dispute between the Anabaptists and us. I wish therefore it may be weigh­ed, [Page 5]for the Scripture is very clear in it to me touching every or­dinance. Concerning the word, the administration is, Go preach to every creature, Mark 16. But of the efficacie it is said, Heb. 4.2. The word profits not without faith. The form of baptisme is, Baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Matth. 28.19. But of the efficacie we have other expressions, Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. viz. Bap­tized into Christ, baptized into his death, buried with him, planted into his death. And Mat. 3. baptized with the holy Ghost, and with fire. So the form of administration of the Lords Supper is, Take, eat, this is my bo­dy which was given and broken for you, do this in remembrance of me. Mat. 26.26. Luk. 22.19.1. Cor. 11.14. But of the efficacie it is said in other words, The bread that we break is the communion of the body of Christ. 1 Cor. 10.16. And ye shew the Lords death till ye come. ibid. And ye are all one bread, 1 Cor. 10.17.

Sutably we have it in Scripture, that many partake of the out­ward administration, that partake not of the efficacie. Judas par­took of the administration of the word, and the pass [...]over: Simon Magus and Ananias of baptisme, Ismael of circumcision, and some intimated to partake of the outward administration of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. all which might not partake of the efficacie.

So that for the inward efficacie, we must leave that as a secret to Goa, to work it upon us, and in us, when, and how, and how much he pleaseth, whether we are baptized whiles infants, or when ripe of yeers; whether we hear the word as men, or children; and so in the rest of the ordinances; But for the outward administration and participation, we must keep close to the expresse institution, not straightning or widning it, but to take it up as God layes it down. They Matth. 3. come to Johns baptisme; and are baptized accor­ding to the institution, v. 6. with water. But after they were bap­tized, he tels them that Christ must baptize them with the holy Ghost, the spirituall fire. v. 11.

Obj. If a covenant of grace, whether it was not a particular covenant to Abraham; and not to be extended further; because it is clothed with many circumstances which will suit onely with Abraham, and fit him onely.

Answ. This covenant was made with Abraham as a father, and exprefly extended to his seed. And as he beleeving, the covenant runs to him and his naturall seed, whiles infants, I am the God of thee & thy seed. Gen. 17: so other Gentiles beleeving, being Abrabams [Page 6]seed, (as the Apostle expounds the intent and meaning of the co­venant, Rom. 4. Gal. 3.) the Covenant runs, to them and their naturall seed while infants.

CHAP. II.

NOw we return to Mr. T. his Exercit. where we left. But in the issue (saith Mr. T.) the argument from Gen. 17. 7, &c. fals into one of these forms. The first thus. To whom the Gospel covenant agrees, to them the signe of the Gospel covenant agrees also. But to the infants of beleevers the Gospel covenant agrees; therfore to them the signe of the Gospel covenant agrees, and consequently Baptisme.

2 Form of argument from Gen. Exercit. Sect. 2. 17.7 &c. is thus (saith Mr. T.) to whom circumcision did agree, to them baptisme doth agree; But to infants circumcision did agree; therefore also baptisme.

3 Form (saith he) is thus.Exercit. Sect. 3. If baptisme be not granted to the infants of beleevers, then the grace of God will be more restrain­ed in the new Testament then in the old. But this is not to be af­firmed; therefore baptisme is to be granted to infants of beleevers.

These are all the forms of argument from Gen. Animadvers. 17.7, &c. as Mr. T. reports: but he reports not all the forms; nor the all of those forms he reports. For with great injurie to these three arguments, some materiall thing is left out of every one of them by Mr. T. as we shall plainly declare when we come to animadvert upon his answers to them. Mean while let us tell the Reader that there are other forms of argument drawn from Gen. 17.7, &c. and long since in print;See Mr. Ainsworths Answer to the Anabaptists. and those to our apprehension very considerable; and to be put in the first place in this dispute, according, to order of method, if not of nature too. Therefore let the Reader that in­genuously reads to know, and not to quarrell that he may not know, patiently give us leave to set them down, and briefly urge the vigour of them; and then we will lay aside all to give him those short notes we have to Mr. T. his Exercitation.

Our first form of argument from Gen. 17.7. &c. is this; urged by Mr. Ainsw. in his book against the Anabaptists.

Where there is a command for a thing, never remanded or contramanded, there the thing is still in force. But there is a com­mand [Page 7]for signeing the Infants of a believer with the signe of the Covenant of grace, Gen. 17.7.9. never yet remanded, or con­tramanded: therefore the signing Believers children with the signe of the Covenant of grace, (namely Baptisme now) is still in force. So he.

For the confirmation of the Minor. If any where there is any Institution of baptizing, only men of ripe yeares then in Matth. 28. But not there, as we shall see more after: meane while the Argument hence against baptizing of Believers Infants lyes not

1 In the order of words, for the order is inverted and contra­ry, Mar. 1.4.

2 Not in the affirmativenesse, one affirmative without a deter­minating word expressed doth not take off another affirmative.

3 The universal terme cannot note the subject of Baptisme, viz. All Nations. For then all are to be baptised. And [...] would answer in [...] as well as [...] to answer to [...], observe that Nations here mentioned well answer to Nations, Gen. 17. explained, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. That as Infants of believing Abraham were to be cir­cumcised, so the Infants of believing Gentiles to be baptised.

4 Not the Greek word [...] as if that must needs signi­fie make Disciples. For,

• 1 Its unlikely that so great a controversie as the Anabap: make of the Subject of Baptisme, should have no clearer an Instituti­on, then a Gr. criticisme, of taking one sence of a word that is taken divers wayes. For Significat & docere in Mat. 28. Legh. Crit. S. Novar. in Mat. 28.20, Aliquando est verbum transit, pro docere, ut Mat. 28. Whitak. Descript. The great Arias renders it onely Docete, teach. So the renowned Vatablus, so the Syr [...] [...] and the Arab. [...]. So many others which for brevity we omit.
• 2 As [...] is in v. 19. so [...] v. 20. therfore most likely in v. 19. it signifies only a generall teaching. And so the great Cri­tick & learned men in Gr. tongue. That [...] is to teach them that are strangers to Doctrine, that they may become Disciples, [...] to teach them that are Disciples. So that here in v. 19. is not meant an exact compleat platforme of Christs commission to the Apostles: For here is no mention of the holy Supper, but only the naming of the two more usuall things, viz. teaching and bap­tizing, and not the matter of subject of the administration of Bap­tisme.
• [Page 8]3 The holy Ghost renders this text, Mar. 16.15. by plaine [...], preach the Gospel.
• 4 If the Greek word should be taken in that peculiar sense, then the sentence would run thus: therefore make all Nations di­sciples, which for these 1600 yeers was never done in any nation.
• 5 Nor can the gender in [...] answering to the neuter gender [...] signifie that the children of beleevers ought not to be baptized. For if we stick so precisely to the gender, then women are not to be baptized. If we keep to the gender, as to relate to [...], then the children of beleevers are called disciples, Act. 15. 10. They upon whose necks the false teachers would put the yoke of circumcision are called disciples. But the yoke of circumcision was put upon children as well as men; and according to their insti­tution upon children of eight dayes old. Gen. 17.12. and so to continue unlesse in some great impediment, as in the wildernesse. And therefore out of doubt those false teachers that urged here that the grown disciples should be circumcised, urged that their children should be circumcised also. Therefore children are cal­led disciples.

For which two Reasons.

• 1 The children are reckned with the parents in all ordinances communicable to both, by warrant of Scripture. As till the Jews were broken off, Rom. 11. Till the vineyard was let out, Luke 20. Circumcision went along with the parents to children; when pa­rents lost it, the children lost it. When Ishmael was cast out of the Church, his posteritie was not circumcised, that we read of. By the same proportion baptisme goes along from parents to children.
• 2 There is a double preaching, and a double Sacrament. A preaching to the heart, and to the eare: An innitiating and a cor­roborating Sacrament. God can preach to the heart when not to the eare. He a Spirit can preach to a spirit without sentences, and so to children. This preaching is most sutable to infants, because thus man is altogether passive: so the innitiating Sacra­ment is fit for infants, because in that they can be but passive.

The soul of an infant is out of the body all one with an Angel. And therfore one defines a soul, An Angel in a body. If the body can­not act, yet God can act without the body. As we see great revela­tions, visions, &c. were given when the body was asleep and unuse­full. See the Patriarches, &c. And Paul saw a most glorious vision, [Page 9]when he had no use of his body, 2 Cor. 12. To make the inward worke of grace to depend on the body, is like the Pelagians and Arminians, yea worse to make a worke depend not only on rea­son, but on sence.

2 Forme of Argum. from Gen. 17. is this, to whom the Cove­nant in force, runs in the same tenor in the New Testament as in the Old, to them the application of the first signe, or Seale of the New Testament may be applyed as well, as the first of the Old Testament. But this Tenor of the Covenant of grace still in force, is as true and doth as truly runne to a believing Gentile, I am thy God, and the God of thy seed, as it did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Ergo, the first Seale of the Cove­nant may be applyed to Believers children, now in the New Te­stament, as well as in the Old Testament to Abrahams. The Ma­jor is plaine, because in Gen. 17. the tenor of the Covenant, and the application of the first Seale, are knit into a dependence one upon another. I am the God of thee and thy seed, see v. 7, 8. There­fore thou shalt circumcise every male, v. 9. &c. The Minor is un­questioned of any that I know.

3 Form of Argum. from Gen. 17. Where there is the same rea­son of a Precept, there may be the same practice. But the Promise which is the reason of the Precept runnes in the New Testament (as flowing from Gen. 17.) to Believers, and their children. The Pro­mise is to you and your children. Act. 2.39. Ergo. That this of Act. 2. flowes from Gen. 17. Observe these particulars.

• 1 A Promise recited musts needs relate to a former ingage­ment, and to them to whom he speaks, viz. Jewes.
• 2 And the or that promise [...] musts needs relate to some eminent Promise; as that to Abraham was.
• 3 Some pas­sages have an intimation of the Covenant with Abraham, viz.
  • 1 It is in relation to the Covenant of grace, now to be sealed with the first Seale; Ergo, to that with Abraham, Gen. 17.
  • 2 It answers in words. It is to you and your children, all one with you and your seed. And mentions calling, as God calling Abraham, accepted his seed, &c.

Ergo, Infer, that the same reason on which the administration of Circumcision was grounded, the administration of Baptisme was [Page 10]grounded. So that the Apostle doth not only shew how Baptisme comes in the roome of Circumcision; but that it comes in the roome and is administred upon the same ground; Ergo to the same matter or subject. For children now as well as Gen. 17. are alike capable of that ground. So the children here are made free of Gods Citie, the universall Church, by the Fathers Coppy, whether the Father be present, as the Jew, to whom the Apostle spake, or farre off, either Jewe, whether unregenerate, and farre off in time, or scattered, and so farre off in place, or Gertile, that is farre off in both, if any of these are called, the Promise is to them, and their children. If any Gentile believe, he is a child of Abraham, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. and so the promise, and first Seale are to him, and his children; as the Promise and Circumcision were to Isaac and his children. And therefore when Zacheus is convert­ed, presently it is said, Salvation is come to his house, for as much as be also is the sonne of Abraham, Luk. 19.9.

Quest. But is not the Promise here meant of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy-Ghost, as to speake with tongues, doe Miracles, &c.

Ans. 1. How then doth this suit with the Promise to Abraham, to which this Text relates, as we proved afore?

2 The Apostle applies the Promise here meant to his hearers now present, for their salvation whiles they cryed out in their unregenerate estate, what shall we doe?

3 All did not receive these extraordinary gifts. But all that are baptized into Christ, must receive the saving gifts of the Holy-Ghost, Matth. 3. Therefore this Promise is to be extended beyond the gifts of Miracles, or other extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, &c. For as all agree that, these were but the First-fruites of the ef­fusion of the Spirit, in that visible manner; to signifie the abun­dant effusion of the saving gifts of the Spirit, in an invisible man­ner, in future ages. So that this must be a a Promise to all Belie­vers, and so to their children or seed indefinitely, that they shall receive the Holy-Ghost.

Quest. But are not these words [as many as the Lord shall call] an explication of Children; so that the Promise is to their children with this condition, if they shall be called?

Ans. No. For first, If so; then the Apostle needed not to say to you and your children; but only to have said the Promise is to you, and to all the Lord shall call. But this Promise is applyed to them the [Page 11]Parents afore their calling, that it is to them as they are children ac­cording to birth, of Abraham, a Believer, to the end to call them; and so to be continued to them when called, and their children; and then it followes; And to all that are a farre off, when they shall be called, and so to their children (so it must be supplyed) so that Calling is an explication of the sentence to them that are a farre off.

2 The Apostle speaks to the Jewes to the end to better, rather then to worse their condition. But their children by vertue of the outward priviledge and Tenor of the Covenant, to and with them the parents, had the signe of Circumcision; therefore (by the Apostles intent) their children should also have Baptisme. If this had not been the Apostle meaning, he had left these Jewes children, and all their Infant-posterity in no better condition, then the most barbarous Heathens then in the world; and this had spoyled these Jewes comfort, and crossed the Apostles designe, to draw them to Conversion, and the new Sacrament of Baptisme, for confirmation of that Conversion.

Now we go on with the place in Gen. 17. Namely,

3 Observe that this Covenant is called everlasting, which cannot be truly, and properly so said of this, and other Ceremonies, but as relating to Christ. Therefore, if the Covenant be everlasting to them and their seed, indefinitely (as Election is propounded in the Scripture to us) then the sealing of it outwardly to both them and their seed, must be everlasting to the worlds end; and to all eternity inwardly to whom it is effectuall. And therefore as in the Old-Testament it was sealed by Circumcision, so in the New-Testament by Baptisme.

Now we come to animadvert upon Mr. Tombes his formes of Argument from Gen. 17. as reported by him.

1 Argument saith Mr. Tombes, Exercitat. Sect. 1. (or at least the 1. form of Argu­ment.) ‘To whom the Gospel-Covenant agrees, to them the signe of the Gospel-Covenant agrees also. But to the Infants of Believers the Gospel-Covenant agrees; therefore to them the signe of the Gospel-Covenant agrees. And consequently Baptisme. The minor is proved, Gen. 17.7. Thus Mr. Tombes layes downe the Argument.’

But we ourselves should more cautiously forme it thus.Examinat. To whom the Gospel-Covenant agrees, to them the signe of con­veighance [Page 12]of the Gospel-Covenant agrees, &c. For the Institution in this 17. of Gen. doth not extend to any signe as to the corrobora­ting, or confirming signe or Sacrament, viz. the Passeover. Nor is it our intention to extend it so farre, as if we would wind in that Believers Infants might receive the confirming corrobora­ting signe of the Holy-Supper, as Mr. Tomles his forming the Argument would seeme to reach. The difference is too wide be­tween some signe and all signes, for us to conclude that if some signe is due to them to whom is the Covenant, that therefore all signes in the New-Testament are due; and so to depart from the designe of the Text in hand.

But Mr. T [...]mbes not satisfied with the argument as laid down by himself,Exercitat. p. 3. makes divers exceptions against it, although he con­fesseth, that the Gospel-covenant was the same in all ages in re­spect of the thing promised, and the condition of the covenant, which we may call (saith he) the sul [...]stantiall, and essentiall part of the covenant, to wit, Christ, faith, sanctification, remission of sins, eternall life. Animadv. So he. and consequently (say we) he confesseth that this Covenant, Gen. 17. is a Gospel-one in the substance, and essence.

The exceptions Mr. Tombes makes are foure.

That it is not (saith Mr. T.) apure Gospel-covenant, 1 Except. Exercitation. Sect. 1. p. 2. but mixt. For (saith he) the covenant takes its denomination from the promi­ses: but the promises are mixt, some Evangelicall, belonging to those, to whom the Gospel belongs, some are domestick, or civill promises, specially respecting the house of Abraham, and politie of Israel ergo. So he.

Answ. Denomination is (as Mr. T. well knows) a parte potiori from that which is principall in a thing. And who will not yeeld that the promises that concern grace and salvation are the prin­cipall. Where doth the Scripture call it a mixt covenant? yea doth not the Scripture in the New Testament frequently hold it forth as a pure covenant of grace, as pure as any we have. Rom. 4. v. 2, 3. called a covenant of justification, v. 4. A covenant of grace, v. 11. A covenant of faith, v. 13. Of the righteousnesse of faith. And oppo­seth it not to temporall promises, of domestick, or politick, or ci­vill things, but to works, v. 2. v. 4. v. 6. To the law of works, v. 14, 15. Just so, Gal. 3. its called a covenant of righteousnesse by faith, v. 6. of justification through faith, v. 8. opposed not to civill promises, but to the law of works, ver. 10, 11, 12. And I say this covenant [Page 13]with Abraham, notwithstanding any civill promises of temporall things, was as pure a covenant of grace as any we have in the New Testament. For where God repeats that in Isaac all the earth should be blessed, that is, in Christ, namely, Rom. 8.32. is there not a conjunction of a promise of temporall things? If he spared not his own Son, how shall be not with him freely give us all things? So 1 Cor. 3.22, 23. Whether Paul, or Apolle, or Cephas, or the world, &c. all are yours, because ye are Chrisis. So Christ himself, Matth. 19.29. Every one that hath forsaken houses, &c. shall receive an hundred fold, and inhe­rit everlasting life. And for this cause,Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. when God repeats that which M. T. cals a domestick or civill promise, viz. the multiplying Abrahams seed, this the Lord refers to the covenant of grace. Rom. 4.11. compare v. 17. and makes it the appurtnance of the grand promise. Ibid. v. 13.16, 17. For appurtenances do not alter the tenure or substance of the hold of a Mannour.

Amplification 1. Mr. T. to clear this his 1. exception, doth thus amplifie, saith he, that was Evangelicall, Gen. 17.5.Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. I have made thee a father of many nations. And that Gen. 15.5. so shall thy seed be, viz. as the stars. Compare (saith he) Rom. 4.17, 18. which places (say we) expresse onely this, That he should be the father of many nations through the power of God, according to that promise, so shall thy seed be. And saith Mr. T. a little after, this is domestick and civil; namely, the multiplying of the seed of Abraham.

Ans. Now where is expressed any plain substantiall difference between these two expressions,Animad. and whereby are we guided as by a sure threed, to call this or that expression civill, or evangelical, I am not satisfied.

2 He addes further, that the promises of deliverance out of Aegypt,Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. Animadvers. Gen. 15. and the possession of Canaan, Gen. 17. were civill.

Ans. Seeing the holy Ghost makes these temporall things by divine institution significative of spirituall things. Deliverance out of Egypt, Mat. 2. and in the Preface to the first Commandment, Canaan, Hebr. 4. I see not how (especially being mentioned in re­lation to the covenant of grace) these are more civill then Sinai and Jerusalem, Gal. 4.24, 25, 26. or bread and wine in the holy Supper.

3 Mr. T. doubt in this amplification upon the first exception,Exercit. Sect.. 1. p. 2. whether this covenant made with Abraham may be called simply Evangelicall, and so pertain to beleevers as beleevers, seeing that [Page 14]those promises which were evangelicall, according to the more in­ward sence of the holy Ghost, do point at the priviledges of Abra­hams house, in the outward face of the word.

Answ. Animadvers. We see the Apostle, mentioning those expressions of fa­therhood of many nations; of the land of Canaan, &c. doth apply this covenant as purely evangelicall to beleevers as beleevers. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Hebr. 4. Of which afore. And I see no more cause to doubt of this to belong to beleevers as such, then of that promise, Gen. 3. to belong to beleevers, The seed of the woman shall break the serpents head: that is, we shall conquer Satan through Christ; though this were in the face of the words an advancement of the priviledge of Eves family,Iosh. 1.5. or generation. That promise in the outward face of words did point at the priviledge of Joshnahs house; that God would not leave him nor forsake him, viz. in his warre with the Canaanites, yet this the Apostle applies to beleevers as beleevers, Hebr. 13.5.

4 Mr. T. annexeth this reason to his doubt.Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 3. There were, saith he, annexed to the covenant on mount Sinai sacrifices pointing at the sacrifice of Christ, and yet we call not that Covenant simply evangelicall; but in some respect.

Answ. Animadvers. If any do not (if their fact weigh any thing in a dis­pute) sure it is not because of the Gospel types, for so Gospel sa­cramentall types would detract from their absolute Gospel no­tion; but in regard of the legall terrible manner of delivering the ten Commandments; which severed from the atonement of the Ceremoniall Law, were in a manner turned by the Jews into a covenant of works. Therefore the Apostle saith, as it were, Rom. 9.32. Moses mosissimus (saith Luther) killeth. But Moses Aaronicus saveth. The ten Commandments looked truly upon, under a right notion, as added to the Ceremoniall Law, Moses joyned with Aaron are as absolutely evangelicall; as obedientiall love ad­ded to faith in the New Testament.Cameron Thes. 66.67. And therefore it is onely in regard of some modall differences that Cameron cals the covenant at Sinai the covenant subservient to the covenant of grace; but not in the sulstance in which it agrees with the covenant of grace in as many particulars, as Cameron brancheth them out; ‘as in shew­ing sin, leading to Christ, restraining from sin; pledging in and by a Mediator, promising life, &c.’ yea there are (as Diodat is [Page 15]one) that doubt not to call the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai a covenant of meer grace.

2 Exception Mr. Tombes makes is; That the seed of Abraham is ma­ny wayes so called. ‘1 Christ is called the seed of Abraham, by way of excellencie. Gal. 3.16.2 All the clect, Rom. 9.7. All beleevers, Rom. 5.11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18. that is, the spirituall seed. 3 There was a naturall seed to whom the inheritance did accrue, viz. Isaac, Gen. 21.12.4 A naturall seed, whether lawfull, as the sons of Keturah; or base, as Ismael, to whom the inheritance belong­ed not. Gen. 15.5. But no where do I find that the infants of be­leevers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams seed. Of the three former kinds of Abrahams seed the promise recited, is meant; but in a different manner thus. That God promiseth he will be a God to Christ, imparting in him blessing to all Nations of the earth; to the spirituall seed of Abraham in evangelicall benefits; to the naturall seed inheriting in domestick and politick benefits.’

Ans. Sure the holy Lord in a Covenant would not be thought to equivocate, and be uncertain in his meaning.Animadvers. Though God appoints the outward administration of the covenant to Abraham the beleever his seed indefinitely, Gen. 17. yet he gives the ef­ficacie of the covenant but to some; viz. that shall be the seed by faith, Rom. 4. Yet we must follow the administration according to expresse institution, Gen. 17. To whom is derived the covenant effectually, to them are derived the promises of blessing in every manner recited by the Exercitator (subordinate things are not contrary) or in no manner per modum aut vim faederis, under the no­tion of a covenant. Unregenerate men have a right to temporall things, by an humane right, and higher, by a divine right of common providence, either as dwelling with, or receiving them from those in reall covenant with God; but not by vertue of any covenant between them and God.

And for that great quaere made by Mr. T. whether the children of beleeving Gentiles are called Abrahams seed?Exercitat. p. 3. which is the main thing to the question in hand.

Ans. They are,Anius advers. by the distinction and quotation of the Exer­citator himself, by stronger consequence then by which the Ex­ercitator proceeds in most things he alledgeth. For first, he saith that the naturall seed of Abraham, as Isaac, &c. are called his seed. Secondly, that all beleevers are Abrahams seed, quoting Rom. 4. [Page 16]We infer then, that the naturall seed of beleeving Gentiles are as well the seed of Abraham, as the naturall seed of Isaac were; though Esau were Esau.

If a Gentile beleever be the seed of Abraham, Rom. 4.11. Gal. 3.8. then the children of the Gentile beleever must needs be rec­koned for the seed of Abraham; being the promise runs as truly in the New Testament, The promise is to you and your children. Act. 2. or I am the God of thee Gentile beleever and of thy seed, as in the old Testament to Abraham, I am the God of thee Jewish Abraham, and of thy seed.

3. Except.Exercit. p. 3. ‘That there is not (saith Mr. T.) the same reason of cir­cumcision of Baptisme in signing the Gospel-covenant. The promise of the Gospel (saith he) or the Gospel-covenant was the same in all ages in respect of the thing promised, and condition of the covenant,1. Mr. Tombes his concession. which we may call the substantiall and essentiall part of the covenant, to wit, Christ, faith, sanctification, remission of sins, eternall life; yet this evangelicall covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified, and various sanctions by which it was confirmed.’

‘To Adam the promise was made under the name of the seed of the woman,2. The distin­ction of divers forms. bruising the serpents head; To Enoch and Noah in other forms; otherwise to Abraham under the name of his seed, in whom all nations should be blessed. Otherwise to Moses, under the obscure shadows of the Law; otherwise to David, un­der the name of a successor in the kingdom; otherwise in the new Testament in plain words, 2 Cor. 3.6. Hebr. 8.10.’

‘It had likewise divers sanctions.3. The variety of sanctions. The promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the signe of circumcision; and by the birth of Isaac. To Moses by the Paschal lambe, and sprink­ling of blood on the book, the rain of Mannah, and other signes; To David by an oath. In the New Testament by Christs blood. 1 Cor. 11.25.’

‘Therefore circumcision signified,4. The conclu­sion. and confirmed the promise of the Gospel according to the form and sanction of the covenant with Abraham. Baptisme signifies and confirms the same pro­mise according to the form, sanction, and accomplishment of the New Testament.’

Now these forms and sanctions differ many wayes;5. The illu­stration of the conclusion. as much as concerns our present purpose in these;

‘1 Circumcision confirmed not onely Evangelicall promises,1. Partic. but also politicall. And if we may beleeve Mr. Cameron in his Theses of the threefold covenant of God,Thes. 78. Circumcision did prima­rily separate the seed of Abraham from other nations, se [...]led unto them the earthly promise; Secondarily it did sa [...]nifie sanctification. But Bap­tisme (saith Mr. T.) signifies onely Evangelicall benefits.’

‘2 Circumcision did confir the promise concerning Christ, 2 Partic. to come out of Isaac; Baptisme assures Christ to be come alreadie; to have been dead, and to have risen again.’

‘3 Circumcision belonged to the Church constituted in the house of Abraham; 3 Partic. Baptisme to the Church gathered out of all Nations.’

Whence I gather (saith Mr. T.) that there is not the same rea­son of circumcision, and baptisme, in signing the Evangelicall Covenant. Nor may there be drawn an argument from the ad­ministration of the one, to the like manner of administring the other.

Answ. 1. From the concession in the third exception;Animadv. That the Gospel-covenant was the same in all ages, in respect of the thing promised, to wit, Christ, remission of sins, sanctification, eternall life; And the con­dition of the Covenant, namely, faith; We infer, that Mr. Tombes grants, 1. that Gods covenant with Abraham signed with circum­cision was a Gospel-covenant. 2 That faith was the condition. And yet it was administred to children; and to some that had no faith, either seminall, habituall, or actuall, neither at the time, nor af­ter the time of their circumcision, namely, to Ishmael. Therefore infancie, or want of actuall faith, or possibilitie of never having any true grace, are not sufficient hindrances of administration of the signe of the Gospel-covenant. But as God knowing all those things did yet command the outward administration, and sign­ing of the Gospel-covenant with the first Sacrament in the old Testament, upon that ground that God was the God of the fa­ther of those children; So thus far by Mr. T. his grant we may likewise signe the Gospel-covenant in the New Testament.

2 To the distinction of the divers forms in which the things of the Gospel covenant were signified, &c. We answer. What essen­tiall difference of form is there between the expression to Eve un­der the name of the seed of the woman; and that to Abraham in the name of his seed; or that between bruising the serpents head, and bles­sing [Page 18]men in their deliverance from the serpent? And whether was not the covenant as well confirmed in shadows to David (who by divine direction set up very many in Gods worship) as to Moses? And whether the Covenant was not confirmed to Moses under the notion of a success [...]ur to him, to wit, Christ in the government of directing and preseribing in the name of the Lord. Deut. 18.18. Act. 3.21, 22. And of rule, namely, Joshua called Jesus the type of our deliverance by the Lord Jesus. Hebr. 4. to succeed him. Deut. 31. Or doth the types of the covenant, and the plain meaning, Heb. 8.10. make severall considerable forms of a covenant? Then sa­cramentall signes or seals, and the meaning of them; should make severall forms of the most Gospel-covenant in the New Testa­ment.

3 To the variety of sanctions we say, that they are not so distinct as that they are not common to the persons mentioned. The cove­nant was as well confirmed to Moses, as to Abraham by circumci­sion; to David by both circumcision and the paschal lambe as to the other. And as well to us in the New Testament by oath as to Abra­ham. Hebr. 6. Hebr. 7.

4 To the conclusion Mr. T. makes;Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 4. that therfore circumcision signified and confirmed the covenant to Abraham, &c. We answer. That we can by no means be satisfied by this inference from the premisses how any thing is inferred by way of determination of the subject of Baptisme; as to shew why children of beleevers should be circumcised, yet not now baptized. But you will say, it lies in the illustration. Therefore.

5 To the illustration of the conclusion, we answer.

To the 1. partic. thus. 1. That Baptisme doth as well confirm civill promises and benefi [...]s as Evangelicall, as did circumcision. Rom. 6. Baptisme signes o [...]scals Christ according to the promise, To us a Son is given. And God giving Christ, with him (mark, with him) freely gives us all things. Rom. 8.32. which is further explain­ed of deliverance from temporall dangers, so that they shall not hurt us, if hit us, v. 35. to the end. And 1 Cor. 3. two last. We have all outward things, the world, &c. because Christ is ours. 2 That circumcision did confirm civill promises, under a spirituall noti­on, for a spirituall use, that is, to signifie spirituall things, as we shewed afore; even as baptized ones are to look upon all tempo­rall things, under spirituall confiderations. Make you friends (that [Page 19]is, to further you towards heaven) of the unrighteous mammon. And all outward things are the addition to seeking and obtaining the kingdom of heaven, and the righteousnesse of him, that is Christ, the King of that kingdom. And so this difference is of no bulk to carry any breadth with it. To the instance of Cameron we an­swer; that when I seriously read the whole Thesis, I can make no more then this; that by primarily he means immediately, and 1. in order; and by secondarily mediately, and 2 in order, and cannot be understood as chiefly, and not chiefly. For sure the more ultimate and spirituall an end is, and so more like and neer to God, the more chief it must be. So that according to Camerons instances (for he gives three) circumcision did more chiefly intend sanctification, circumcision of the heart, as the Scripture oft advanceth it, and so spirituall separation of the mind from earthly things, them the separa­ting their nation from other kingdoms, by a mark in their flesh. So se­condly, the passeouer signed rather, Christ our passeover for the deli­very of our souls, 1 Cor. 5. then the Angels passing over the Israelites, and not slaying them in Egypt. So the sacrifices, did more intend our spirituall purification by Christ, then any carnall purification, as Ca­meron cals it. We adde that Baptisme as well as circumcision doth not only signifie regeneration, but puts a distinction between them, and Heathens at least; as all not circumcised in the old Te­stament were counted Heathens.

To the 2 partic. of the illustration we thus answer. That it is not in the formall analogie of circumcision between the signe and the thing signified, nor set down in any expresse form essen­tially annexed, to set forth the nature of circumcision, that cir­cumcision as circumcision, doth signifie, signe or seal Christ to come, as to come. For as Christ come himself, was circumcised, so many were circumcised after jure divino, the ordinance being in full force till Christ was sacrificed; if Paul did not by that rule, after Christ had been long ascended, circumcise Timothy. Act. 16. So that for three yeers and an half, circumcision from John Baptist mini­sterie, to Christs death ran parallel and even together authori­tively in the Church of the Jews in the New Testament in several, if not the same subjects; in some, if not in all that received the 1. seal. It is true, circumcision and other ceremonies by the concur­rence of the circumstance of time of administration in the Old Testament did imply Christ to come, but could not of themselves [Page 20]either signifie, or consignifie Christ to come, for the reasons above­said. Even as Baptisme either by analogie in the signe, or expres­sion of any form annexed, as setting forth the essence of baptisme, doth not signifie Christ as come. For some were baptized (as the Scripture cals it) before Christ came. As those in the Ark, 1 Pet. 3. 21. the Israelites, men, women and children in the Red sea, and the cloud. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, &c. And this the Jews understood as Bap­tisme; and therefore do not say to John wherefore baptizest thou? but by what authority. Jeh. 1.23. And the Rabbins make mention, that the Jews foresaw also the baptizing with fire, men­tioned Matth. 3.

To the third partic. our answer is this: That circumcision as circumcision belonged to all of all Nations (and their children) that should come in as proselites to the Jewish Church, whether constituted in a family, Gen. 17.12, 13. or in the Nation, Exod. 12. 47, 41, 49. as Baptisme in the New Testament to all, and onely those that came into the Christian Church; and their children. I say into the Christian Church; that is, the parents came in at least into the universall visible Christian Church; by confessing Christ to be the Son of God; and so this difference pretended by Mr. T. be­tween baptisme and circumcision comes if not to a samenesse yet to a likenesse; and so the reason thus far apparently to me, is the same between both. And the like argument may be drawn for the ad­ministration of the one, as of the other.

The fourth and last exception Mr. T. makes against this argu­ment out of Gen. 17. is,Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 2. that these termes federate, and to be signed are not convertible.

Answ. They are convertible jure in equitie; For Mr. T. will not doubt but that those signed with circumcision, Gen. 17. or, &c. (for of circumcision is the question immediately now, according to Mr. T. his instances, p. 4. l. 16.) were federate; were reckoned, and to be reckoned in the covenant at the time of doing it, and after, till contrary cause appeared. And all federate, or counted within the covenant were to be signed with circumcision. So this text, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9. I am a God to thee and to thy seed, thou shalt keep my co­venant THEREFORE, that every man-childe be circumcised.

‘But to this fourth exception,Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 4. 1 Partic. Mr. T. argues. That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong. Of Ismael God had said, that his cove­nant [Page 21]was not to be established with him. Gen. 17.20, 21, 25. Rom. 9.7, 8, 9. Gal. 4.29, 30. The same may be said of Esau. All that were in Abrahams house, whether strangers, or born in the house were circumcised, Gen. 17.12, 13. of whom neverthelesse, it may be doubted, whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham did belong to them. There were other persons,2 Partic. to whom all, or most of the promises in the covenant pertained, that were not circumcised. This may be affirmed of the females coming from Abraham; the infants dying before the eighth day; of just men living out of Abrahams house, as Melchisedech, Lot, Job. If any say that the females were circumcised in the circumcision of the males, he saith it without proof.’ And by like,Mr. T. his answer to an Ob. perhaps greater reason may it be said, that the children of beleevers are baptized in the persons of their parents, and therefore are not to be baptized in their own persons. But its manifest, that the Jews comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circum­cised, were neverthelesse not admitted to Baptisme, by John Bap­tist, and Christs disciples, till they professed repentance,1 Conclus and faith in Christ. Hence I gather, that the right to Evangelicall promi­ses, "was not the adequate reason of circumcising these, or those, "but Gods precept, as it is expressed, Gen. 17.23. Gen. 21.4.

2 That those termes are not convertible [federate and to be signed].2 Conclus.

Answ. to 1 Particular. [That some there were circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong.] Mr. Tombes argues from the non-fact to the non-equitie, Animad. and from the non-efficacie to non-administration, and from an af­ter discovery to crosse the present rule; which arguing he knows, carries not with it in other things any consequence. What if de facto some were not circumcised according to the directory of ad­ministration; therefore jure ought they not, if opportunities and accommodations concurred? What if some appeared after when men not to have the efficacie of circumcision; were they not there­fore justly circumcised, when the institution did injoyn, and cause it to be done, whiles they were infants? I need not inlarge upon the inconvenient sequels in the use of all ordinances, if that ad­ministrations may not be, though ineffectualnesse appear not al­wayes after.

And howsoever it be apparent in some, and doubtful in others, [Page 22](and therefore infer nothing) that the promise was not established, that is, was not effectuall to them, yet it is most apparent that the institution and administration of circumcision is grounded on the expresse promise. As I am the God of thee, and of thy SEED, therefore thou shalt keep my covenant to circumcise every male. Gen. 17.7.9. The promulgation and preaching of the promise belongs to many, to whom it is not after effectuall. Mar. 16.15. and if the institution must go along with the promise here in Gen. 17. though it might be specially revealed to Abraham what a one Ishmael should prove; then sure much more amongst men who have no such revelations. And though we grant the 1. line in this 1. partic. of Mr. Tombes, "that no promise in the covenant belonged to Ishmael; yet Mr. Tombes confesseth that circumcision signed civill Sect. 1. p. 3. l. 16. 17. p. 4. l. 1.2. promises to some of Abrahams seed. And that promise, Gen. 17 20. made to Ishmael of blessing and multiplying him, must at least be such; though eminently, and as concerning the coming of Christ, it is emphatically said that in Isaac shall the covenant be established. Gen. 17. However, Abraham looked so much on the promise, I am the God of thee and of thy seed, and the commentary upon it touching blessing Ishmael, and the institution grounded on that promise (however the effect should prove) that he circumciseth Ishmael.

For others within the covenant, yet de facto not circumcised; we must needs see that it is by reason of other causes, and not the want of connexion between those two foederati & signandi, that is, to belong to the covenant, and to be signed with the covenant. If God ex­empt infants by death that died within the seven dayes, being not fit in nature for so sharp a Sacrament, what can we infer more against the institution of this Sacrament, then against any other. As for Melchisedech which was Sem (as the most learned agree upon unanswerable reasons) he was born 500 yeers before the institution of circumcision, whose institution is not to look higher then to Abraham at the highest, and so to descend down­ward. If we could be sure that Lot and Job were not circumcised; we could as surely answer that Job was not in the Land, Lot not in the County where the institution of circumcision was then made known. And for women, the institution of circumcision rea­ched not to them, because there was no fit matter for that Sacra­ment. That alteration of nature to intimate they were a peculiar seed set apart from the Heathens as well as the males were, was [Page 23]done in their fathers; on whom was acted more then the water can act, namely, to make a naturall change, though no spirituall followed. So that these particular instances did destroy the ground and nature of the institution of circumcision being onely accidentally and extraordinarily excepted, upon the aforesaid reasons; no more then the Israelites fourty yeers journey in the wildernesse hindering circumcision so long did detract from the ordinary institution and ground thereof. And therefore we

Ans. To both the conclusions, that the claim to this promise (which Mr. Tombes confessethExercitat. Sect. 1. p. 2. 3. to be Evangelical in the substance) I am the God of thee and of thy SEED was the adequate reason in the ordinary prosecution of circumcising. For though the institution then is to Abrahams family, and to the males, &c. yet the ground is the promise; I am thy God, and the God of thy seed. And so federate, and to be signed are convertible in regard of the ground; upon which it followed that Abraham was to have a Gentile seed. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. to which the same promise should run, I am your God, therefore the God of your seed. However if federate and to be signed were not convertible terms, but onely this true, that all federate are to be signed: as thus such as to whom the promise is given, I am your God, and so of your seed, being circumcised, their children by na­ture, or adoption (as it is Gen. 17.12, 13.) ought to be circumcised; thus much would serve our turns out of Gen. 17. for the baptisme of beleevers children. Though we could not turn the proposition convertibly, that all circumcised or baptized are truly and effectually fe­derate, in covenant. But how it may be turned we have shewed afore.

And thus I leave the ingenuous Reader to judge how great, or how little reason Mr. T. hath to deny the major, or minor proposi­tion of the 1 Argument out of Gen. 17.

‘And to his reason of denying the minor, Exercit. Sect. 1. p. 5. because (saith he) those children of beleeving Gentiles are Abrahams children, who are his spirituall seed, according to the election of grace by faith, which are not known to us, but by profession, or speciall revelation.’

We answer. That we must beware of circumcising and cutting off the tenor of the covenant, taking onely thus much (as many do) I am thy God; or drawing it out beyond its length (as others do) thus; I am the God of thee, and thy seeds feed; but take it evenly [Page 24]up as God layes it down just thus, I am the God of thee and thy seed: therefore give the 1. signe or seal; and then it is easily resolved who are Abrahams seed, and to be signed among the Gentiles, namely, he that beleeves that God is his God, and the God of his seed, may signe his seed with baptisme; the parent knowing his children belong to it by the revelation of the Word, and his own confession of faith in his heart and mouth.

CHAP. III.

2 ARgument (saith Mr. T.) is thus formed.Exercit. Sect. 2. ‘To whom cir­cumcision did agree, to them baptisme doth agree. * [But to Infants circumcision did agree] therefore also bap­tisme.’ The major is thus proved; If the baptisme of Christ succeeds into the place of circumcision, then baptisme belongs to them that circumcision belonged to; But the antecedent is true; there also the consequent. The minor is proved to be true, because Colos. 2.11, 12. it is said that the Colossians were circumcised, because they were buried with Christ in baptisme.

Here we must complain again,Animadvers. that somewhat is most injuri­ously left out of the minor proposition of the former syllogisme, namely, of that proposition above noted with * [But to Infants circumcision did agree] where the words OF BELEEVERS are left out, which should necessarily have been put in thus, But to in­fants of beleevers circumcision did agree. The leaving out of which words, how great an inconvenience it would bring to the state of the question, &c. every ordinarie capacitie will easily conceive.

For answer.Exercit. p. 5. This Argument (saith Mr. T.) supposeth baptisme to succeed in the place of circumcision; which may be understood divers wayes.

1 So as that the sence be, that those persons be to be baptized which heretofore by Gods command were to be circumcised. And in this sence the argument must proceed, if it conclude to the pur­pose: But in this sence it is false, for no females were to be circum­cised, which yet are to be baptized. Act. 16.14, 15. And beleevers out of Abrahams house, as Lot, Melchisedech, Job, were not to be circumcised; but beleeving Gentiles are universally to be bap­tized.

We answer. 1.Animadvers. That collations of the old and new Testament must be adidem, to the very point in hand, thus; that those persons that are capable of the materiall signe of baptisme are to be bap­tized, as those which were capable of circumcision in the old Te­stament were to be circumcised by Gods command. But all male infants of beleevers of Abrahams race being capable of circumci­sion were to be circumcised according to Gods command (un­lesse some extraordinary let stept in for a time, as in Moses child, and in the Israelites for fourty yeers in the wildernesse) therefore all infants of beleevers both male and female, being capable of baptisme, are to be baptized; unlesse this rule be observed, we shall hardly allow any deductions from the old Testament, for our use in the New.

2 In our illations and inferences from the old Testament, we must not throw away all the command upon a promise there, be­cause the New Testaments practise extends it further upon the same promise. It is affirmative in Gen. 17. that male infants of beleevers may have the 1. signe, to wit, circumcision; upon this ground, that God will be the God of them and of their seed; it is extend­ed further in practise in the New Testament, that all infants male and female of beleeving parents may be baptized; because the promise, I am the God of thy seed beleever, runs as well to females as to males. Act. 2. The promise is to you and your children, whe­ther male, or female. And there is no impediment in nature to hinder their capacitie of baptisme, as there was of circumcision. But as the mothers were not circumcised, because of naturall impediment; so their daughter infants were not: So in the New Testament, the mothers were baptized, because there was no such impediment. Act. 16.14, 25. therefore by proportion their infant-daughters.Chap. 2. in an­swer to Mr. T. his 4. Except. and 1. partic. Or we may say further of female infants circumci­sion (beside that we said afore) that they were circumcised in their fathers being begotten of them that were circumcised in their flesh; they were generated of them that had the filthy fore­skin (as it was then accounted) cut off; and so descended of pa­rents, refined as it were by that naturall alteration. Therefore female infants also may be baptized according to their naturall capacitie, in person as formerly they were circumcised according to their capacitie, in their lineage.

3 Alwayes in the analogie between the old Testament and the [Page 24] [...] [Page 25] [...] [Page 26]new, we must in our allegations keep to the substance; so the Apo­stles in alledging Scriptures of the old Testament they kept to the substance, not regarding the circumstance; as innumerable in­stances may be given. Take this one, Rom. 10.15. the Apostle pro­ving that faith comes by hearing of a Preacher that is sent; saith out of Isa. 57. As it is written, how beautifull are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tydings of good things! Now the place whence it is quoted, Isa. 52.7. is thus: How beautifull up­on the MOVNTAINS are the feet of him that bringeth good tydings, &c. Because the Word was to go forth out of the mountain of Zion, Moriah, and other mountains on which the Temple and Jerusalem stood. Now this place is to be applied to Ministers now, though they come not upon those, or other mountains; or else the Apostles proof fals to the ground. So if the command of the seventh day, may not be alledged for a seventh day, we have no com­mand for the Lords day.

Chap 2. in our answer to Mr. T. his 4. Except. & 1. partic. To that of Lot, Melchisedech, and Job, we adde by way of an­swer beside that spoken afore: that if Lot, Job, Melchisedech were not, nor were to be circumcised, there may be speciall reasons. First, not Melchisedech, alias Shem, 1. because he was baptized in the Ark, 1 Pet. 3.20, 21. Secondly, he was to be a speciall type of Christ, in that he came not of the tribe of Levi that ceremonious Ministerie; and so to be exempted from that ceremony (in the shell) circumcision. For Lot and Job, God would shew in them, that he was not so tyed, but that he could save without an out­ward ordinance when he will not extend it, or if he please to take ☞ away the opportunitie of having it. A faire item for the Ana­baptists that put so much in Baptisme, that the want of it (say they) doth unchurch Churches, &c. Lot and Job had churches in their families. And the Israelites in the wildernesse fourty yeers, is called a Church, Act. 7.38. all which time there was no circum­cising among them, nor but two Josuah and Caleb circumcised, left among them. Josh. 5.

2 (Saith Mr. T.) It may be so understood,Exercit. p. 5. as if the right of bap­tisme then began, when the right of circumcision did, or was of [...]ight to end; but this is not to be said; for John Baptist and the dis­ciples of Christ baptized, Joh. 4.1, 2. before circumcision of right ceased, and they who were circumcised were after baptized, be­ing converted to the faith, as is manifest concerning Paul, Phil. 3.5. Act. 9.18.

Answ. Yet before Mr. T. saith, p. 4. that circumcision did sig­cifie Christ to come. Animad. If Mr. T. pincheth upon that of Christ to come of Isaac, we say we see no more in the analogie of circumcision nor in the words of institution, for it to signifie Christ to come of Isaac then of Abraham or Jacob.

3 (Saith he) It may be understood as if Baptisme did succeed in the place of circumcision in respect of signification;Exercit. p. 5. which is true in some things. First, it is true that both signified the righte­ousnesse of faith, Rom. 4.11. Rom. 6.3. Gal. 3.27. 1 Pet. 3.21. Second­ly, it is true, both signified sanctification; and this is all may be concluded out of the place alledged, Col. 2.11, 12. To which I think it meet to adde, that if the text be looked into, that place speaks not of any circumcision, but of Christs circumcision, in whom we are compleat, and by whose circumcision we are said to put off the body of the sins of the flesh: Nor doth the text say, we are circumcised because we are baptized; but we are compleat in Christ, because we are circumcised in him, and buried with him in baptisme; in which, or in whom, ye are also risen together, through the faith of the operation of God that raised him from the dead.

Answ. If they agree but in those two significations,Animad [...]. they agree sufficiently in signification to favour the argument out of Col. 2.11, 12. that baptisme comes in the room of circumcision, and fit­ly; that as circumcision signified and signed those two to belee­vers infants; so, baptisme now signifies and signes the same to be­leevers infants.

But whether this be all that may be concluded out of the place alledged, Col. 2.12. (as Mr. T. affirms) I shall appeal to the ingenuous Reader of our observations on this place of Scripture; which are from the analysis, scope, argument, and method of prosecution: which if not exactly attended, we may easily feign plausible interpretations for our own turns, but loose the drift and argument of the Apostle. The Apostles designe is to take off the Colossians from false doctrines of false teachers, teaching with entising words, Philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, rudiments of the world, among which were the shels of Jewish ceremonies, as circumcision considered in the shell of the outward signe, &c. And the argument the Apostle useth as the best means to fetch them off, was to advance Christs fulnesse, to the full worth, before the [Page 28]eyes of their minds. This designe, and this manner of pursuance of it are so oft mentioned and repeated combinedly; that they cannot be hid from an ordinary eye looking upon the text. Once v. 3, 4. again v. 6, 7. a third time v. 8, 9. Now the Apostle saying ye are compleat in Christ, v. 10. (Greek [...] filled up, or made compleat) he intimates, what need the Colossians hearken after Jewish ceremonies, as circumcision, &c?

Now because the Colossians might object, that Abraham and the Patriarkes had Christ, and yet were circumcised too, he anti­cipates and prevents this objection, v. 11. saying, they had inward circumcision, which is the chief. In whom also ye (observe the also ye) are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of sins, &c. Your persons are not onely circumcised in the circumcision of Christ (who is as our common nature) and so imputed to you (as in Adam, the common nature of man, we finned, and so his sin was imputed to us) but you are circumcised with the vertue of Christs grace, signified in circumcision, to make you put off the body of sins (even as Adams sin was not onely impu­ted to us, but his corruption of sin derived into us). But because the Colossians might object again, that though Abraham had in­ward circumcision before (Rom. 4.) yet he had outward circum­cision too, and so others; and therefore they were not so compleat in Christ as beleevers in the old Testament. The Apostle preoc­cupates and prevents this objection too, in v. 12, saying, that in­stead of outward circumcision, they had been baptized, and bap­tized effectually into Christ. Buried with him in baptisme, wherein also ye are risen, through the faith of the operation of the Son of God, &c. As if the Apostle should say, in stead of the outward signe of cir­cumcision, Christ hath instituted another signe, namely, baptisme; that circumcision being to be done away (at Christs death at least) and this to be used instead thereof; more significant then the other; for circumcision fitly signified spirituall death to sin, which is mortification, but baptisme is fitted to signifie more; namely, your rising from under the water lively represents your spirituall life by Christ, your rising to newnesse of life; and both these have been effectually signed or sealed to you by baptisme; And therefore you are no longer to call for circumcision, but to use and injoy baptisme in the stead thereof, as formerly you and your children did circumcision (for the Apostle hints not the least [Page 29]difference about the subject thereof.) Even as Christ himself cir­cumcised the eighth day, was after baptised to signifie an end now about to be put to circumcision. This I ingenuously think to be the naked scope, and plain argumentation and method of the Apostle here in this 2 of Colos. Which secondly, more appears to us by these two arguments. 1 From the inconveniences against the Apostles dispute, if baptisme doth not so come in the roome of circumcision. For first if we have not baptisme in the room of cir­cumcision, to us beleevers, and our infants, we are not so compleat (as the Apostle affirms) as the Jews, by Christ. Secondly, if bap­tisme doth not come in the roome of circumcision, how doth the Apostle call off the Colossians from circumcision, by the conside­ration of their baptisme? How doth he truly imply that as the first Sacrament that beleeving Abraham and his children recei­ved was circumcision, so the first, the beleeving Colossians and their children received was baptisme, (no other seal inter­vening)? How are the Colossians said to be inwardly circumcised, and outwardly and inwardly baptized in the same Christ, who in himself put down the one by taking up the other?

2 From the analogie and agreement between both, namely, circumcision and baptisme; which the Apostle hints in this 2. of Colos. First the Apostle intimates that as putting off the body of sin (which is a phrase to signifie naturall death, 2 Cor. 5. and so is here an allusion to signifie spirituall death to sin) is the significa­tion of circumcision. Colos. 2.11. So spirituall burying (which ar­gues death) is the signification of baptisme. Secondly, that as nei­ther of these are assured to any but as having Christ sealed to them; so as circumcision sealed an implantation into the death of Christ, that he put off the body naturally in the grave; so the cir­cumcised put off the body of sin spiritually; v. 11. Even so bap­tisme signifies and seals our implantation into the buriall of Christ, v. 12. as is more fully expressed, Rom. 6.3, 4, 5.

3 That as the way to kill sin, and so to live was by circumcisi­on into Christ in the old Testament. Colos. 2.11. insomuch that he that should wilfully neglect outward circumcision for himself or his child that might have it, should be cut off, Gen. 17. So bap­tizing into Christ is the way to bury sin, and so to live. v. 12. of this 2 Colos. insomuch that he that shall wilfully neglect baptisme with water, the seal of regeneration who may have it: shall not [Page 30]enter heaven. Joh. 3.5. A soul may be saved without the use of a seal in some case, but in no case can be saved in the contempt of a seal. I am not ignorant that some do understand this, Joh. 3.5. of the spirit onely compared to water, but who doth not know that (as Bullinger saith, Omnes penè de baptismo interpretantur) all almost interpret it of the water of baptisme, Bullinger himself con­senting with them, onely he would not have the efficacie of the Spirit, to be transferred to the signe. And sure whiles Christ was instructing Nicodemus of regeneration, he would not be silent tou­ching the seal of it, baptisme. Nor can we so well parallel this phrase with Matth. 3. Baptising with the holy Ghost and with fire; where onely the Spirit must be meant, because there is no other baptisme of fire. But there is a baptisme, with water, beside bap­tisme with the Spirit. And therefore water must signifie baptisme. For it were harsh to run to a metaphor without need, and to un­derstand by water the Spirit, which in relation to the efficacie of baptisme is usually called fire.

Thus we have shewed out of this Colos. 2. from the scope of the Apostle; the analogie of the two Sacraments, and the inconveni­encies of the contrary; that Baptisme succeeds in the roome, and to be used instead of circumcision; now let the ingenuous Reader ponder, and see whether there be not more in this text, then Mr. Tombes would acknowledge.

To that passage of Mr. T. that Col. 2.11. doth not speak of any cir­cumcision, but of Christs circumcision, meaning I suppose the circum­cision of Christ in his own person, (for else all circumcision, and baptisme too is Christs, both in regard of institution; signe, and making effectuall) we have answered already, in the analysing of the place. The summe whereof was, that not onely Christs cir­cumcision was imputed to them, but the vertue of circumcision was inherent in their hearts, by expresse words of the Apostle, Colos. 2.11. Circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh.

To that other passage, that the text, Colos. 2.11, 12. doth not say, We are circumcised, because we are baptized; We answer, and adde to our former intimations, that the Apostle clearly labours to sa­tisfi [...] the Colossians from seeking to be circumcised, because they were inwardly eircumcised; and inwardly circumcised, because inwardly baptized, according to the outward sealing of bap­tisme, [Page 31]or else he had not mentioned baptisme upon any just ground or pertinent cause to the point in hand that I can conceive. He tels them they had no need of circumcision, which was abolished; and had the effect of it sealed by, and conveighed through or with outward baptisme which they had received according to the order of calling men to be Saints in the New Testament.

In some things, saith Mr. T. baptisme doth not succeed in the place of circumcision in respect of signification. For first circum­cision did signifie Christ to come of Isaac according to the flesh. Gen. 17.10, 21. But baptisme doth not signifie this, but points at the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Answ. Though we have answered to this afore,Animadvers. on Exercitat. p. 4. yet we adde, First, as circumcision did no more signifie Christ to come of Isaac (for any thing that is in the analogie, or form of institution or administration) then of Abraham: so baptisme hath in it as well to signifie the true Christ to come of Isaac as circumci­sion. Secondly, that ver. 10. of Gen. 17. hath nothing in it but what is spoken in common to Abraham and his seed indefinitely. That v. 21. is not the institution or form of administration, or any thing to expresse the analogie of circumcision to the thing signified, but onely a word added touching the making circum­cision effectuall, and imports onely that Christ is the effect of all Sa­craments, he is he that must establish the Covenant, in all its pro­mises, and seals. In him are all the promises yea and amen. 2 Cor. 1. He is the seed to whom and in whom promises were made, and to be made firm. Galat. 3.16. It was not all Isaacs seed that could esta­blish the Covenant; but Christ. Nor did Christ more establish as Isaacs seed, then as Abrahams seed spiritually. Gen. 12.3. Gen. 17.7. and Gal. 3.8. Thirdly, that whereas afore Mr. T. said, p. 4. of his Exercitat. that Baptisme assures Christ to be already come (to which we answered, that no such thing appeared in the analogie of water; nor in the form of administration, to wit, I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, &c. nor in the use; many being baptized afore Christ came. 1 Pet. 3.21. 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, &c. many before Christ came to act his mediatorship, of doctrine, passion, resurrection (his incar­nation onely preparing him, Psal. 40.6. mine eares hast thou opened, or bored, Hebr. 10.5. A body hast thou prepared me.) Now Mr. T. speaks more warily, Baptisme points at the incarnation, death, &c. of Christ. Well, and how doth it point at the incarnation and death [Page 32]of Christ more then circumcision? Did not circumcision signifie Christ to be born according to the flesh of one circumcised? Did not cutting off of the fore-skin and drawing blood as well point at death, as ordinary afflictions are said to kill all the day long. Rom. 8? Sure that bloody Sacrament did as much, if not more point at Christs passion, as a little being under the water and up again did in baptisme. But to signifie time to come, or time past, that was one­ly implyed in the time of administration; if either Sacrament administred afore Christs coming, then it pointed at Christ to come. If after his coming, then Christ come.

Secondly,Exercit. p. 6. (saith Mr. T.) circumcision was a signe that the Israe­lites were a people separated from all nations. Rom. 3.1. But bap­tisme signifieth that all are one in Christ. Gal. 3.28.

Answ. And doth not baptisme as much separate all the spiri­tuall seed of Abraham and their children from all the Nations un­baptized, as circumcision did Israel and the proselytes out of every Nation from the uncircumcised? For that is the difference, Matth. 28. Go teach all nations, baptizing them. If nations do not receive this teaching and baptizing, there is the difference that men can put. And it is as wide, as usually circumcision did put; the Israelites generally being evill, and very oft idolatrous. And it is a question to me, wishly looking on that place, Rom. 3.1, 2, whether their keeping the oracles of God is not put if not as the speciall difference. Compare Psal. 147. last, yet as the equall difference with circumci­sion (the Turks, &c. circumcise, but have not the oracles of God) and then what more is conferred on circumcision, then on bap­tisme? The Word must go before, and along with a Sacrament, or else it will appear rather a mixture of heathenish superstition, then a distinction. And for baptisme, it doth indeed signifie that all we Gentiles with the Jews that are baptized are all one in Christ, as before circumcision signified that all Jews with the Gentiles, pro­selytes, that were circumcised, were one in Christ. But me thinks the text Gal. 3.28. speaks of Christ as making us all one. If of bap­tisme, then of baptisme as made an effectuall means to put into Christ; and then effectuall preaching is as well a means, and so no speciall thing is put to advance baptisme above doctrine.

Thirdly (saith he) circumcision signified that Moses law was to be observed.Exercit. p. 6. Gal. 5.3. But baptisme doth signifie that Moses law is made void, and the doctrine of Christ to be reteined. Act. 10.37.

Answ. This seemes to import some difference, at some time, and in the shell; but not alwayes, not any in the kernell. For was not the doctine of Christ, the doctrine of Moses in substance Iohn 5.46, 47? was not baptisme (as wee shewed afore) instituted, and admi­nistred, Mat. 3. &c. whiles Circumcision was not of right to end till Christ's death three yeares and a halfe after: So that though in Acts. 10. (Christ being ascended) the administration of baptisme by help of that time, might imply, Moses law in the shell was to be done away, yet at other times afore Christ's death it could not sig­nifie that Moses law is made voyde, signanter precisely (as Mr. T. speakes.) To that, Gal. 5.3. we say that as Circumcision did signi­fie that Moses his law was to be kept, so the Passeover, and any o­ther ceremonies, a paribus from the like reason, that a beleiving Galathian would observe one Ceremony out of conscience, ought likewise observe the rest. So that the Apostle mentions Circumcision only as being to the question then in hand. And for Acts 10.37. of baptisme, wee say that whiles it might any way hint that Mose [...] law in the shell was to be done away, it tyed to the observation of it in the substance of gospel meaning. So in that Acts. 10.37. compare with Iohn. 5. two last. Mat. 28. v. 20. when teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded, followed baptisme.

Fourthly, (saith Mr. T.) Circumcision did signe Canaan; Exercit. p. 6. Bap­tisme eternall life.

This we have answered to afore,Animadver. That Circumcision did sign Ca­naan as it was a type of heaven, Heb. 4. As baptisme and the holy Supper under materiall elements signifie and give us things spiritu­all and eternall.

All this while I cannot see such a materiall difference between Circumcision and Baptisme in the least to deface the analogie and semblance between the administration of the one and the other, to beleivers and their Infants, or to interrupt that consequence from the one to the other. What ever may be urged against the incapaci­ty of children to be Baptized, may as well be argued against Cir­cumcision.

By this that hath been answered candid men may see what rea­son Mr. T. hath to deny major, or consequence, or minor.

If this argument be not restrainedly understood an egge is layd,Exercit. p. 6. out of which manifest Iudaisme may be hatched.

No feare, if we argue as the Apostle argues;Animadver. who Collofians 2, 11. [Page 34]12. (as wee have cleered wee hope) puts Baptisme in the roome of Circumcision. If wee doe not put those things in the place one of another, which God puts in (though but by practice and exam­ple) without looking for a new institution or command, there be­ing a difference onely of circumstances, I am bold to say, an egge is laid out of which may be hatched Antisabbatarianisme a nulling of the Lords day, (as is frequent upon this very consequence, a­mong the Anabaptists) and Exemption of women from the holy Sup­per with many the like inconveniencies, which we stay not now to name.

But it this kinde of Argument,Exercitat. P. 6. out of Coloss. 2.11. be restrai­nedly taken, (saith Mr. T.) no more follows thence, but that Bap­tisme and circumcision, in some things signifie the same, which is more plainly said of Noahs flood, 1 Pet. 3.21. Of the red sea, and the cloud that guided, 1 Cor. 10.2. And yet we say not that Bap­tisme succeeded into their place; much lesse do we infer to be in­stituted in their place.

If Mr. T. restraines Cor. 2.11. whether he pleaseth,Animadver. then must it signifie but what he listeth. But you have already seen the di­mensions of that place to be larger then Mr. T. his measure. As for his WE say not that Baptisme succeeded, I suppose he meanes Protestant Orthodox Writers; and then he mistakes (if I mistake not:) For Calvin saith that Noah being [...]aved by water, had quan­dam Baptismi speciem, a certain Image or representation of Bap­tisme; and this the Apostle minds us of, to the intent that the likenesse between him and us might be the more apparent: so he. Beza saith much more, of which onely this: There are two types of the Churches sanctification, and rising up out of the depth of sinne and death; but the deliverance from the flood was the prece­dent Type, shaddowing forth the following Type of Baptisme an­swering to it; in which respect Baptisme may be set over against the cloud, and the passing through the red Sea as the Anti-type to them; So Beza. Dispach bid us quote no more. And the text will supply all, and clear it to me that Baptisme doth come by divine right in the place of the Arke. For Peter calls Baptisme the [...], &c. Anti-type to the Arke, that signing salvation, as this doth. Now who doth not know that the Anti-type comes by divine authority, in the place of the Type. And for that of the 1 Cor. 10.2. let another speak and not my mouth. Mr Diodat in his notes saith, The mea­ning [Page 35]of that place is, That as the deliverance out of Aegypt was a figure of the redemption by Christ, and the pilgrimage thorow the wildernesse, an image of the elects life in the world, and the land of Canaan a shaddow of the kingdome of heaven; So the passing thor­row thered sea was correspondent to Baptisme, and Manna and the water comming out of the rock, a signe which had some resem­blance to the Lords supper: So Mr Diodat. And he had said true, and if he had said more, for the text would have born [...] him out. For the Apostle being about to warne the Corinthians of sinning in ido­latry &c. like the Israelites, Pareus. lest they perish as the Israelites, v. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. He prevents in the 2. and 3. verse an objection the Co­rinthians might make, that wee have better sacraments to keep us from sin then the Israelites had; I would not (saith the Apostle) have you ignorant (not reason so ignorantly) but know that your fathers (the Israelites) went to heaven (as many as went) the same way, and by the like meanes as you the children must go (if you go;) they had like sacraments in the signe,Pareus. and the same thing signified as you have. They had their passing under the cloud, and through the red sea for their Baptisme, and Manna and water out of the rocke for their holy supper, both signifying Christ; instead whereof you you have the washing of water for your Baptisme, and bread and wine for your holy supper to represent Christ. Now seeing the ho­ly ghost did by expresse exposition of the Apostle, intend those two to fore shaddow Baptisme and the Lords Supper; and tells the Co­rinthians they had these two Baptisme and Holy Supper instead of them, as of no more priviledge in the outward signe; how can I but conclude that Baptism and holy Supper comes by divine autho­rity in the place of them?

Mr. T. reckons up many inconveniences that will spring from deductions of arguments from analogies,Exercitat. §. 2. without the Lords pre­cepts, and the Apostles examples, as the maintenance of Tithes ju­re divino; the asserting of Jewish Sacraments to be types of christi­an Sacraments; the setting up of a Pope instead of the Jewes High-priest; the giving of the Lords Supper to children, because they ate the passover, &c.

We plead for no analogicall arguments,Animadver. but such as are counte­nanced by New Testament scripture. And if the Scriptures express any Iewish Sacrament, to be any how, or in any degree, types of the christian Sacraments we must say so, what ever men say against Bel­larmine, [Page 36]to unty him and fasten themselves. We heard afore what Calvin, Beza, Diodat, and Pareus said on those texts of Scripture, whatever some others, to make a shift may assert universally against Bellarmine, out of a supposed inconvenience in some particular. And Mr Tombes himselfe alleadged Cameron, that Circumcision primarily sealed to the seed of Abraham the earthly promise (namely Canaan) secondarily sanctification. And is not this to make one type to signifie another type? for Canaan was a type of Heaven, Heb. 4. And as we dare extend analogies as far as the text of Scripture bears us out; so we dare not stretch them beyond, where the Apostle puts a bar. And therefore we cannot argue from the childrens eating of the Passeover to their partaking of the Communion, because the A­postles marke of a Communicant is, to be able to examine himself, before he eates. 1 Cor. 11.

Lastly,Exercitat. it is to be considered how by these Argumentations, con­sciences may be freed from the danger of will-worship, and pollu­ting so remarkable an Ordinance of Christ as Baptisme is, specially this care lyes on them, who by Prayers, Sermons, Writings, Cove­nants and Oaths, do deter Christians from humane inventions, in Gods worship diligently, and as is to be hoped sincerely.

We retort;Animadver. Let it be likewise considered how we may be like­wise freed from will worship, in confining Sacramentall administra­tions to such time, age, circumstances, which Christ never enjoy­ned; and so count the seed of beleevers all wholly polluted, whom he never so accounted.

CHAP. IIII.

Exercitat. §. 3. The third Argument from the pari­ty of grace in the New Te­stament to that in the old examined. THe third Argument is thus framed.

If Baptisme be not granted to the Infants of Beleevers, then the Grace of God will be more restrained in the New Testament than in the Old: but this is not to be affirmed; therefore Baptisme is to be granted to Infants of Be­leevers.

Answ. 1. If this Argument be of any weight, it will prove that the grace of God is straitned, because we give not the Lords Supper [Page 37]to children, to whom the Passeover was given, as appears by that which was said before.

2. The grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments, neither do Sacra­ments give grace by the work done, and therefore grace is not re­strained, though Sacraments be never granted, grace is not denyed to an excommunicated person, who is inhibited the Lords Supper, the grace of God is free, whether we understand it of the divine affection, or the effects of it; nor can be made larger or narrower by our act.

3. Yet it is not absurd to say, that in respect of some priviledges, the grace of God is more contracted in the New Testament then in the Old: For instance, no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family, that out of it Christ should be born; no man besides Abraham is called The Father of the Faith­full; no woman besides one, The mother of Christ; neverthelesse, simply the grace of God is said to be larger in the New Testament, by reason of the revelation of the Gospell imparted to all Nations, the more abundant communication of the holy Spirit, and more plain manifestation of the mystery of the Gospel: I would have it weighed, whether those phrases of the Apostle, Rom. 11.21. as the naturall branches, vers. 24. The wild Olive by Nature, were graf­fed contrary to Nature. These which be naturall branches, do not sufficiently imply, That the Jews children by their birth had a pri­viledge beyond the Gentiles children.

In the frame of this third Argument, from Gen. 17. First,Animadver. these words are very prejudiciously left out in the major or 1 Proposition. Then the grace of God [The words unjustly left out. in the administration of the first Seal] will be more restrained in the New Testament then in the Old. 2. The word Grace is disadvantageously put for Priviledge.

To Master T. his Answer as he hath layd the Argument; and first to his first Answer: [That we give not the Lords Supper to children to whom the Passeover was given:] We Reply.

• 1. That he speaks not ad idem to the point in hand. For this doth not take off the straitning the New Testament above the old in the first seale.
• 2ly. Our argument proceeds not of Gods limiting, but of mens strait­ning; we dispute not against God, but against Anabaptists streit­ning where God hath not limited.
• 3ly. Mr T. in his 1 Section pro­claimes the Latitude of the New Testament above the Old divers [Page 38]times: but here he evens them again, and tells us we have but Quid pro quo, if we have got in the first Sacrament, we have lost it in the second.

To his 2. Answer, of Gods grace not tyed to Sacraments.

• 1. Here seemes to be an eluding of the true intent of our Argument, by the equivocal acception of the word Grace: for if any forme it of Gods Grace being restrained, it is rather meant of Grace signi­fying the favour of God manifested to us, then of Grace signifying the Graces of Gods Spirit inherent in us.
• 2. Though Mr. T. saith here Grace is not tyed to Sacraments; yet the whole designe of his Exercitation is so to tye them together, that Sacraments without manifestation of grace are nothing with him.
• 3. Therefore we retort, That where the first Sacrament is more inhibited, and re­strained, there the favour of God, and the gifts of grace are lesse to be expected. And therefore though we cannot straighten Gods grace in it selfe; yet we do, unwarrantably, the comfortable assu­rance thereof, when we refuse the sign that God hath given us, of that he hath or will give.

To his 3. Answer. [That in some priviledges the grace of God is more contracted in the New Testament than in the Old, &c.]

• 1. We Reply: If we speak of some particular priviledges, it is a priviledge of the New Testament, not to have them; to wit, any of the Jewish Ceremonies. Or that there should be another fa­mily besides Abrahams line of whom Christ should be born.
• 2. We Reply that Mr T. hath matched one great Old Testament privi­ledge with alike in the New, if he had but placed it right among the New, and not among the Old. Namely, [that Mary the mo­ther of Christ in the New Testament, answers to the promise of him to come of Abraham in the Old.] But if we speak of the privi­ledge of the New Testament in generall, it must be more large than that of the Old, or else God would never have found such fault with the Old, as in stead thereof to make a New, Heb. 8.6, 7, 8. Observe in the margent on the 6. verse, Covenant is rendred Testa­ment by our translation.
• 3. Upon Mr T. his confession, That sim­ply the grace of God is said to be larger in the New Testament by reason; first, of the Revelation of the Gospell to all Nations: secondly, of more abundant Communication of the holy Spirit: thirdly, of more plain Manifestation of the Mystery of the Go­spell: we retort then, sure beleevers in the New Testament have [Page 39]lesse reason to have a meaner opinion of their children to reject them farther off from the 1 Seal, then they of the Old; there be­ing no precept for that rejection.

The Parent knows more, re­ceives more grace now generally, by Mr. T. his intimation; why then must all this abundance of revelations, and effusion of spirit fall besides our children, that none should be sanctified in their tender years as Samuel, Iohn Baptist, and the little ones, Mar. 10. To that Rom. 11.21, 24. We say we have considered it, and advised with learned Authors, yet neither they nor I can see more then this, That the Jews of whom the Apostle speaks were naturall children (taken in its naturall sence) of Abraham, to whom immediately was the great priviledge, Rom. 3.2. Of the Oracle of God, and his promise was immediately vivâ voce, by expresse words made and delivered Gen. 17. and so they had the priviledge also to heare soo­ner of it; and it continued a long time in their line, in the former ages of the World; and so had the 1. conveighance of the 1. Seale to them and their children. But Firstnesse in order or time doth not give any more spirituall right to an Ordinance. Act. 13.46. Nor is it the naturalnesse (see Ismael and his posterity) but the spiritual­nesse of the father (that he be a Believer) that gives priviledge to the child. And therefore we conclude that faith being the conditi­on of this Covenant Gen. 17. to Abraham (as Mr Tombes confest afore. §. 1.) and so thereupon the 1. Seal was given to his naturall borne infants; So now a believing Parent by faith being of the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3. Rom. 4.) the 1. Seal by the same proportion is due to his naturall borne infants. And this is all the heft we can find in this place upon weighing of it.

For Mr Tombes his justice in denying the major, or consequence, or minor of this argument, I leave to the candid Reader to judge from what we have said.

The summe of the Answer to the Arguments,Exercitat. §. 3. Conclu. drawn from Gen. 17.17. is this: The Sacraments are not to be administred according to rules taken from our reasonings, but Gods appointment. Right­ly doth Mr Ball forenamed, in the Book forenamed, Posit. 3. & 4. page 38. say▪ But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptisme, do a­gree or differ, we must look to the institution, and neither stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it, for he is the institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure; and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end the [Page 40]Sacraments are to be administred, how they agree, and wherein they, differ, in all which we must affirme nothing, but what God hath taught us, and as hee hath taught us.

We close with you taking reasonings for such as are meerly de­pending upon humane wit,Animadver. but if they be such as are clearly dedu­ced (according to our best light) from the Word of God; we can conceive no otherwise of them then as such as hold out Gods ap­pointment. And such we trust, have been our reasonings with you Mr. T. on this 17. of Gen. where we find an affirmative precept for giving the 1. Seal to Believers Infants; but we never found, nor you, nor the Anabaptists for us yet (that we know off) any ne­gative precept that it should be denyed to them: though we have seen and heard many of the Anabaptists own reasonings.

To that of Mr Ball, Mr Ball himselfe shall answer in the very same page afore quoted.

Circumcision and Baptisme (saith he) are both Sacraments of di­vine institution, and so they argue in the substance of the things sig­nified, the PERSONS TO WHOM they are to be admini­stred, and the order of administration, if the right proportion be ob­served. As Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant, the righteousnesse of faith, and circumcision of the heart; so doth Baptisme much more clearly. As Abraham and his houshold, and the Infants of believing Jews were to be circumcised; so the faithfull, their families, and their seed are to be baptized. Circumcision was but once applyed by Gods appointment, and the same holds in Bap­tisme according to the will and good pleasure of God: So far he: Up­on which by and by follows the conclusion which Mr T. quoted. By which we may plainly perceive in what sence Mr Ball spake those words quoted by Mr T. (namely for us not against us) what his opinion is in the Question; and what his sence is of the 17. of Gen. To wit that therein is an institution and precept for baptizing believers Infants.

CHAP. V.

THe Argument from Act. 2.38, 39. may be thus formed:Exercitat. §. 4. The Ar­gument from Act. 2.38, 39. for Infant-baptisme ex­amined. To whom the promise is made, they may be baptized; but to the Infants of Believers the promise is made; there­fore they may be baptized.

The Minor is proved from the words of vers. 39. for the promise is made to you and to your children.

That an answer may be fitted to this Argument:

• 1. It is to be observed, that the promise made, is the sending of Jesus Christ, and blessing by him, as it is expounded, Act. 3.25, 26. Act. 13.32, 33. Rom. 15.8, 9.
• 2. That the Text saith, the promise was made to them he spake to, and their children; then to them that are afar off, who, whe­ther they be Gentiles, who are said to be afar off, Ephes. 2.12. or Jewes in future ages and generations, as Beza thinks, are limited by the wordes closing the verse, as many as the Lord our God shall call; which limitation plainly enough shewes the promise to ap­pertain to them not simply as Iewes, but as called of God, which is more expressely affirmed, Act. 3.26. To you, God having raised up his Son Iesus, sent him to blesse you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquity: or, as Beza, Every one of you turning your selves from your iniquities: therefore the promise here is not said to be made but with condition of calling, and faith, which may be con­firmed aboundantly from Rom. 4.13, 14.16. Gal. 3.9.14.22.
• 3. That Peter, vers. 38. doth exhort to repentance and Baptisme together; and in the first place perswades to Repentance, then Bap­tisme; which shewes Repentance to be in order before Baptisme.
• 4. That mention is made of the promise not as of it selfe, yeil­ding right to Baptisme, without Repentance, but as a motive in­citing together to Repentance and Baptisme.

With the 1. Observation of Master T. in this Answer we close,Animadver. that the promise meant here, is that which was made to Abraham, hinted Gen. 12. Enlarged and confirmed, Gen. 17. Illustrated, Gen. 22. According to Act. 3, 25.26. Act. 13.32, 33. Rom. 15.8, 9. provided that Mr. T. take the 26. Verse of Act. 33. duly accor­ding to the Exposition of the 25. Verse. The 26. v. is, Vnto you first [Page 42]God having raised up his Sonne Iesus Christ, sent him to blesse you, in turning away every one of you from his Iniquities. The due genuine sence of which words according to Verse 25. is this: These to whom the Apostle speaks were children of the Covenant which God made with their Fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all kinreds of the Earth be blessed. According to Gen. 12.3. Gen. 17.7. Gen. 22.18. which Texts do write it as cleerly as the sun beames.

• 1. That the administration of the first seal of outward confirmation of this Covenant was given to all the naturall seed at least of beleeving Abrahams family, and so downward, Act. 3.25. and Gen. 17.7, 9, &c. keeping within the Church, and not cast out for misdemeanours. Therefore the same administration of the 1 Seal in the New Testament to all the naturall seed of belee­ving Gentile parents, is held forth by vertue of this text, Act. 3.25. It comes down to all the kindred of the elect, which could not be in Circumcision which is abolished in the New Testament but in some thing analogicall; ergo in Baptisme.
• 2. That the efficacy of this Co­venant with Abraham is to his seed in turning them away every one from their iniquities. Act. 3.26. According to Gen. 12.3. Gen. 17.22. Gen. 22.18. That in Abraham, that is in his seed, namely be blessed, even to them his Covenant should be established. And so by a just analogie, Baptisme administred to the seed of believers should be effectuall, where Christ should come in effectually to turne them from their sinnes, whether afore, or at, or after Bap­tisme, as he shall think fit.

To Mr T. his 2. particular of Act. 2.39. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call: We say with learned Camerarius, Sunt [...] haec; this is a short defective kinde of expression, wherein by brevity of speech something is left out, to be supplyed by the reader; So that the whole verse is to be read thus.

For theFree] [...] promisiio vel pollicitatio. Neque enim desunt qui i [...] ­ter polliceri & promittere hoc discrimen sta­tuunt quafi illud de eo quod ultro promittas, istud vero de mutua stipulatione dicatur. Bezae. Pollicemur sponte, promittimus rogati. Popm. Fris. de diff. verb. Great] Polliceri est res magnas promittere; promittere est res quaslibet parvas, &c. Popm. Fris. de diff. verb. Nihil tibi ego tum de meis opibus pollicebar sed horum erga me benevolentiam promittebam, Cic. pro planc. And Budeus saith [...] signifies the free promise of God. And the Article [...] and the composition with [...] (which increaseth the signification) signifies some eminent great promise is intimated. FREE GREAT promise is [made] to you [Iewes [Page 43] Neer or pre­sent] For a far off and pre­sent or neer are here opposed. Ludovicus De Dicu. neer and present and your children you now have] and to them that are afar off [distant in Distant] far off in place or affection. It is not so likely that farre off should signifie generations of Jews to come, as Mr T. inti­mates out of Beza: And Ca­merarius hath a considerable note to this: A­far off will be understood not onely of place, but in mind and judgement; viz. as others, so Gentiles. And it is so said after v. 40. Save your selves from this untoward generation: For the future generations of Gentiles must not be excluded. And the word children doth intimate succession of generations of Jews, that it shall be to their childrens children, if their Parents be­leeve; as it shall now be to their children present, if they the present parents beleeve. Beza his reason (saith De Dieu) that a far off should signifie future generations of Jews, not Gentiles; afar off in place or affection, because Peter here speaking, knew not the calling of the Gentiles till Act. 10. cannot hold good; because an extraordinary inspired Apostle, and acquainted with the Prophets, that are full of the calling of the Gentiles, could not be ignorant of the thing; onely he perceived not the time to be so neer till Act. 10. There­fore saith De Dieu, I do not unwillingly assent to the great learned men, who referre the words [...] (those a far off) to the Gentiles, remote from the Covenant of grace, but in time to be brought neer. Nor am I against it, that [...], that is, to them that are VNTO afar off, and [...], that is, to those afar off, should be all one. For its plain, that [...] the praeposition, signifying unto is often super-redundant: as [...], suddenly: [...], the morrow: [...], yet: [...], once: [...], three times. And so Chrysostome takes them to be all one, opposing [...] to [...]. For the word (distant) Old Lat. Erasmus, de Dieu, and Camerar supply it. place or affection, Iewes or Gentiles] who­soever they be that the Lord shall call [In place or affection.] For [...] in its proper nature rather signifies distance of place, then of time. And is most oft used for distance in place and affection; so out of Bud. Toss. Const. we omit many in­stances that might be given, but to cut short this Marginall Note. to, or unto him Call to, or unto him] So De Dieu, according to the Greek [...] quoscunque advocave­rit domin [...]. * To justifie this supply of the last clause, And to their children, we have many instances, John 7 39. The holy Ghost was not yet (so the Greek) we supply the word given; So 1 John 2.23. We supply all this (which is not in the usuall Greek Cop­pies.) But he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. And many such instances may be given (but for haste) which you your selves may observe by the severall different letters in your Bibles. and to their children.]

So that it is not plain, much lesse plain enough (as Mr T. af­firmes with much confidence) that the words, as many as the Lord our God shall call are a limitation shewing the promise to apper­tain to them simply, not as Iewes, but as called of God. For the intent of the place is, that the promise runnes to beleeving Jewes and their children, as it did to beleeving Abraham and his children, in the outward promulgation, administration and signing. But made effectuall when (as in that Act. 3.26. Mr T. quotes) God so bles­seth the children as to turne them from their iniquities. And so just to descend down to beleiving Gentile parents (the seed of Abraham Rom. 4. Gal. 3.) and their naturall borne children. But the maine thing expected (I suppose) is to prove that to the sentence, unto [Page 44]them afar off whom the Lord shall call, must be supplyed this sen­tence, and to their children. For this, besides all that we have said in the margent, we give these reasons.

• 1. The former part of the verse runnes so, the promise is to you and your children: therefore the latter part must run so too, to wit to all that are afar off that shall be called and to their children: For it were a strange thing if whiles the Lord is pressing the same promise, as belonging to them that are neer and a far off, Jews and Gentiles, which God first made to beleeving Abraham and his naturall seed under the pro­mise, Gen. 17. and pressing it so to be taken and applyed here, Act. 2. that the Lord should mean two different wayes, as that it should belong formerly to beleeving Abraham and his naturall chil­dren under the promise; but now to him, and onely his children ef­fectually called: Or that it now belongs to Abrahams beleeving Iewish seed, and their naturall seed or children under the promise, and not to beleeving Gentiles (the seed of Abraham, Rom. 4. Gal. 3.) and to their naturall children under the promise, I am the God of thee and of thy seed.
• 2. If the sentence as many as the Lord our God shall call, be a limitation of the whole verse, and so to signifie that the promise no wayes belongs to children of beleeving Iewes or Gentiles, till those children be effectually called, let any rational man give a sufficient reason why the Apostle mentions children: the sentence being full and clearer without that word, if that had been the Apostles meaning.
• 3. The Apostle names the promise to the parents in relation to them before calling; as being the children of beleeving Abraham afar off: why then may it not some how much more relate to their children, when they the next parents are called?
• 4. The Apostle doth endeavour to comfort the parents that they and their children should be in as good a condition, by Bap­tisme, though they had crucified Christ, as they were by Circum­cision before they had crucified him. But by Circumcision, the pro­mise and the first outward signe ranne to them and their chil­dren: ergo so should it now, or else the Apostle had beaten them off with an offence, and not drawn them on with an encourage­ment.

Those places Mr T. quotes out of Rom. 4.13, 14, 16. Gal. 3.9. 14.22. and his assertion upon them they concern the parents to be signed upon their beleeving, with the first Seal, thereby instating their children, whiles children, to the same; lying under the favour [Page 45]of one and the same promise with the parents: I am the God of thee and of thy seed.

To the 3. particular of Mr T. his answer to Act. 2. wee say that though order of naming things in Scripture be a very uncertain ar­gument to prove the order of nature of things: yet we grant the thing it selfe to be true for parents, not for their Infants which Mr. T. here doth not prove.

To the 4, particular we say that the reason of that is because it is spoken to them of ripe yeares, pricked at their hearts. But else the promise it selfe, I am the God of thee and of thy seed, or the promise is to thee and thy children (according to Gen. 17.) is sufficient to give right to them repenting and being baptized, to conveigh Bap­tisme to their children.

We conclude therefore,

• 1 That M. T. hath not rightly limited the Minor, nor justly denyed it unlimited.
• 2. That he hath not rightly an­swered to the Major.

To his first reason that the Text is not expres­ly of infants, but of children indefinitely: We answer, it is meant according to the places where it is quoted. Gen. 17. Gen. 22. But those places, by seed and children, understand as well those but 8 dayes old, as others. To his 2 reason that the text speakes not of the children of Gentiles at all, we have answered afore in the full reading of the text to be extended to the children of them that are called, though formerly afar off.

CHAP. VI.

THe Argument from 1 Cor. 7.14.Exercitat. § 5. The Ar­gument from 1 Cor. 7.14. may be thus formed They who are holy with Covenant holinesse, may be bap­tized; but so are beleevers infants holy: Ergo. The Ma­jor is not true, universally understood, as is manifested from Rom. 11.6. If the first fruits be holy, the lump is holy, &c. That is, Abraham is the first fruite and holy root: the elect Israelites are the branches and lump: so that it followes, that the elect of the Is­raelites not yet called, are holy in respect of the Covenant, and are not yet therefore to be baptized. For although they may be said to be holy in regard of the Covenant of old entred into with Abraham, and the gracious respect of God to them to be manifested in time, [Page 46]yet in their present state; they denying Christ, neither infants nor men are to be baptized, unlesse we would have the branches broken off to be grafted in. And therfore though the sence of 1 Co. 7.14. were your children are holy with Covenant holinesse; it followes not they are to be baptized who yet manifest no shewes of divine grace. 2. The Minor is not proved hence. For it doth not speak of federall holinesse, but of holinesse, that I may so call it, matrimoniall. So that the sence is your children are holy, that is legitimate. So Master Tombes.

1. To the Major we say; That that proposition is universally true de jure in equity,Animadver. though not de facto, in act, when God and man concur to make an exception in practise. It was de jure in right and equity an universall Proposition, That every man-child of the cir­cumcised parent shall be circumcised, Gen. 17. So Ismael is circum­cised being a sonne of circumcised Abraham; but if Ismael in matter of fact turne scoffer and persecutor of Isaac (Gal. 4.29.) and so be cast out by Gods command, Gen. 21.10. his children are not circumcised, but suspended from the actuall practise. So this Proposition they that are holy with federall or Govenant holinesse, may be baptized, is by divine right universally true: but if in practise the generations of Abraham, alive at the comming of Christ, will not own the SEED of Abraham, Christ, and so renounce their own Seed-ship; God gives them up in fact to be broken off for cer­tain generations, Rom. 11. Left without the Word and Sacraments of the New Testament, Act. 13. And yet the jus the equity so holds u­niversally true, that when they shall turn to the Lord, & own Christ, the children of them the parents signed with the first Sacrament of the New Testament; I say their children shall be signed with the same too. Affirmative commands universally binde semper, though not ad semper, alwayes, though not at every circumstance of time. To Mr T. his proofe of his deny all of the Major out of Rom. 1 [...]. we say:

• 1. That Mr Tombes cannot make election any footing or ground of the argument of the holinesse of the lump, in relation to the holy root Abraham. For that were to put aside the Apostles visible ar­gument, and fall upon another thing secret to God.
• 2. That would infer, that those Jewes broken off, were broken off of the election (which is impossible). But if relation to beleiving Abraham be the footing and ground of the Argument, then when the Parents come in by faith to owne Christ their brother, in Abraham, and so their [Page 47]son-ship to Abraham, signed with the first signe appointed at the time of their conversion, namely Baptisme, then the practise inter­rupted goes freely on again of giving the same first Seal to the chil­dren of all believing baptized parents.

To Mr T. his answer to the Minor, That it is not proved, because the place doth not speak of federall, but matrimoniall holinesse; we reply, that so Mr T. saith; But in all his tedious Oratorious, not Logicall discourse, urging mens authorities, not his own arguments, or confirmed positions, he doth not proove. Mr T. can easily thinke that Aquinas a Papist (whom he quotes) and we can lend him Sta­pleton too and other Popish authours (no doubt) that will stand stifly with him for the advancement of marriage to have in it a ma­trimoniall holinesse; that it may be the fitter to be a Sacrament ac­cording to their interest in the question. And Mr T. can as easily thinke that if the decision of the question might be made according to plurality of Votes of Protestant Authors, we should soon out­vote him. Therefore we shall passe by his Protestant authors and our own, onely with this touch. His; That Camerarius doth not speak so punctually whiles he saith, Sanctificatur in conjugij legiti­mo usu; not in legitimi conjugij usu. The unbeliever is sanctified in the lawfull use of marriage, not in the use of lawfull marriage; which latter expression would have better advanced the pretended matrimoniall holinesse; and prevented that the lawfull use of mar­riage, be not taken for an using it according to the word and prayer, the more likely meaning of this text, by far. Nor doth the same Camerarius hide, or refute another meaning of these Words; viz. a sanctifying by faith; that is to the believers use, as Mr Tombes his Melancthon intimates in his own quotations. For Melancthon and Musculus they come not to hand in my study, nor is it of so much, or have I so much time as to go to them. For our own au­thours, if Mr T. had but well weighed one onely, Pareus, I won­der how he should have so mistaken this Text. The meaning of which to me and others, plainly and candidly is this. You Corin­thians (in your Letter to me, 1 Cor. 7.1.) scruple about spirituall pollution, by a believers continuing in the use of marriage and con­jugal injoyment, since conversion, with a yoake-fellow that is not yet converted through his or her infidelity, v. 13. But you need not feare it; for the unbelieving husband hath been already sancti­fied (so in the Greek) in the believing wife that is since converted [Page 48]since marriage, I say in the beleeving wife (so is the meaning plain by the Antithesis, and so it is in some Greek Copies). And on the contrary the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband: so the Greek, and the Antithesis and the Explanation of some Greek Copies. That is, the unbeliever is sanctified in the believer to the believers use. That though marriage, as all things are spiritually impure and unclean to them that are defiled (how?) by unbeliefe; yet unto the pure (that is by faith, as the Antithesis guides it) all things are pure, marriage, meats, all. Tit. 1.15. Being sanctified by the Word (allowing them and promising a blessing to the believer) and by prayer (of faith) asking a blessing. 1 Tim. 4.4, 5. And this I prove (saith St. Paul) by a greater argument: Because your chil­dren (though but one of you Parents be a believer) are holy; I say [...], are holy; not onely as before of the unbelieving pa­rent that he or shee is sanctified and ad hoc to a particular use of the other beleeving parent; but are holy, which cannot possibly signifie lesse then the Federall or Covenant holinesse; reckoned general­ly among the Churches of Corinth to be within the Covenant with the believing parent (though but one of them be a beleever). But how doth Saint Paul prove this last proposition upon which all de­pends? Answ. He layes this, leaves this, on a common knowne practise of the Churches everywhere, that if but one of the parents were a beleever, the children of him or her were brought to Bap­tisme, as to the sealing, that the children were in Covenant; of which more in the XIII CHAP. of our Animadversions.

Mean while observe that if the Apostle doth not speak here of the holinesse of children, by being reckoned in Covenant, and signed with Baptisme, being born of one believing parent at least, as of a known opinion, custome and practise in the Churches, the Apostle had gone about to resolve a lesser doubt, by making a greater. Pre­tences against this sence of the place shalbe ventilated and confuted by and by, after we have confirmed this to be the sence of this place; thus.

This case of the Corinthians must needes be a case not of law, but of conscience; not of civil polity, but of religion, grounded up­on some such case as Ezra 10.3. where the Israelites having taken wives not of the same religion with them, make a Covenant with Humiliations, to put away those wives and their children. For the religious Corinthians men of great parts, 1 Cor. 14. Of a fa­mous [Page 49]City and of a most ancient Common-wealth, could not be ignorant of the Law of Nations, That two single persons Legally married, according to the custome or rules of the State, could not be counted adulterers or fornicators, or their children bastards, for any difference of Religion between them. And therefore it being a case of Conscience, about spirituall pollution, satisfies them by shewing the priviledge of faith under the New Testament, that all wives, infants, &c. are sanctified, or sanctified to the beleever, not­withstanding different opinions: To which Beza speakes excel­lently, Some (saith he) refer this to civill politie, what marriages that makes and accompts as ratified; so as the children are reckoned Legitimate: But surely Paul disputes not of civill politie, but of mat­ter of conscience. And what Argument (I pray you) at last would it be to pacifie conscience, that is taken from the civill Lawes of Na­tions. For in these Laws it is well known, how many things are tole­rated, which a Christians conscience cannot bear. For neither the Law of divorce, permitted to the Jews by Moses for the hardnesse of their hearts, could excuse a conscience from the fault of Adul­tery.

As for M. T. and his abettors (by him quoted) in reasoning for ma­trimonial holinesse; and against federall holinesse they do not (to me) in any considerable degree hit the nayl on the head; and therfore is easi­ly pluckt out with ones fingers. Musc. his quotation of Deut. 23.2. doth not shew us a place wher a bastard is called unclean; or kept out from any Office in the Congregation (as he expounds the place) for any Ceremoniall uncleannesse; but rather for a kind of civill maimed­nesse; as those of naturall maimednesse, ver. 1. Nor is Musculus his reason [that if conjugall holinesse be not here, 1 Cor. 7. meant, it will bring forth a troublesome dispute, how an unbeleeving hus­band is sanctified] of any weight. For it is not meant or said, That he is sanctified in himself, but sanctified in the beleeving wife, to her use. As according to Musculus his instance of meat; we say with the Apostle, Tit. 1.15. They are unclean to the unbeleever, pure to the beleever. So is an unbeleeving yoak-fellow, unclean to the unbeleever, clean to the beleever. For the assertions of Hierom and Ambrose, quoted by Musculus, as Musculus is quoted by Ma­ster T. [That the sanctification of the unbeleeving Parent, be not attributed to the faith of the beleeving Parent, but to Gods appoint­ment, that marriage should be holy.] We say we well know, that [Page 50]the Fathers oft too much smell of the corruptions of the times in which they lived, in opinions of this nature. Surely the holinesse of marriage was never appointed to be holy to any, but to the first and in the second innocent Adam. And therefore so to us onely through faith. Of the other opinion of things holy by meer ap­pointment from God, are divers dangerous consequences: one in­stance is; Some affirm that faith as a quality justifies, because it is holy for that use, by Gods appointment thereunto. To Mr. T. his proofe. That holy and legitimate are the same, Because (saith he) holinesse is pu [...] for chastity, 1 Thess. 4.3, 4, 7. And 1 Tim. 4, 5. is sanctified signifies is lawfully used. We Answer, That the Apostle calls chastity holinesse when it is wrought by the principle of holinesse, namely the Spirit and the graces thereof; for he speakes to Saints. But sure enough the Apostle would never call a meer abstinence from fornication or adultery, holinesse. For he saith, without faith All is impure, Tit. 1.15. And that 1 Tim. 4.5. signifies more then lawfully used, as a carnall man may use his meat and drinksoberly and for a good end, to fit him for his calling: name­ly, it signifies thus much; That meats, &c. not prohibited, are sanctifi­ed by the Word, allowing them to us, and giving us believing in that Word a right to them in Christ, and by the prayer of faith we sue out a blessing upon them.

But Mr. T. Objects, That it is not said, 1 Cor. 7.14. The unbeleeving husband is sanctified in or by the beleeving wife, but in or by the wife. Nor is it said that the unbeleeving wife is san­ctified in or by the beleeving husband, but in or by the husband; the Apostle purposely so speaking, that the reason of sanctification may be intimated to be taken, not from the faith of the yoak-fel­low, but from conjugall relation.

Answ. The Syr. Text prevents all imagination of this con­ceit; reading the Text according to the true meaning, thus: That husband which is not a beleever, is sanctified [...] by the wife [...] which is a beleever. And that wife which is not a be­leever is sanctified [...] by the husband [...] which is a beleever. 2. There are two Greek Coppies that Beza saw, have it, [...] In the beleeving wife. And [...] (which Mr. Tombes not forgetting should not slight. 3. Hear reason: The Apostles purpose sure enough is to comfort beleevers, married with unbeleevers. And it is as sure; that the Apostle layes the ground of [Page 51]that comfort of the beleeving husband in his condition of husband as oppositely distinguished from his unbeleeving wife; and the com­fort of the beleeving wife, in her condition of wife, as oppositely distinguished from her unbeleeving husband. For (saithe he) the unbeleeving husband is sanctified in the wife. What wife? What can we answer, but the beleiving wife? And so of the husband. Now seeing the Apostle layes it in a proper peculiar priviledge, which is sometimes in the husband, to wit, when he is a beleever and the wife not. And sometimes in the wife, when she is a be­leever and the husband not; It must needs be, that the foundation of the comfort intended by the Apostle is layd in faith, peculiar but to one of the couple, and not in marriage that was equally com­mon to both. And that faith doth rather sanctifie marriage, then marriage sanctifie the married persons. A harsh phrase for a Chri­stian, That civill marriage is a sanctifier; either to sanctifie two un­beleevers (which by Mr. T. his consequence it must) or to more-sanctifie a condition to one that is a beleever.

But Mr T. observes further, That 'E [...] is not rightly rendred by in the old Latine, and our new English Translation; as if the faith of the wife were the cause of sanctifying the unbeleeving husband. For no man will say the faith of the beleeving wife sanctifies the unbeleeving husband federally, so that the unbeleeving husband should be capable of Baptisme by his wives faith, (which yet, by the good leave of such men be it said, doth as well follow from this place, as that the son is federally holy, and capable of Bap­tisme for the faith of the parent.) Neither can it be said, that the Parent is sanctified with spirituall sanctification, by the faith of the wife.

We Answ. To render [...] by, is tolerable; seeing the Apostles do very oft Hebraize and make [...] to answer to [...] in Hebrew, which oft signifies by Sanctificat [...] est vir qui infi­delis est, in uxore fideli, i [...] est, per. He­braismus. San­ctificataesi mu­lier quae estinfi­delis in viro fideli, id est, per. Hebrais­mus. So Tre­melius in his Translation of and Notes up­on the Sy [...]. But we regard not whether it be rendred by or in, that is in or through the beleiver his faith, the unbeleiver is sanctified to him; still it will stand good that faith may as well be the instru­mentall cause of a lesser thing; namely, of sanctifying an unbeleeving husband to a beleeving wifes use, as it is an instrumentall cause of a greater thing; namely, of justification, Rom. 5.1. And every one may boldly say, that the faith of the beleiving wife sanctifies the unbeleeving husband federally in this sence, to wit, as all outward things that have no holinesse in them, meat, drink, cloaths, carnall [Page 25]friends, &c. may be called federally holy to a beleever; that is, that they are and shall be for a beleevers good and comfortable use, by reason of the Covenant she is in with God; though her faith cannot sanctifie her unbeleeving husband federally for the Sacrament of Baptisme.

• 1. Because the line of the Covenant runs not To thee beleeving Woman and thy husband; or, To thee beleeving husband and to thy Wife. But to thee beleeving parent and thy seed.
• 2. Because whiles the woman is a beleiver; the husband is said here to be a known unbeleever, And whiles the husband is a beleiver, the wife is said to be a known unbeleiver, according to this, 1 Cor. 7.14. And all unbeleevers known to be such, by apparent Scriptures are not to be accounted federally holy, so as to belong to the Seal of the Covenant.
• 3. Mr Tombes affirmes after that the unbeleeving husband is sanctified TO the beleeving wife. The sanctification is not to her (as the Covenant of the father is to the Infant) but to her the beleever.

Which three Reasons makes me look on Mr. Tombes his comparison as a very strange one, as if not well weigh­ed, before it was uttered, viz. That it doth as well follow, saith Mr Tombes, from this place, that the unbeleeving husband is federally holy so as to be capable of Baptisme by the beleeving wives faith; as that the son is federally holy, and capable of Baptisme for the faith of the Parent. But let the candid Reader look back on what we have sayd on this, 1 Cor. 7. or look forward to the Scriptures, and judge whether this be not a very uneven comparison.

It is further objected by Mr T. that in this 1 Cor. 7. [...] IN THE WIFE) is more rightly rendred in Latine in the Dative (as TO THE WIFE. But we aske Mr Tombes in what latin is it so rendred? Not in the old lat. that is by. Not in Vatabl, that is also By. Not in Beza, that is in. Not in the Syr. that is also by. If you mean is to be rendred, or may or might be rendred better in the Dative TO, for which you bring seven in­stances. 1 We answer that those instances may be tolerably (at least) rendred in the ablative notion IN according to the note there of [...] In. As Gal. 1.16. To reveal his sonne [...] IN MEE, that is not onely by the sound of the word to mee, but by his spirit and the graces thereof, and the effectuall illuminations and operations of both experimentally IN MEE. So 2 Pet. 1.5. Giving all diligence add [...] in your faith, or through your faith vertue, that is that the rest of the graces may come in in­to faith, or through faith, into the soul, or that vertue may be in [Page 53]faith. As it is said Galathians 5, 6. faith [...] inwardly effectually working by love; That is Faith is ef­fectuall faith when true heart warming love is in it, breaking forth in act. Jam. 2. Mr Tombes doth know, that virtutes connectuntur morall vertues are connexed, much more when by a higher principle of the spirit, they are made theologicall graces; and he doth know that there are generall directive vertues (justice and prudence) as the eyes to all the rest, as master veines to all the lesser; And there­fore all vertues are said to be knit together in prudence; So all gra­ces in faith. If the understanding and the will be (as some learned will) the same faculty really, and the soul infused by the concreation of God at once, yet in order of working the act of understanding is first in nature. So though all the graces bee but one habit, infused at first at the same time; yet faith in Christ is first (as the Apostle setts it first in this 2 Pet. 1.5.) in order of acting, or of applying Christ for additionall infusion and augmentation of graces, which is Peters businesse in hand. And so faith adds vertue: vertue comes into the soul, in and through faith. So Act. 4.12. There is no o­ther name under heaven given [...] in men, into men (effectually) or extant in the midst of men, among men. So 1 Cor. 7.15. But God hath called us (mee and you Corinthiaens) [...] in peace, into peace setled us in a state of inward peace. So Math. 17.12. Elijah is already come (that is John Baptist) and you have done [...] in him whatsoeuer yee would, you have have chop­ped the axe into his neck; you have exercised your cruelty up­on him. So lastly, Act. 7.44. The Tabernacle of witnesse was [...], in the Congregation or Church of our fathers in the wildernesse, As they then are said to be a Church v. 38. 2 We answer to Mr Tombes his asser­tion (upon these instances) that if [...] be rendred, or better rendred To the wife, in (the dative case) it disadvantageth us nothing in the meaning of this text which before we have asser­ted. But helps us to Mr Tombes his confession, to agree with us now (contrary to his former struggle) in this, that the unbeleeving husband is not any how sanctified in himselfe, or to himselfe by the beleeving wife; but is sanctified onely to her. And there­fore is not sanctified from any thing common to both: But sancti­fied to her quâ beleever as shee is a beleever, and opposite to his condition of unbeliefe, and therefore her faith hath the onely stroke [Page 54]under Christ and his Spirit to sanctifie the unbeleeving husband as sanctifying is here meant.

Thus we have wearyed our selves and perhaps the reader in a long answer to a large argument. Yet in some sence, Non suns long a quibus nihil est quod demere possis. The rest which Mr Tombes speakes to this argument, is built upon this as to be granted (as he saith) that matrimoniall holines must needs be here meant; which we cannot grant, but can overthrow, and we hope have so done, though we have not said all that may be said. Only one thing Mr T. adds which is not founded upon his imagined supposition: Namely, whereas Beza (saith Mr T.) inferrs that if matrimoniall holynesse should be the sence of this place, the Apostle should draw an argu­ment from civill lawes to pacifie conscience: Mr Tombes answers that the Apostle using his Apostolicall authority resolves the doubt in this chapter, and teacheth that according to Gods law, and Christs precept, the marriage is not dissolved by the infidelity of either yoke-fellow, &c. To which we reply, that the Corinthians could not scruple about, not be ignorant of that, which for many ages was notoriously divulged throughout the Gentile World, by their civill lawes. They knew well enough who were adulterers and formicators, who not, by their politicke lawes. But their scruple is whether conjugall companying with an unbeleever did not spiri­tually pollute the beleever. In this the civill or politick lawes of men were silent and could not resolve it: And the rules of civill marriage could not satisfie; it being matter of faith.

CHAP. VII.

THe Argument from Mat. 19.15. Mar. 10.14.16. Luke 18.15, 16, 17. may be formed in divers manners:Exercitat. First thus;S. 6. The Ar­guments from Mat. 19.15. for Infant-Bap­tism, exami­ned. They are to be buptized, whom Christ commands to be brought to him, being moved with indignation towards his disciples that repelled them.

But Christ commands Infants to be brought to him. Ergo. That this Argument may be examined, it is to be considered:

• 1. Who they were that brought these children.
• 2. What little children they were that were brought.
• [Page 55]3. Upon what motives.
• 4. To what end.
• 5. What time.
• 6. In what place they brought them.
• 7. For what cause the Apostles did repell them.
• 8. For what cause Christ being angry with the Apostles, commanded them to be brought.

In many of these we have scarce any thing beside conjectures which we may follow, neither have I leisure or books to look into all things which Commentators have discoursed concerning these heads.

As for the 1 it is supposed that the bringers were either parents, or other beleevers, who at lest wished well to the little children; which is probable from the end for which they brought them, to wit, that he might blesse them, and pray for them; for this sheweth faith and love.

As for the second, it is probable they were children of Iews, be­cause this was done in the coasts of Iudea, Mat. 19.1. Mar. 10.1. But whether the parents of the children beleeved in Christ or o­therwise, is not manifest.

As for the third, concerning the motive, there is little certain, whether it were upon the sight, or hearing of that which Christ did Mat. 18.2. or from a custome among the Iews, of seeking the blessing of Prophets and holy men for their little ones, as Rebekah for Iacob, Ioseph for his sons; or from the fame of things done upon the pray­ers of Christ; or an instinct from God, that occasion might be gi­ven of teaching the things that Christ taught upon this matter; or some other motive.

As for the fourth, the end is expressed by Matthew, that he might put on hands and pray; by Mark and Luke that he might touch them, which tends to impart a blessing.

As for the fifth, Matthew points at the time, by the particle [then] and both Mark and Matthew, put it after the dissertation with the Pharisees concerning divorce, and the answer to the Disciples ex­ception, which Mark testifies was made in the house; Luke puts it after the parable of the Publican and the Pharisce, but he is wont to relate things out of their right place. But what the holy Spirit doth intimate, by noting the time precisely, I guesse not, unlesse perhaps he would have it noted that an occasion was opportunely ministred [Page 56]of amplifying the argument concerning making a mans self an Eu­nuch for the Kingdome of heaven, though this reason doth not very much like me.

As for the sixth, the place is intimated, Mat. 19.1. Mar. 10.1. in the coasts of Iudea, beyond Iordan, in Mat. By the farther side of Iordan, in Mark; about which it availeth not to our present purpose to inquire.

As for the seventh, the reason of repelling, is not known, but by conjecture, it is probable this bringing of little children, was trou­blesome to them, either because it did interrupt Christs Speech a­bout marriage, and fitnesse to the Kingdome of heaven, or because they sought rest in the house, or because they did think this bringing would be in vain.

As for the eighth, Christ without doubt, was angry with the Disciples, because they hindred the occasion of doing good to men, whereas Christ went about doing good, Act. 10.38. And in this businesse the faith of the bringers was to be cherished, and the pow­er of blessing in Christ was to be manifested, and the excellent do­ctrine to be delivered concerning little childrens being capable of the Kingdome of heaven, of the quality of them who receive the Kingdome of heaven; but whether Christ would that this fact should remain as a perpetuall rule for baptizing the Infants of belie­vers, is yet a question. It seemes scarce probable it should be so.

• 1 Because Baptisme of Infants, being meerly positive, so obscure and doubtfull an institution, is without example and reason.
• 2 Because we find no practise or hint in Scripture, which may expound this fact to this sense.
• 3 Because, if he had given a command to the Apostles of bapti­zing Infants, he had rather said, bring the little children to me, then suffer them to be brought to me.
• 4 He had declared whose Infants he would have baptized, and not have spoken so indefinitely, it is certain, before the command, Mat. 28.19, 20. There is no precept extant, concerning baptizing Gentiles, much less concerning baptizing the Infants of the Gentils.
• 5 The words, suffer & forbid not, and [...] these little children, as Beza reads, shew that Christs words are ment only of those childrē.
• 6 If this fact pertain to Baptism, thē we must say, that Christ bap­tized; the contrary whereof is said, Ioh. 4.2. As for that whic [...] is ob­jected, that 3 Evangelists rehearse this fact, that thence a perpetuall rule may be drawn, of bringing Infants to Christ by an outward Or­dinance, which is not done but by Baptisme, it is weak: For, [Page 57]
  • 1. Three Euangelists rehearse the bringing of the palsie man to Christ, the accesse of the leprous person to Christ, and many other things, from which yet no perpetuall rule is formed.
  • 2. If any rule be hence to be formed, that is to be perpetually observed, this relation will serve more fitly to establish Episcopall confirmation, by laying on hands, and praying, then Presbyte­riall baptisme.

Secondly, we must distinguish, concerning bringing to Christ; there is a bringing to Christ, by locall ad motion, there is another bringing to Christ by spirituall instruction; this bringing to Christ, is the cause of Baptisme, not the other: for many were brought by the command of Christ, to Christ, as the blind son of Timaeus, and others, of whose baptisme, or conversion we read not; for not all that were corporally healed by Christ, were also spiritually healed, as we are to say of the nine Lepers, Malchus, and others.

3 The Argument supposeth they may be baptized whom Christ commands to be brought; but neither is this true of spi­ritual bringing, for not those whom he commands to be brought spiritually are to be baptized, but those whom he hath brought. As for that which is said, that they are repelled from Christ, that are repelled from baptisme; It is a light thing, for baptisme doth not bring men to Christ, unlesse the persons be first in Christ. Neither is therefore any man repelled from Christ, because he is not bap­tized, but when he is kept back being sit for baptisme. The Ar­gument therefore is answered by denying the major, universally taken.

Mr. T. here reports divers forms of Arguments out of these places of Scripture quoted by him,Animadvers. and some of them he repre­sents to us very lamely formed, and therefore the easilier put off by him; but among all, not one so formed, as was wont among us, where I have been. I will urge therefore one form which per­haps will break the edge of most that Mr. T. hath answered here; and then I will consider what more is considerable in his answers to the forms he hath set down. Our Argument is this.

To whom indefinitely as such, heaven, and the blessing of and for heaven belongs, to them as such the seal of conveighance, or confirmation of heaven and that blessing belongs. For if the land be mine, the deeds and seals of conveighance are mine:

But heaven and the blessing of and for heaven belongs indefi­nitely to such little children, more, whiles little children; so the texts here expresly. To them belong, or (which is all one) of such is the kingdom of heaven, and he took them in his arms and blessed them. Therefore to little children indefinitely belongs the seal of con­veighance, or confirmation of heaven, and the blessing of heaven, which in the New Testament, according to the time Christ spake, is Baptisme.

Obj. Say the Anabaptists,S.D. though it be thus said of these little children, yet not of all.

Answ. Therefore we said to little children indefinitely, and so to be applyed to all such as these are; as it is said in these texts of such is the kingdom of heaven, &c. even as election, and the pro­mises of the Gospel were indefinitely so and so propounded in the Primitive times but to those then; yet by the same reason as pro­pounded to them, just so to be applyed to us. Now doubtlesse THE, or THAT same seed of Abraham, to wit, Christ, means such little children as agreed with the tenor of the Covenant to his fa­ther Abraham: namely, little children whose parents were repu­ted beleevers. And therefore these things spoken by our Saviour belong indefinitely to the like little children. As Mr. T. confesseth after that Mr. Beza renders it of these and the like infants.

Obj. But,S.D. say the Anabaptists, here is no mention of Baptisme.

Answ. But our argument infers Baptisme. 2 Here is mention of, and doing of an after-higher thing then baptisme, namely, confirmation of them by prayer, and imposition of handsThis Mr. T. confesseth in expresse words after in his an­swer to the 2 form of argu­ment from these texts, p. 19. of his Ex­ [...]rcit.. Now, if Christ speaks of, and doth such after higher things to such lit­tle children whiles little children, how much more may that which in nature antecedes and goes before these, namely, baptisme be administred to them whiles such little children?

For the clearing this of imposition of hands, learned Pareus hath these words on Hebr. 6.2.

And this was the doctrine of imposition of hands. So Pareus.

So Calvin, Bullinger, August, Marlorat, Hofman, Theophylact, one­ly they spake more home, if you precisely observe their words, which are [C] these, ‘The doctrine of Baptismes, imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and the last judgement ought to be read conjoynedly, with a certain Apposition (as the Grammarians call it) in this sence; Not laying again the foundation of repentance, of faith in God, of the resurrection of the dead, which is the doctrine of Baptisme, and Imposition of hands. Therefore if you include in a parenthesis these two sentences, the doctrines of Baptismes and Im­position of hands, the context will run more fluently. For unlesse you read it appositively, this absurditie will follow, that the same thing will be twise repeated. For what is the doctrine of Baptisme but that which he here reckons, to wit, Of faith towards God, of repentance, of the last judgement, and the like. The solemnities and standing set dayes of baptizing he cals Baptismes in the plu­rall numer, [T] otherwise there is but one baptisme in the Chri­stian Church. Ephes. 4.5. [C] He joyns together with baptisme, the imposition of hands, because as there were two orders of ca­techised persons, so there was a double ceremony. For those that were forreigners without, did not come to Baptisme, before they had made a confession of their faith. In them therefore catechi­sing was wont to go before Baptisme. But as for the children of beleevers, because they were adopted from the wombe, and by the right of the promise did appertain to the body of the Church, they were baptized when Infants. But being past infantie, after they were instructed in the faith, they offered themselves also to catechising, which in these followed baptisme. But another symbol or signe was applyed to these, namely, the imposition of hands. [A. M.] of which there was a various use [H.] For by imposition of hands sometimes Christ, sometimes the Apostles cu­red the sick. Luk. 4.10. Mar. 16.18. Sometimes by imposition of hands the holy Ghost was conferred. Act. 8.17. [B.] Also the hands of the Pastors were imposed upon those to whom, and to whose faithfulnesse was committed the care of the Church, or the Ministerie of the Word, 1 Tim. 5.21. [C] Imposition of [Page 60]hands also was a certain solemn right or manner of praying, of which the Apostle here speaks. (Hebr. 6.2.) For by this sym­bol or signe (of laying on of hands) they would approve that pro­fession of faith which young youth coming out of childhood, did make. Therefore this place alone abundantly testifies that the originall of imposition of hands came down from the Apostles.’ Thus far these learned mens words reasons and Scripture-proof. See more in Marlo. on 1 Tim. 5.21. But we may not omit Mr. Cot­ton, because he is in such credit with Mr. Tombes, that he oft re­spectively quotes him as for himself in his Exercit.

Mr. Cottons words on Hebr. 6.2. are these.Way of C [...]u: of N.E. Chap. 2. p. 27. of 1 edit. ‘There be that con­ceive, & that not improbable, that in ancient time the children baptized in the Church, were not received to the Lords Supper, nor into the full fruition of all Church-liberties, untill that they being grown up to yeers, did publickly before the Church professe their faith, and ratifie the covenant made for them in baptisme, and so were confirmed (as they call it) in their Church estate; which was not done without imposition of hands; which some judicious Divines have conceived to be one cause why imposition of hands is reckoned as one of the six prin­ciples of the foundation of Christian Religion, Hebr. 6.2. For it could not be a principle of the foundation of Christian faith; it must therefore be a principle of the foundation of Church estate, and order. Now then if all the members of the Church were anciently confirmed in the ful fruition of the Church estate by imposition of hands, then there were none of the members of the Church, but had received imposition of hands, much more the Ruling-elders, who over and above the former were ordained to their publick office, by imposition of hands; and so having re­ceived imposition of hands themselves, they might more freely lay hands on others. So Mr. Cotton.’

By all this it is clear, that this imposition of hands by Christ on these little children in the texts afore quoted, Matth. 17. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. according to the order set down by the Apostle, Hebr. 6.2. did succeed and follow after their baptisme, as supposed and granted to be baptised afore.

Obj. But say the Anabaptists, it is in the text, of such is the king­dom of heaven; that is, of men like infants.

Answ.

• 1. We heard afore how Mr. Beza renders it of these and [Page 61]the like, as relating to little children. And his grave and lear­ned pious judgement is as much to be credited as any Anabap­tist, in saying it is so or so.
• 2 The Greek Authors do oft take [...] such, for hoc, this.
  Bud. Const. Plaet.
• 3 If rendred such, its farre more naturall, and not so farre fetcht to say of such little children of whom the story is, then of such men.
• But fourthly, come to reason. Christ, Mar. 10.16. speaks of them whom he took up in his arms,
  Pass. Vessius.
  ( [...] of [...] and [...], an arm. Luk. 2.28. of [...] ulna. per epenthesin lite­rarum [...].) But he took up not the men, but the little children into his arms, and laid his hands upon them, and blessed them; there­fore of them he spake, and shewed that heaven and the blessing of heaven belonged to them.
• 5 That by discourse upon this, v. 15. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe, shall not enter therein, is also for us. For the thing and the comparison must agree in the main scope; but men must as little children receive the kingdom of God. Therefore little children are in a capacitie of that kingdom.
• 6 If we argue but from Christ laying on of hands up­on the little ones, according to their intent that brought them, v. 13. and blessing them; this is an argument sufficient that he meant that blessing, and consequently (if but from blessing) hea­ven did belong to those little ones. For [...] lay­ing his hands in them, must needs agree to [...], little children, not to [...], whosoever will not receive the kingdom as a childe; by reason of the gender, and number.

That objection of some Anabaptists, that Christ took them up in his arms of mercy; not of his body; is too frivelous (turning the naked history into an allegorie) and not worthy of an answer.

Now let us see what is left considerable in Mr. T. his answer to the first form of Argument out of Matth. 19. Mar. 10. &c. as he re­ports the Argument.

To his position (after his long Analysis of these places) That it is a question, scarce probable, whether Christ would have this fact remain as a perpetuall rule for baptizing the infants of beleevers. We answer. That the argument, as Mr. T. presents it to us, doth not say so: but onely intends to shew all things to have been in them that were necessary to put them into a capacitie, to receive baptisme. And that they are supposed here to have been afore baptized, be­fore they were brought to this higher addition of imposition of hands, and blessing.

To Mr. T. his 1, 2, 3, Reasons of that his conclusion, we like­wise say, that the argument doth not drive at an institution of baptizing infants here that I can perceive in the words.

To his fourth Reason our reply is: It is intimated here that Beleevers infants should be baptized, as we shewed but now, in our form of argument from these texts. And Christ speaks very in­definitely in Matth. 28. (quoted by Mr. Tombes) the grand place of Antipaedo baptists. When Mr. T. saith there is no precept extant con­cerning baptizing Gentiles, I suppose he means not absolutely. For is it not said, Matth. 28. Go baptise [...], all the (Gen­tile) nations, and therefore the Gentiles are not excluded. Or else the Apostles and Evangelists must be condemned for baptising the Ennuch, the Centurion, &c. without a rule. Or if Mr. T. means no rule extant here in Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. we have touch­ed already, that the words of the argument do not extend thi­ther. For Mr. Tombes his other expression in this fourth Reason, That there is no precept extant concerning the baptising the infants of the Gentiles; If he means this absolutely, we have shewed the contra­ry already out of Gen. 17. Matth. 28. Act. 15. and shall I trust speak more. If he means no precept here, Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. he speaks not to the argument.

To Mr. T. his fifth Reason, we say that [...] cannot be cer­tainly rendred, those little ones (istos puerulos, as Beza once hath it). For first the article is innumerable times redundant, and su­pervacaneous. Secondly, that if intended for an emphasis here, it would sound in my eare more harmoniously to the scope of the text thus; suffer those little ones, that you despise, because little ones; for I esteem them; for of such, &c. So that the emphasis relates to their age, little ones, not to their number, just those and no more. It ayms at their kind of condition, not individualitie of their persons. Thirdly, for. Mr. T. his authority of Beza, though in Matth. 19.14. he renders [...] (istos puerulos) those little ones, of which our best English translation takes no notice though the Translators much regarded him, yet the same Beza, in Mar. 10.16. Luk. 18.15. twise renders the same Greek phrase [...] puerulos, little children, without any those or the like terme.

To Mr. T. his sixth Reason out of Job. 4.2. it is not to any thing in the expresse of argument, as Mr. T. hath given it us. For that which follows, that some of us should object that three Evangelists [Page 63]rehearse this fact, that thence a perpetuall rule may be drawn, of bringing infants to Christ, by an outward ordinance, which is not done but by bap­tisme. To which Mr. T. saith it is weak for three causes he alledg­eth. Our reply is, we could wish from our heart, Mr. Tombes would have quoted where these arguments be, if in print. For we hard­ly come by this little time (as dear bought) to give these few Ani­madversions; and so have none super-abounding to look over all the books in Town of this argument to find a clause. Or else that Mr. T [...]mles would present us with every argument at first in full, that we might know whether it be the same mans prosecutions, or whether Mr. T. pickt it up elsewhere. I intend not to justifie ex­travagancies; or to make a substance of every circumstantiall ex­pression, that fals from any mans mouth, or pen. Or to say he fights with a bilbo-blade, when it is but a bulrush. But this I may say to the particular now in hand, that it is not nothing, that three Evangelists rehearse this fact of Christs blessing and promi­sing heaven to little children. That still they were brought to him for an outward ordinance, imposition of hands, that that or­dinance given to them, did suppose a former, namely, Baptisme (as we have shewed). And therfore if a little child be brought for the first ordinance that he as such is capable of (as children were of circumcision) it must be to baptisme. And this may be a rule.

To Mr. T. his first cause against the objection in his sixt Reason, we say onely this, that though 3. Evangelists rehearse the bring­ing of the palsey man to Christ, yet Christ doth not bid any to bring him, or further him to him; as he did of these little ones when he saw them kept off; as knowing he had imposition of hands and blessing for them, which he had not for many others. Christ did not onely cherish their faith that brought them (as Mr. T. af­firms) but also cherished that baptisme the children had received, and as Mr. T. confessed in the close of his Analysis, further mani­fested (out of his own mouth) that these little ones were capable of heaven. And yet thus much is to be said of the palsy man, that Christ seeing the bearers of him to uncover the roof of the house, yet neither he, nor the owners for his sake reproving that wrong done, which was a speciall intimation of invitation, it proved in the event, that Christ had a great ministeriall ordinance to be administred to him, namely, to pronounce to him the forgivenesse of his sins, Mar. 2.9. And from such instances as these, if Christ [Page 64]were now upon earth this rule might be drawn, that beleevers children, and poore sinners should be welcome to him. And if they, or by the help of their friends, shewed much desire of com­ing to him, in their speciall indeavour thereunto, Christ encou­raging, or conniving at their crowding toward him; sure it would fairly forespeak that they should get some spirituall good by one ordinance or another afore they returned.

To Mr. T. his second cause upon the objection in the fourth Reason, we have onely this. First, that if these texts, Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. will form a perpetuall rule for confirmation of children by imposition of hands; then it will suppose, that they are first baptized. Secondly, that confirmation as confirmation You heard of the original and manner of Scripture im­position of hands afore, though after abused in later ages. See Marlo. on Hebr. 6.2., is not Episcopall, no more then Baptisme of beleevers infants is Pres­byteriall; but both are Scripturiall (if I may so speak to eccho to Mr. T. his distinction.)

To the third cause in answer to the objection in this sixth Rea­son onely this; that this argument may well suppose that they had been baptized whom Christ commanded to be brought to him, and so commends this to them, That theirs is the kingdom of God, and blesseth them. Yea can Mr. T. himself suppose lesse then that they were fitter for baptisme, then many of the Jewish chil­dren for circumcision. And if fit matter (as is the Anabaptists own phrase) why not to have that for which they are fit.

Obj. O but there was no manifestation of their fitnesse.

Answ. Christ manifests it of children indefinitely, that of such is the kingdom of God; and to them is the blessing. And if Christ com­mands them to be brought spiritually, then sure his command prevails to make them to be brought spiritually. And if any be justly repelled from baptisme (the first seal) sure they can be no lesse then repelled from Christ for that, and for so long. Matth. 3. And if baptisme (taken in its full latitude) as an ordinance of Christ may not be said to bring any to Christ, to close with him; sure it cannot be properly said to bring them to Christ, after they be in Christ; but rather to confirm them in him.

To his denying the major; we say the major is universally true, if taken according to the sence and circumstances of the Scripture upon which it is grounded, namely, that Christ is most willing they should be brought to him, and commands them to be brought, to the end to pronounce them blessed, and tels us they [Page 65]are fit for it, heaven being theirs. But if the Proposition be taken as in the expresse of the text, indefinitely, there is no universall proposition to crosse it, as that no infants may have the first seal.

Secondly, saith Mr. Tombes, the argument from these texts,Exercit. p. 19 Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. for baptizing infants is this. Those whom Christ imbraced laid his hands on, blessed, may be bapti­zed: But Christ imbraced infants, &c. therefore.

Answ. This argument (saith Mr. T.) supposeth these acts of Christ, to have been all one as if he had baptized. But this is said without proof. In very deed that act of blessing was more then Bap­tisme, Note. and yet it had not the same reason with baptisme. Job. 4.2. Christ did not baptize, but his disciples. But that blessing was an act by which he obteined some singular gift from God, by pray­ers for those infants, upon whom he laid his hands. Nor is this benefit said to be bestowed on them for the faith of their parents, but of singular favour with Christ, as Lazarus with his sisters, John the Apostle, &c. therefore the major proposition is to be de­nied. For there is no connexion between this fact, which is extra­ordinary, and the act of ordinary ministery, which is to be ful­filled, according to the Lords prescription.

We answer to Mr. T. his preamble before his answer.Animadvers.

• 1 That it doth not appear by the argument, nor by report, nor by any thing that I have read, that the Author of this argument or any else ever held, that this fact of Christ in blessing the little ones, &c. was all one with Baptisme.
• 2 That this fact doth suppose a fitnesse in infants for the lesser, viz. Baptisine, that are fit for the greater, namely blessing, as here (which Mr. T. now confessed to be greater then baptisme.)
• 3 This doth suppose that these infants (as Mr. Tombes here cals them) had received baptisme before they were blessed thus by Christ. For we find many impositions of hands in the Scripture; but conferred on none that I know, but on such as formerly had been baptized, yea supposed to have grace. See before, in our form of argument on these texts of Matt. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. and the learned on Hebr. 6.2.
• 4 That their baptisme was bestowed on them for the faith of their parents, their parents being by all means to be supposed to be beleevers living in the Church of the Jews and circumcised; and now they (for who more likely) bringing their children to Christ after the Jewish custome, as to some great Prophet, these children after [Page 66]their baptisme have this blessing bestowed upon them.
• 5 I do not find where or what that is Mr. T. means touching Lazarus and his sisters, and John. But Mr. Tombes will not find us a place or parti­cular where any were blessed by Christ, with this solemne form of blessing, which was not onely by lifting up of hands in prayer; but with laying down of hands upon them; but by all circum­stances it presupposeth baptisme, if not a manifestation of grace too.
• 6 Mr. T. will not find any imposition of hands for spirituall use upon any in the New Testament but on such as by all means must be supposed to have been baptized. As in the old Testament the Patriarks layed not their hands of blessing, but on those that had been circumcised.

Secondly, to Mr. T. his deny all of the major Proposition, as if there were no connexion between this blessing and baptisme. We say first, there is a connexion in the things, as between the foun­dation, and the edifice, as between first and second, the second supposing the first. And there is a connexion in the argument à fortiori. If the greater be done, which is not done till after the lesser; then the greater supposeth the lesser as its introductorie.

To the touch, that this blessing by Christ by imposition of hands was extraordinary:

• 1 It was not extraordinarie, that is unusuall, for it was customary with the Patriarks and Prophets to lay on hands, and blesse them that had the 1 seal, circumcision.
• 2 If extraordinary signifies supernaturall, so is every ordinance, both in the institution, and efficacie supernaturall.
• 3 If extra­ordinarie be put here to signifie extraordinary gifts, above ordina­rie saving grace, or the increase of it; there is nothing in these texts to make it out. For here is nothing to represent the same but confirmation of saving grace; other miracularie or superemi­nent gifts to act withal, were not given to children, that we read.
• 4 That though imposition of hands did sometimes signifie and conveigh extraordinary miraculary gifts, and callings to offices upon men; yet imposition did betoken usually, ordinary grace and things for men and children as we shewed afore, and more might be shewed out of Hebr. 6.2.

The third Argument which Mr. T. presents to us (as ours) out of these texts of Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. is this.Exerci. p. 19. They may be baptized, whose is the kingdom of heaven. But of infants is the kingdom of heaven. Erge.

1. Mr. T. Answ. The Major (saith he) is true, if it be understood of those whose is the kingdom of heaven, when it appears the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. Secondly, It is not said in the text [of infants is the kingdom of heaven] but of such it the kingdom of heaven. And Christ expounds what he means, Mar. 10.25. Euk. 18.17. to wit, of them who in humilitie of mind are like little children, as it is Matt. 18.3, 4. but if [of such] be to be expounded as Beza would annotat in Mat. 19.14. [of these and the like] as above, Mat. 18. it is not proved from thence that the kingdom of heaven perteins to all infants of beleevers, but to them whom he blessed, and to those persons who either are so blessed, or are converted, and humble as little children. Whence we deny, first, the major if taken universally. Secondly, the minor as it is put indefinitely.

We answer. To what Mr. T. saith in the first place.Animadverse 1 That Mr. T. his answer to the major is a meer repetition, if not a begging of the question, that none whiles infants are to be baptized?

2 There was a contrary rule in the old Testament, and part of the New, that infants of reputed beleevers should have the first seal of circumcision.

3 There is no such rule for limitation (as Mr. Tombes mentions) expressed in all the New Testament, That none may be baptized till it appeared the kingdom of heaven belonged to them, as Mr. Tombes means. For he must mean a certaintie of appearance, or else he saith little to purpose. For federall right was an appearance in the old Testament. I have no list now to dispute upon the faith, or con­fession mentioned usually at the baptizing of men by John Baptist, and some others: Their words short and generall, that Christ was the Son of God; or that they were sinners, and their affections cold, for any good fruits we can find that followed from most towards Christ all his life time, or to his disciples, but many times bad; some called Disciples falling off from Christ. Job. 6.66. Others such, as though called beleevers, yet Christ would not com­mit himself to them, knowing what was in them. Joh. 2.23, 24, 25. Ana­nias, Saphira, and Simon Magus foully falling away anon after their baptisme. But this I would fain know of the Anabaptists, all things considered, first, whether there be a rule in the New Testa­ment, in so many words (as they require for infant baptisme) touching baptizing people of ripe yeers, and injoyned upon them afore their baptisme; as may put it out of doubt, or at least make [Page 68]a close spirituall discovery, that to them did belong the kingdom of heaven? Secondly, whether it be not as good an appearance that the kingdom of God belongs to the infants of a standing professor (manifesting his faith by many spirituall experiences) because it is said by God, I am the God of thee, and thy seed (which I trust Mr. T. will acknowledge to be true in the New Testament to be­leeving parents to apply it to themselves concerning their in­fants) as is that appearance that the kingdome of God belongs to a sudden confessour of ripe yeers, that he is a sinner, that Christ is the Son of God, that he desires to be baptized, heard and seen by mans sences but since yesterday, or the day before, or a short time since? I appeal to the generall practise of the Anabaptists in their re-baptizing, seriously to understand what I say. I know how some would heighten that generall confession that Christ was the Son of God; from the opposition made against it in Christs time. But let them not forget that if this confession by their grant went along with baptisme, that then it was entertained as well as baptisme. And the chief Priests and Elders of the people durst not say Johns baptisme was from men, For they feared the people Matt. 21.25. Mar. 11.29., lest the people should stone them Luk. 20.6.. The people were got to such a head, as to hurl away fear of being baptized, according to the con­comitants thereof: multitudes coming from all parts to be bap­tized, Matth. 3. none controuling, that we read, yea the Sadduces and Pharisees also offered themselves to baptisme, ibid. Matth. 3.7. And for Christ, the Rulers durst not take him on the feast day for fear of an uprore among the people. Matth. 26.5. Adde to all, that at Johns baptizing the multitudes, there is no mention of any thing, but of confessing their sins; and that they might do with­out any shew of danger of persecution; and many wretched men may do, and have little right to the kingdom of God.

Again we answer to that Mr. T. speaks, Secondly, thus.

• 1 That Mr. T. doth not stand to his exposition of that sentence, Of such is the kingdom of heaven, not to signifie infants but humble men. For Mr. T. speaks after, with an [if] if of such be otherwise to be expounded, then so and so he answers. At (que) iter explorat. Mr. T. doth but try, which way he may go; which nay I will be driven.
• 2 Though we have said much already
  See before on our form of argument, on these texts, Matth. 19. Mar 10. Luk. 18.
  for proof that of such must relate to the infants, yet we now adde this:
  • 1 That of such is the kingdom of God, is given as a reason why the disciples should suffer little children to come unto him; For (saith he) of [Page 69]such is the kingdome of God. Now this would have been but a strange peece of sence from Christs mouth; suffer little children to come, &c. For heaven belongs to humble men of ripe yeers.
  • 2 That therefore the reason may hold good, children must at least be in­cluded in such as a part.
  • 3 That little children must be mainly included; because these are propounded as the originall as it were; the humble men but the copie. These men do but write after those infants as their sample or pattern.

Obj. But Mr. T. saith, Christ expounds the word such, Mar. 10.15. Luk. 18.17. of men who in humilitie of mind are little children.

Ans. Mr. T. must not call Christs occasionall discourses, and allusions, expositions. See Luk. 14.15. For at a civill feast he takes occasion to speak of a spirituall eating in the kingdom of heaven; yet this is not the exposition of that. A multitude of like instan­ces might be given. So when Christ saith here, Mar. 10.15. Who­soever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe, shall not enter therein. It is spoken occasionall, as in a parenthesis, which may be left out, and the sence of the story of blessing the little children, as to whom heaven did belong, stand full and perfect. Or as that which may be put last, as done last after Christs whole speech and acti­on to the little ones, and so it is put last, Luk. 18.17. spoken by Christ to quip those that kept off the little ones from Christ (as esteeming them, or the motion of bringing them to Christ, con­temptible) as if Christ said to them, you had need look to your selves that ye be so happy as little children, &c. By all which it appears that this speech about men is not of the body, or sub­stance of the solemnitie of blessing the little ones, or of the doctrine why they should be permitted to be brought to Christ, but is one­ly a circumstance, and cause made to the standers by. As for Mat. 18.3, 4. there is not a tittle of Christs blessing little ones; but the pride of the disciples occasioning Christ to set a childe before them for a text, out of which to preach humilitie to them.

Obj. But lest this exposition of such, that is, humble men, should not stand firm, but fall before some such reasons as we have given, Mr. T. provides another exposition: That of such must not signifie all infants of beleevers, but onely them whom he blessed, and those persons who either are so blessed, or are converted and humble as little children.

Answ.

• 1. Christ doth not say, [...] of these, but [...], of such.
• [Page 70]2 Christ speaks indefinitely; who shall presume to restrain him with Ifs and Ands? The Apostle saith, Act. 2. more precisely to you are the promises; yet may not we apply that to us, when we are pincht in heart for sin? being whatsoever things were written afore, (as the Apostle speaks, Rom. 15.4.) were written for our instruction, or learning, that we through patience and COMFORT of the Scrip­tures might have HOPE, for us and ours.
• 3 What ever persons else this may be extended to, by Mr. Tombes, that doth not ex­clude other beleevers infants. Positâ una affiematione, &c. one affir­mative doth not take away another.

For Mr. Tombes his denying major or minor, we leave the Reader to judge by that which hath been said. Those on whom Christ layed his hands, must be supposed to have been baptized afore. Or if Mr. Tombes could evince they were not, contrary to the custome of the Scriptures; yet they must be as fit or more fit for baptisme then imposition.

CHAP. VIII.

THe Argument from the place,E [...]cercit. Sect. 7. The argument from Act. 15.16. &c. for Infant Bap­tisme exami­ned. Act. 16.15.32.33. Act. 18.8. 1 Cor. 1.16. is thus formed: If the Apostle baptized whole housholds, then Infants; but the Apostle baptized whole house­holds, Ergo,

Answer. This Argument rests on a sleight conjecture, that there were Infants in those houses, and that those Infants were baptized, whereas the words of the Text evince not these things, yea, those things which are said, Act. 16.32. He spake the Word of the Lord to him, and to all in his house; and vers. 33. He rejoyced, belee­ving God with all his house. Act. 18.8. Crispus believed the Lord with his whole house, do plainly prove, that under the name of the whole house, are understood those onely that heard the Word of God and beleeved. Whence it is answered by denying the consequence of the major Proposition.

We reply.Animad. If this be but a sleight conjecture whether there were Infants in these houses, why do the Anabaptists proclaim with such confidence, that for certain there was none; and that there is for certain no instance in the New Testament of any baptized? Me thinks they should leave it at least uncertain, when they say [Page 71]it is uncertain. 2 It is not so sleight a conjecture to all, as to Mr. Tombes, whether there were children. For the Syr. in the story, Act. 16. hath it [...] He, the Goaler, [...] and the children [...] of his house, Vid. Schindl. de voce, [...]. & Buxt. Sure enough a son of eight dayes old, is a son. And if sons of the house, then some sons of the father of the house, what ever notes may be put on the text different from the words in the text. 3 It is not so plainly pro­ved, that under the name of the whole house, children or infants are not understood: First, because when the holy Ghost mentions house, it means children too, if there be no expresse exception. Gen. 50.22. (for they abounded with children, Exod. 1.) So 1 Tim. 3.5. for there is mention of the children, v. 4. I omit many other instances for brevities sake. Secondly, where by house, children are not included, they are expresly excluded. Gen. 50.7, 8. And Jo­seph went to bury his father, and all the house of Joseph went, onely their little ones they left in Goshen. Numb. 16.32, 33. And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up and all their houses, and all the men that appertained to Korah. Numb. 26.11. notwithstanding the chil­dren of Korah dyed not. Thirdly, it is distinctly said, Act. 16.32. that Peter spake the word to the goaler, and to all, [...], IN his house, which is more then to all OF his house. The holy Ghost makes some such distinction, Rom. 9.6. They are not all [Is­rae that are [of] Israel. So that all IN the Goalers house seems to be put to include those prisoners at large, and others that were not of his family, but onely in his house at that time; by reason of the hurry and noise of the prison open, &c. running together to see what was the matter. Fourthly, He spake the Word to all in his house, is a speech that may not absurdly in some propor­tion be extended to children, when something by it redounds to children, (as it is said John leaped in the wombe of his mother Eli­zabeth, And Elizabeth was filled with the holy Ghost at the salutation of Mary. And Act. 2. The promise is to you and your children; for they should be the better for this.) The Word was spoken, was extend­ed to the goalers children, in that by his faith they were nearer to and in a readier capacitie of salvation, then before, when the fa­ther was an enemie. What means else that v. 31. Believe THOƲ and thou shalt be saved, and THINE HOƲSE. Can we possibly ex­clude here some that were not able to hear the Word distinctly? Fifthly, it is said signanter, acuratcly, and by way of distinction [Page 72]for him and his, [...], And HE was bap­tized, and all THOSE that were HIS. How can this be true; if those children he had were not baptized? And therefore Mr. Tombes was too bold to speak that latter clause, That it was a sleight conjecture if any infants were here, that they were baptized. If they were in this house, as sure they were baptized, as that they were the Goalers. Sixthly, to that ver. 34. He rejoyced, believing God [...]h all his houshold (which is one of Mr. Tombes his evin­cing arguments) we say, that the Greek must be accuratly heed­ed, that we may speak just so as the Spirit spake. For first, that which divers render confidently with all his house, is but [...], an Adverbe; which signifies neither with, nor his, nor house, but through­out, or over all the house or family 2 That the pointing, and placing of the words in the English doth not answer so well to the best Greek copies as it may. For the Greek copies that Arius, Pagn, old lat (which followeth an ancient Greek, and therefore very con­siderable in its various readings of words and points, saith lear­ned Ʋsher) put away the point at rejoyced, so that no more can be evinced but that which is in the words, which is this. HE joy­ed with exultation or triumph over towards or throughout all his house or family, HE having believed God. So just according to the true idiom, and proprietie, and order of words, in all Greek copies, and according to the pointing in the best; reason assenting, for why did he exult, or skip (as in a dance of a Galliar as the Greek imports) with triumph: but because he beleeved. He believing re­joyced triumphantly; He rejoycing with triumph, his families joyes were raised and lightned; even children smile, when the parents rejoyce. Let them therefore look to this, that mash the Text, and un pronounce, unperson, and unnumber the words, and dispoint the sentences, as if it were to be read, the Goaler rejoy­ced because all his family actually believed. 7 That though Mr. T. answers to Crispus, yet nothing to Gaius Co [...]sult. 3. ep. of Joh. v. 1. And the new Notes on the Bible upon it. (for sure he had a family as well as Crispus) nor to the family of Stephanas. Is any Anabaptist sure there were no infants in these families? Or that they were not baptized? why then do they put it upon us, as an infallibilitie, that no infants were baptized in these families, or any else? For that of Crispus, Mr. T. and I must leave it as we find it. It appears not evidently in the Grammar of the words that Crispus was baptized.

CHAP. IX.

SOme other Arguments occur,Exercitat. which make a number with­out strength.

Why then doth Mr Tombes reckon upon ciphers?Animadver. [...],Exercitat. § 5. The Ar­gument from generall pro­mises for In­fant-baptisme examined. it is argued from generall promises made to the godly and their seed, Exod. 20.6. Psal. 112.2. &c. Whence it is gathered, That God makes a difference between the children of the godly and the wicked; that he promiseth blessing to those, not to these; therefore the children of the godly are to be baptized, not the other.

Answ. The promises recited, are first generall and indefinite: secondly, for the most part concerning corporall good things; thirdly, with the exception of free Election; fourthly, to be un­derstood with the imployed condition of faith and repentance, and so they serve not to this purpose.

We Reply, to the first: If generall and indefinite from God,Animadver. therefore not to be restrained by men from all those God mentions.

To the second, If for the most-part concerning corporalls, yet Mr T. dares not say altogether: If some spirituals meant, it is to the purpose: secondly, In Exod. 20.6. The judgements there on sinne must needs signsfie those that are spirituall; therefore, by the Anti­thesis, spirituall mercies must be understood. Thirdly, In that 112. Psal. v. 2. To expound that, The seed of the upright shall be blessed, that is, with outward things, were to say they should have no more then what multitudes, if not most of wicked mens children have; which in Gospell-English were to say, they are cursed. Their table may be made a snare, Psal. 69.22. And these are the ungodly that prosper in the world, Psal. 73.12.

To the third: That the promises to men of ripe years also are with the exception of Free Election. So Rom. 9.18. Speaking of them that stood in opposition over against rebellious Pharaoh.

To the fourth, we say: first, That promises must be considerable in the eyes of men, so as to come & waite under the pressing them, or else they will not be comfortable meanes to work actuall faith and repentance in them. Secondly, That Mr T. cannot say that In­fants are uncapable of faith: For if Iohn Baptist, whiles a child, [Page 74]was full of the holy Ghost; sure he had that fruit of it, faith, in the habit. And those little ones Ghrist blessed, could not be blessed without union with Christ, which is by the spirit of faith.

Secondly,Exercistat. § 9. The Ar­gument from Isa. 49.22. for Infant-bap­tisme exami­ned. from Isai. 49.22. it is foretold that Gentiles should therefore the Prophet foresaw in Spirit the baptisme of the little ones of the Gentiles.

Answ. First, little ones might be brought for other ends then baptisme, as Mat. 19.15.

Secondly, I will use the words of Francis Iunius in his Annota­tions on the place, All these things are said Allegorically, of the spi­rituall amplification of the Kingdome of Christ, as the Prophets are wont; they are fulfilled in the perswasions in which the Gentiles exhorted their children to imbrace Christ.

We Reply.Animadver. To the first: That Infants in that place, Mat. 19.15. were brought for an higher thing then Baptisme (as we shewed, and Mr T. confessed afore on that Text) therefore might be brought to a lower. viz. Baptisme. Secondly, sure they should bring their children to the congregations of the Churches, to which Kings and Princes shall submit spiritually (as Constantine, &c. did) and this the Gentile parents should do, for their children in bringing them, upon the lifting up of Gods hand and Standard; that is, the prea­ching of the Gospell, (as Mr T. his Iunius note son that place:) And therefore must bring their children whom they were fain to carry in their Armes, and on their shoulders, for somewhat these children might have from the Gospell, (or else as good they had been left at home in the cradle or bed:) And there is no former or lower Ordinance for children then the first Seal, as in the Old Testament, so in the New.

To the second: The words of Iunius: We Reply, first, So the Gentiles might exhort their children; but it must be long after they ceased to carry them in their armes, and on their shoulders; when they could more then go of themselvs. 2. Take Calvins words into the ballance with Iunius. The Prophet pronounceth, That the children of the Gentiles should be given to the Church. But how, if not in and by the first Ordinance (if not the least) Baptisme?Exercitat. § 20. The Ar­gument from 1 Cor. 10.2. [...]isme exami­ned.

Thirdly, from 1 Cor. 10.2. All our Fathers were baptized, there­fore also Infants.

I answer, first, if this verse prove that Infants were baptized, the verses following will prove that they received the Lords Supper.

2. The sence is not they were formerly Baptized with the right of Baptisme begun by Iohn, and Ordained by Christ; but that by a like representation, the sea and the cloud signifie Salvation to them by Christ, as Baptisme doth to us; and that they were in like condition, as if baptized.

We have said a little to this Text before in Chap. 3. In reply to Mr T. his Answer to Coloss. 2.11. we add,Animadver. In reply to Mr. T. his first Answer. First, That it was not so necessary, nor so pro­bable that the sucking children, that lived on their mothers milk, and the milk of the Heards driven along with them, should eate Manna and drink water; as it is infallible that they were baptized in the red Sea and in the Cloud.

Secondly, It is said expresly, They were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea, but not that they all ate the Lords Supper, either be­cause the Infants did not eate the Manna, and drink the water of the rock; or that there might be no hint for us to carry children to the Lords Supper; but hearken to the rule, Let him that will eate of that worthily, examine himself, 1. Cor. 11.

Thirdly, If Mr Tombes could prove that the Jews Infants did eate the Lords Supper in the wildernesse; it being then not against the rule for children that could eate flesh and bitter herbes (and therefore were of some age) to eate the second Sacrament, the Passeover; yet this makes nothing for Mr Tombes, that we should be afraid to say They were baptized: For we can say boldly That there is no expresse command to forbid the Baptizing of children; and yet it will not follow that Infants must receive the Supper too under the New Testament, because there is an expresse rule to forbid it.

To the second Answer of Mr T. We Reply, first, That they were really baptized in the cloud and red sea; and with a Baptisme in­stituted by one greater then Iohn; namely, by that Rock that fol­lowed them, or went along with them, CHRIST, 1 Cor. 10.4. And this Baptisme had the precedency in seniority, and of bringing the first tydings of the New-Testament-Baptisme. Yea the cloud had a capacity to resemble as wel the baptism of the fire of the Spirit (of which the Jews were aware, as appears in the Rabbins Com­mentary) as of water; and the Sea called the red Sea, being so by [Page 76]weeds or other wise had an aptnesse to sound of, and resemble blood; and therefore no lesse fit to be the Symbols or Elements of Baptisme, then river water now.

For the two last lines of Mr Tombes his answer. Namely, [But by a like representation, the sea and the clould signified salvation to them by Christ as Baptisme doth to us, and that they were IN A LIKE CONDITION, as if they had been baptized] We need say no more but to thank him for them. For if the Sea and the cloud signified the same salvation by Christ, and that ac­cording to the mind of Christ, whose Text the 1 Cor. 20. is; and that they were in the like condition as if baptized with New Testament Baptisme, and called baptisme by divine authority; and the Jews are said in regard of it, to be baptized; and that it did represent the State of the New Testament: I know not what materiall thing can be alleadged to enervate and weaken the Argument, that as the Jews children and Infants were baptized in the cloud and the red sea; so may the children of converted Gentiles be baptized with water under the New Testament. Mr B. his objection, that it was extraordinary Baptisme, makes for us. For if the Jews Infants were capable, and did in the Old Testament partake of extraordi­nary Baptisme; then sure it cannot be denyed to Beleevers Infants in the New.

Fourthly,Exercitat. § 11. The Ar­gument from Ephes. 5.26. Examined. from, Ephes. 5.26. Mr T. represents to us our Argu­ment, thus. It is said there that Christ clensed the Church, with the washing of water, through the word. Therefore Infants either be­long not to the Church, and so are excluded from the benefit of Christs death; or they are to be baptized.

Mr T. his Answer is: If this Argument be of force, the theef crucified with Christ, and repenting on the crosse, Infants, Cate­chumeni, Martyres, &c. dying before Baptisme, are excluded out of the Church, and from the benefit of Christs death. We are there­fore to say, That either the Church is taken for the more famous part of the Church, or that purification is to be understood of that which is for the most part.

Our Reply is: First, That the processe of the Argument is not of an impossibility preventing Baptisme; As in the Theef, the In­fants of Beleevers, Catechumeni, (that is, heathens or unbeleevers children catechised for Baptisme) Martyrs, newly converted, that were prevented by death, before possibly baptism could be duly ad­ministred [Page 77]to them. For in such cases, where an Ordinance cannot be had, God doth save without an Ordinance, by his Royall Preroga­tive: But the Argument proceeds of a voluntary exclusion, upon mans judgement, judging infants of beleevers unfit to be admitted to baptisme; and so these absurdities will follow against such ex­cluders. That Infants of beleevers belong not to the Church, and so nor Christ to them. For these go together, Ephes. 2.12. Where [...] must be understood of the Church-policy, Church-privi­ledges, not the Common-wealths policy, or else Common-wealth must be understood as including, or twisted with the Church.

To Mr T. his distinction of the more famous part of the Church, we Reply. First, it is a venterous speech to say that any part of the Church is infamous; or to say that Christ hath no Ordinance, as alove expression, and care for his Lambes, his lesse famous ones, which is manifested in his charge to Poter, Iohn 21. And Mat. 19. Mar. 10. Luke 18. expressed in his welcoming, and blessing little ones; and in that, this speech, Ephes. 5.26. The relative, IT RE­FERRS to the Church in the former verse, Christ gave himselfe for the Church. Now did not (I pray you) Christ give himselfe for the Infants of beleevers indefinitely?

To Mr T. his distinction [for the most part] we say: first, That if Mr T. can so easily coine that distinction here, why might he not afore, when he said that all the housholds, or the whole housholds heard the word, or rejoyced. Secondly, whether or no the many children, that most beleevers have, may not be taken in within the most part. For sure Mr T. doth not mean purified for the most part, for then he grants a supposition, That Beleevers and their children are purified in some part.

Fifthly, (saith Mr T.) They argue from 1 Pet. 2.9. Beleevers are called a chosen generation, a holy nation, Exercitat. §. 12. The Ar­guments from 1 Pet. 2.9. Examined. which things are said of the Israelites, Exod. 19. [...], 6. Therefore beleevers of the Nations obtain the same birth priviledges, which the Israelites had, and therefore the children are within the Covenant, and to be baptized, as the children of the Israelites were to be circumcised.

Mr T. his Answer is, first, If this Argument proceed, it will fol­low that there is some Nationall Church among the Gentiles, as of old among the Jews, which is not to be granted, which I would have understood in this sence, There is now no such Nationall-Church, as amongst the Israeliets, so as that a person should be ac­counted a member of a Church, in that he is an Englishman, Sco [...], [Page 78]Dutchman, &c. In this speech JOPPOSE NOT THEM WHICH AFFIRME,Note. THE OUTWARD GO­VERNMENT OF THE CHURCH SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO NATIONALL SYNODS. Secondly, Exod. 19.5, 6. God speakes not of a priviledge flowing from birth, but Obedience. Thirdly, The Epistle was written to the dispersed Jews, and therefore the Argument lies lyable to ex­ception, when it is drawn from that which is said of the Jewes, as if it were said of the Gentiles. Fourthly, The sence is, ye which beleeve, ver. 7. whom God hath called out of darknesse, are a holy Nation, whether Iews or Gentiles, by spirituall regeneration, as be­leevers are called a family, or kinred, Ephess. 3.15. The houshold of faith, Gal. 6.10. The house of God, 1 Tim. 3.15. A people, 1 Pet. 2.10. Wherefore in this family, kinred, house, people, are onely beleevers, whom not carnall birth, but spirituall, causeth to be rec­koned in that number.

We Reply,Animadver. to Mr T. his first particular, thus: The Argument in my eye doth not proceed to suppose some Nationall Church among the Gentiles. For it doth not say [The Nations of belee­vers] but [The Beleevers of Nations] obtaine the same birth privi­ledges. Besides, it recites a text written to the Iewes who were scattered (from being a formall Nation) throughout Pontus, Gala­tia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Chap. 1. v. 1. And when they were a formall Nation, a person was not counted a member of that Church quatenus ipsum precisely as he was a Iew, but as he was circumcised, or the Infant of one circumcised, and so to be cir­cumcised also. A Iew was cut off, if not circumcised accor­ding to the institution to Abrabraham, Gen. 17. And a Gen­tile though a Gentile was a member of that Church, if circum­cised, Ibid. Gen. 17. Just as an Englishman, as an Englishman, was not reckoned a member of the Church, or Churches in England, if un­fit to be Baptized, but kept out; or a damnable Heretick after Bap­tisme, but was cast out; or if one be not the Infant of one baptized. Though Mr Tombes seemes to oppose Nationall Churches, yet he sets them up thus far (wherein those of his judgement in the Que­stion in hand, I mean the ANABAPTISTS WILL NOT APPROVE Mr TOMBES) That the outward govern­ment of the Church should be SVBIECT to NATIO­NALL SYNODS. Nor will Mr Tombes please himself [Page 79]with the direct inference that will follow from his expresse words, which inference is this; That if a Nationall Synod in England, shall determine that Infants of Beleevers shall be baptized, whiles Infants; Mr. T. must SVBIECT to it, and lay down all his Exercitat. Exami­nation, and Appendix against the baptizing of beleevers Infants, as la­bour in vaine, cancelled writings, an old Almanack. For Mr Tombes hath not, in a matter of so great consequence, reserved to himself (by any expresse here) so much as this exception, That he will not SVBMIT, in case they determine contrary to the Scriptures in his judgement; but that he will have his liberty to stand out against the determination. If any can at the first sight of this, suddenly di­vine, and Edict by Proclamation, that this exception was supposed, it may be as suddenly and rationally argued back again, that this would have been sooner understood of the vulgar, and readier been beleeved of the wiser, if it had been here expressed. But if they will have it supposed, then the Question will be, first: Whether Mr T. according to his design, hath prevented all offence to any of whom he would be rightly understood touching Nationall Synods? Se­condly, What greater thing hath he said than divers others, with whom yet he doth not (for ought I know) close in point of Church-Government?

To Mr T. his second reply, touching Exod. 19.6. That the place being spoken to the parents (suppose upon condition of obedience) doth no way infringe, that the children of those obedient parents, should be counted of that holy Nation, that is, among the reputed holy of that Nation, witnesse their Circumcision, and their no-ca­pacity of disobedience.

To the third particular we reply, That this Epistle being writ­ten to the dispersed Jews, leanes pronly for application to the Gentile-beleevers, that though they are as a dispersed people among the unchristian. Christian called-nations, yet their Infants with them are to be accounted (indefinitely) holy, as the children of circum­cised Jews were counted holy.

To Mr T. his fourth particular, we reply, That there is nothing in it that doth evince, that the children of the regenerate should not be accounted federally among the beleeving Gentiles of the more more glorious New Testament, as among the Jews under the sha­dowed Old Testament.

Sixthly it will be answered (saith M. T.) that the Church of GodExercitat. [Page 80]failes not;§ 13. The Ar­gument from the Churches sayling, if In­fant-baptsme be not lawfull, Examined. But we must say the Church of God hath failed, if Bap­tisme of Infants be not lawfull: Ergo.

Mr T. Answ. 1. The Church of God may consist without bap­tisme, as in the crucified converted thief, &c. Secondly, neither perhaps, is it necessary to be said, that the baptisme of Infants be­cause not lawfull, is therefore null. Thirdly, there was in the Church Baptisme of persons grown, in all ages: Ludov.|Vives in his Com­ment. upon Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. 1. cap. 27. hath these words; No man of old was brought unto the place of holy baptisme, unlesse he were of grown age already, and when the same person knew what that mysticall water meant, and desired to be washed in it, and that more then once; an image of which thing we see yet, in our baptisme of Infants; for as yet the Infant, though born the same day, or the day before, is asked, whether he would be baptized, and that thries; for whom the sureties answer, that he would. I beare in some Cities in Italy, that the old custome, for a great part, is yet preserved.

We reply; To the first particular. First doth one converted thees continue the church?Animadver. 2 Or if an accident that many by divine pro­videntiall necessity are bolted and debarred from an ordinance for a certain time, doth not interrupt the Churches succession, when God by his prerogative will continue it; Can at another time wil­full neglect of an Ordinance in a right manner, yea the applying of it grossely to the wrong parties (as the Anabaptists pretend both and proclaime thereupon a nullity of Baptisme of such persons) justifie that then and there is a due succession of the Church? Yet thus hath the Baptisme of beleevers infants ten thousands for one of ripe years, continued in Holland, Scotland, England, and other Chur­ches in France and Germany (and where other-wise) beyond the memory of the oldest man alive: Where then hath been the succes­sion of the Church all that while, according to the principles of the Anabaptists, touching childrens Baptisme? Sure they will not hold the preaching of the Word an infallible essentiall note of a Church so long as whiles Infants grow up to be men. For true preaching of the word of God on the preachers part may be to hea­thens. Doubtlesse (as M. P. and Vossius distinguish;) Wide is the difference of a Church in the constitution when men of ripe yeares must receive the first Seale, from a Church constituted, wherein the first Seal descends from the beleever to his child for any precept that appears in the Old or New Testament to the contrary.

But Mr T. faith in his second particular (which will nothing please the Anabaptists) perhaps it is not necessary to be said, that the Baptisme of Infants, because not lawfull is not therefore null. Note. Wee reply, Mr T. speakes but perhaps, and it is not necessary, and to say so. But what perhaps will M. T. say, and how necessarily say Bap­tisme of Infants is all null, by that time he hath fully concocted this principle of the unlawfullnesse of the Baptizing of any Infants; as thousands of others have done and some honest men and scholars who upon the said principle of Antipaedaptists have turned Anabap­tists, though they drew their originall of Re-baptisme from most scripturelesse Se-baptisme? I may well put the question; For by that time M. Tombes is gone six leaves further: Viz. in the 34, and last page of his Exercitation he begins to be beyond perhaps, and speaks as if it were necessary to say that ‘[The assuming of Bap­tisme in ripe years, by those who were washed in infancy, is not a renouncing of Baptisme as some in their grosse ignorance con­ceit, but indeed a firmer avouching of Baptisme, according to Christs mind.]’ If the Reader will but marke these lines well, and especially those words we have put in another character, hee will easily be a Commentator to himselfe upon Mr Tombes his war­ping judgement.

To Mr T. his third particular wherein he aesserts [That there was in the Church, Baptism of persons grown in al ages] and quotes LƲDOVICVS VIVES to prove it. We reply first to his asserti­on; First that is very generall for an answer to an argument; There were persons: How many? In all ages: What meanes that? In every hundred yeares, or ordinary age of man: Suppose sixty years or lesse? What is all this to clear a continued succession of the Church in point of baptizing persons of ripe years? Secondly, let us deal plainly one with another in things of this nature. Can M. T. or any else produce proof that in England, Scotland, Ireland, &c. there hath been baptized in either of these at least one of ripe yeares every year, for these 80 or an 100 yeares last past: If not, or if so, where is a sufficient number to continue the succession of Chur­ches we talke of in point of adult-Baptisme, Baptisme of persons of ripe years.

2 To his quotation of LVD. VIVES, we say; First he is but of yesterday to say without proofe what hath been in former ages. For in all his Notes on August. he cites not one Scripture, not one [Page 82]Antiquity, not one Author, nor any thing that may go for a Rea­son; but only tells us of a fashion of questions put to humane-devi­sed God-fathers and God-mothers as they call them; and of an hear­say out of Italy; a likely place to preserve any pure truth.

2. Though Lud. Vives were a good Schollar in Arts; yet we must not give credit to him in divine things, when his phrase de­parts from purity, and his assertion from verity. He saith, Nems olins sacro admovebatur baptisterio, that is, No man of old was brought unto the holy Baptistery, Font, or Vessell to wash in. He puts holinesse in or upon the Vessell in which these persons of ripe yeers were baptized (for it should seem by him they were not bap­tized in a River) which phrase of Lud. Vives, Mr Tombes covers with a double garment, first Translating Baptisterio by the word [place] that being wide enough in signification to include rivers. Secondly, Translating sacro Baptisterio [the holy place] by [the place of holy Baptisme]. LVD. VIVES goes on; Nisi adulta jam aetate, that is unlesse he were of ripe age already. Now this is a grosse mistake, and opposite to the best approved antiquity, that tels us it was a known custome in the Churches, to baptize infants with­in few years after the death of the Apostle John: And therefore this custome could not totally invade the Churches on such a sudden, without any mention in Antiquity, but flowed doubtlesse downe from the Apostles. So Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory Natianzen, Ambrose, Augustine, and others. For the pretences made by Mr T. against some Quotations of those fathers I doubt not but to take them off and to justifie these antiquities; when we come in our XIII CHAPTER to Mr Tombes his fourth Argument against the baptizing of Beleevers Infants. In his Exercitation §. 17. For the present we have no more to say to VIVES or Mr TOMBES upon this argument but only to ad­mire that Mr Tombes would translate VIVES as if he had said [that the person of ripe years desired to be washed more then once in the water of Baptisme]; for so it lies fairer in Mr Tombes his Transla­tion to please an Anabaptist; namely [The person of ripe years de­fired to be washed in the water of Baptisme, and that more then once] whereas Mr Tombes following the Latin closer which is, So ablui ill [...] aquâ pe [...]eres, nec semel peteres he might have translated clearer that he desired and desired more then once, (what?) to be washed with that water.

CHAP. X.

SEventhly, Heb. 6.2.Exercitat. § 14. The Ar­gument from Heb. 6.2. for Infant-bap­tisme exami­ned. The Apostle speaks of the doctrine of bap­tismes, and laying on of hands; now this is not likely to be un­derstood of laying on of hands in healing sick persons, or bestow­ing the Holy Ghost, for these were extraordinary or miraculous, and therefore not to be put in the number of the principles of the o­racles of God, the foundation, milke for babes; nor of imposition of hands for ordination to speciall function in the Church, for that, though ordinary, yet not likely to be put among the principles, the foundation, milk for babes, therefore it remaines, that it was the laying on of hands on children formerly baptized in infancy, which though corruptly made a Sacrament by Papists, and superstitiously abused, yet being freed from the abuse were very usefull, as being an Apostolicall ordinance, from this Text, and manifests that there was Infant-baptisme in the Apostles dayes, which is confirmed, because it is coupled with baptisme, and therefore seemes to be a consequent upon it.

Answ. 1. There is great incertainty, what this imposition of hands mentioned, Heb. 6.2. served for; the reason [...]prove that it could not be either for healing, or giving the Holy Ghost, because they were miraculous or extraordinary, is not cogent; for though they were by more then ordinary power, yet were they frequent in those times, and might well be put among the elements to be in those dayes first learned: nor is the reason cogent to prove it could not be the imposition of hands in ordination, for speciall function in the Church; for it is more likely that it should be meant, which it is certain was still in use, and to continue to be used, and therefore it was needfull to be taught younglings, as well as the doctrine of baptismes: then laying on of hands for confirmation of baptisme, of which there is no certainty, though pretended examples in scrip­ture, be brought to give some colour to it; nor is imposition of hands in ordination unfitly coupled to baptisme, both being ordi­nances for initiation, the one into the profession of Christ, the o­ther into sacred function.

2. But if it were supposed, that this imposition of hands meant [Page 84] Hebr. 6.2. were on the the Baptized; yet this proves not the bap­tisme of Infants in the Apostles dayes; unlesse it could be proved, that it was used after the Baptisme of Infants onely, for a confir, mation either of the Baptisme, or baptized. On the contrary, it is apparent out of Tertul. de Corona militis. C. 3. That in the pri­mitive times the baptized did make his confession at Baptisme, sub manu antistitis, that is, the Minister laying hands on him. And to save labour in reciting testimonies, Chamier may be seen, who in his Pans. Catholicâ, tom. 4. l. 1. c. 11. Sect. 14. at large proves out of the Ancients that the imposition of hands which after was made a distinct Sacrament, called Confirmation, was either a part or ap­pendix of Baptisme; and many passages he cites to shew, that it was when the Baptized was to confesse the faith, and to renounce Satan. And if HIERONIMVS Tom. 2. in his Dialogue against the Luciferians do assert that use of imposition of hands from Scrip­ture, that he alleadgeth not Hebr. 6.2. for it, but the examples of giving the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands, in the Acts of the Apostles.

To Mr T. his first Answer, Animadver. That our reason to prove imposition of hands for Healing, or giving the Holy Ghost cannot be meant, Hebr. 6.2. [Because those were extraordinary] is not saith Mr T. a cogent reason: We reply, First that Mr T. doth by and by as good as confesse it is a cogent reason: For whiles Mr T. goes a­bout to prove that imposition of hands here mentioned is for ordi­nation, because it was still in use, and to continue to be used, he justi­fies our reason that Healing and giving the Holy Ghost were not to continue because extraordinary, and so not put here among the prin­ciples of the foundation. 2 Will any ingenuous man weighing and pondering things, say that Mr T. his answer is cogent; namely, That those miraculary things of imposition of hands for healing, and that kinde of giving the Holy Ghost because usuall onely in that little time of the Apostles, should be joyned with and put among the first principles of Christian religion, to be taught young ones to fit them for baptisme, or to give an account of their faith after Baptisme? Or whether that reason of Mr T. be cogent that little children should be taught as one of the first elements of the christian faith the impo­sition of hands to ordain Ministers? This rather should belong to the going on unto perfection, as the Apostle speakes v. 1. Nor is Mr T. his reason cogent that Imposition of hands for Ordination should bee [Page 85]joyned with Baptisme, both being ordinances for Initiation (which likes the Papists well that make imposition a Sacrament and see it so well coped and coupled with a Sacrament by Mr T.) For first and first, or Initiation in its great latitude doth not so assimilate. Bap­tisme is the Initiation for all at their first solemne entrance into the Church; that imposition for Ordination doth initiate but few, that is ministers and that into an office, and long after they are mem­bers. We may as well couple marriage with the first principles of religion which being to be done by invocation upon God, and in­struction out of the word, doth first initiate most single people into the honour and authority to govern children, and families to serve God. Clearly enough to Mr T. his imposition of hands and admis­sion to the Lords supper would better cope together, both apper­taining to mature grown Christians. 2 We answer to this first an­swer of Mr Tombes, that a naked honest explanation of the text blowes all Mr T. his mists away and clears the text, and discovers that these answers of his are but shifts. In laying open which mea­ning I hope learned and pious Mr Pareus, Calvin, Bullinger, Mar­lorat, Hofman, which were no Independents, will weigh as much as Mr Tombes, who all tell us the summe of all approved antiquity, to save our labour of pestering the vulgar reader with the gibberish of quotations. Pareus upon Hebr. 6.2. Some (saith he) conjoyne the two heads of Baptisme and Imposition of hands, because as there were two rankes of Catechumeni, that is chatechised persons, so there was a two fold initiating Ceremony.

• 1 Those of ripe years of the Heathen, who did before their Baptisme recite the Articles of the Creed, of the Christian faith. And this is that the Apostle cals the catechising or Doctrine of Baptismes.
• 2 The Infants of Chri­stians who by the right of the promise being baptized in their Infan­cy, after they were past their childhood, were received into the Church by imposition of hands, at which time they rehearsed the same articles of faith before the Church.

And this was the doctrine of Imposition of hands. So Pareus. Calvin speaks to the very same effect; whose words we set down at large in our 7. chapter of this controversie. Mr Hofman, Marlorat, Bullinger, Calvin, speake further that as Imposition of hands was of a manifold use, so among the rest it was a solemne right of praying; by which Symbol also they did approve the profession of faith young youth made. So that the originall of Imposition of hands came down from the Apostles; Thus far these learned men,

Ye have also before in the same 7. Chap. of this Controversie, the words of Mr Cotton, and his reading out of Antiquity and his Reasons, That though young children were baptized, yet were not received to the Lords Supper, and the full fruition of all Church-liberties, till being grown up they made their profession of faith, and 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 AntiquityTertul, 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 [Page 87]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 [Page 88] 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) name­ly Vnction, and to prove that neither Vnction or imposition of hands were Sacraments, which though he proves by this argument, that they were only appendices of Sacraments; yet he doth not assert as from himselfe, or from Antiquity, that imposition of hands was to be conjoyned with Baptisme, but rather tels us the contrary part­ly from himselfe, partly from those authors he quotes. As [that the rule of the Roman Church was that they gave in command that men should be reconciled by imposition of hands.] Sect. 53. That reciliation is proper to repentance. Sect. 54. That though confir­mation belongs to the solemnities of Baptisme, yet after a while after Baptisme.

To Mr T. his Quotation of HIERONIMVS Tom. 2. In his Diolog. Adv. Lucif.

• 1. We reply that if Hieronimus doth con­fesse imposition of hands on them that had been baptized, though he doth not alleadge all Scriptures for it, and so not that Heb. 6.2. the antiquity holds good, that Imposition of hands was used to [Page 89]bee after applyed to them that have been baptized.
• 2. That Hiero­nimus in that place quotes other places then the Acts of the Apostles, and speakes to our purpose thus [Orth.] Neither can it be that he that is holy in Baptisme, can be a sinner, &c. [Luc.] I receive a Lay penitent person by Imposition of hands, and invocation of the Holy Spirit, Knowing that the Holy Spirit is not conferred by He­reticks. [Orth.] Seeing that hee that is baptized in the name of the father, sonne and holy spirit is made the Temple of God, &c. it ap­peares that Baptisme is not without the holy spirit. And to prove that that place, Acts 19.2. did suppose they had received the sa­ving gifts of the Spirit in Baptisme, he brings Math.
• 3. That Johns Baptisme was a Baptisme of Repentancè into remission of sinnes: And a little after, if John did not baptize in the Spirit; then not into re­mission of sinnes.

For no mans sinnes are remitted without the spirit. So Hieronimus. Wherefore he supposes Imposition of hands may be on them that had the spirit in Baptisme afore. So Hieroni­mus with much more which we omit to avoyde tediousnesse. Thus far of Mr Tombes his first Argument against Infant-Baptisme.

CHAP. XI.

THe second Argument followeth:Exercitat.

That which agreeth not with the Lords institution of Bap­tisme, Argu. 2 § 15. The Ar­gument from the institution of Christ, Mat. 28.19. a­gainst Infant-baptisme, con­firmed. that is deservedly doubtfull.

But the rite of Infant-Baptisme agrees not with the Lords insti­tution of Baptisme, Ergo.

The Major is proved, because Institution is the rule of exhibiting worship to God.

The Minor is proved from the words of Institution, Mat. 28.19. Going therefore, disciple ye all nations, baptizing them.

Whence I gather thus:

That rite agrees not with the Lords Institution of Baptisme, ac­cording to which they are baptized, whom the Lord appointed not to be baptized.

But after the rite of Infant-Baptisme, they are baptized whom the Lord appointed not to be baptized, Ergo.

The Major is manifest of it selfe.

The Minor is proved: The Lord appointed not Infants to be baptized, Ergo. The Antecedent is proved;

Those, and no other, the Lord appointed to be baptized, who have been made Disciples.

But this cannot be said of Infants. Ergo.

The Argument is confirmed from Iohn 4.2. where it is said that Iesus made more disciples; then that he baptized: first it is said that be made disciples, then baptized.

Some one perhaps will say that Baptisme of Infants is elsewhere instituted, although not here.

To which is answered, Let he that can, bring forth that instituti­on, and the doubt will be loosed.

But Infants may be disciples, for they may be sanctified by the Spirit?

Answ. It is true, Infants may be sanctified by the Spirit of God, purged by the blood of Christ, saved by the grace of God; my minde abhors from the doctrine of them that assert, That Infants not baptized, necessarily perish, or are deprived of the Kingdome of God; nor do I doubt, but that the Elect Infants dying in Infan­cy are sanctified; yea, if it should be made known to us that they are sanctified, I should not doubt that they are to be baptized, re­membring the saying of Peter, Act. 10.47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have receined the holy Ghost as we?

Then you will say [make disciples] in that place, may be so ex­pounded, as that it may include Infants?

Answ. It follows not; but this onely follows, that in case ex­traordinary, we may depart from the ordinary rule: But the ordi­nary rule is, make disciples, that is, by preaching the Gospell, make disciples, as appears from Mark 16.15. and baptize them, to wit, whom you have made disciples; and in the ordinary course of Mi­nistery, we must follow the ordinary rule.

Perhaps some one will except, that Christ teacheth that such di­sciples should be baptized, but that the speech is not exclusive.

Refut. But it is meet he remember, who shall thus except; if institution be the rule of worship, it is necessary that he that shall administer the worship, binde himself to the rule; other­wise he will devise will-worship, and arrogate the Lords au­thority to himself: Surely the Apostle in the businesse of the Lords [Page 91]Supper, insinuates this, when being about to correct the aberrati­ons of the Corinthians, concerning the Lords Supper he brings forth these words, 1 Cor. 11.23. For I have received of the Lord, that which I also have delivered unto you.

Besides as Christ Mat. 19.4.8. argues from the institution of Marriage, against Divorce for a light cause, and Polygamy, be­cause it is said, Two, not more then two shall be one flesh; so in like manner it may be here argued, Christ said Baptizing them, and not others, therefore these and not others are to be bap­tized.

But as for him who gathers from this place, Infants are to be baptized, because Christ Commands all Nations to be baptized, verily he is faulty,

• 1. In casting away that restriction that Christ hath put.
• 2. By determining that all men whatsoever are to be baptized; so that this is not a priviledge of beleevers and their children, but common with them, to all Infidels and their children.

And in very deed, however assertors of Infant-baptisme, crack of a priviledge of beleevers and their off-spring; not onely the usuall practise of baptising any little children offered, but also Sayings prove that men have gone far, not onely from Christs institution, but also from the principles upon which, men at this day are busie to establish Infant-baptisme. I shall prove this by some instances. In the 59 Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus, from which Augustine is wont in his disputations-against the Pelagians, to take his proof for Infant-baptisme, and to which Writers attri­bute much, although that I may say no worse, without cause, this reason is put why it was not assented to Biship Fidus, who thought that an Infant was not to be baptized, afore the eighth day, according to the Law of ancient Circumcision, We all ra­ther judged, that the mercy and grace of God is to be denyed to none that is born of men.

By the answer of Augustine to Bonifacius, Tom. 2. Epist. 23. Enquiring concerning the truth of Sureties, in affirming the un­known faith of little ones, and promising for them, it will appear to the Reader, that the Baptisme of any little ones offered to baptisme, is defended by him, Although they were not brought, that they might be regenerated to eternall Life, by Spirituall grace; but because they think by this remedy (I use the [Page 92]words of Augustine) to retain or receive temporall health; Iohn Gerhard, Loc. Theolog. Tom. 4. de Baptis. Cap. 7. Sect. 4. defends the practise of the Ancients baptizing the Children of unbeleevers: And the words of Mr Samuel Rutherford, Scot, in his Book late­ly put forth in the English tongue, intituled A peaceable and tem­perate plea, c. 12. arg. 7. seemes to mee to propend too much to this opinion, The words are these, If then the Iewes in Pauls time were holy by Covenant, howbeit for the present the Sonnes were branches broken off, for unbeliefe; much more seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles, and is become a God to us and to our seed, the seed must be holy, with holinesse of the chosen nation, and holinesse externall of the Covenant, notwithstanding the Father and Mother were as wicked as the Iewes who slew the Lord of glory.

And the grave confutation of Brownists, by Rathband, Part. 3. Page 50. Fourthly, Children may be lawfully admitted to Bap­tism, though both their Parents be prophane, if those who are instead of Parents to them do require Baptisme for them, and give their promise to the Church for their religious Education, seeing they may lawfully be accounted within Gods Covenant, if any of their Ancestors in any Generation were faithfull, Exod. 20.5.

Lastly, if this Argument be not of force, Christ comman­deth first to Disciple, and then to baptize those that are Dis­cipuled; to exclude Infants from Baptime; neither will the argument be of force, from 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eat, to exclude Infants from the Lords Supper; for by the like clusion this argument may be rejected by saying, that the speech of the Apostle is not exclusive, and is to be understood of receiving the Lords Supper by Persons grown onely; yea, verily, neither will the argument be of force from the institution of the Supper, Mat. 26.26, 27. therefore on­ly beleevers are to be admitted to the Lords Supper. If any reply. But the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. and 11. hath declared, that the institu­tion is exclusive, the fame may be said of the institution of Baptisme, from the following Argument.

To this second Argument of Mr T. out of Mat. 28.19. for the Affirmative,Animadver. That men of ripe years onely are to be baptized [Page 93](the other being onely negative, to put off Arguments for chil­drens baptism) I say, that I verily expected Mr T. would not have urged it so curtedly, carelesly, or so scatteringly.

Curtedly] For he speakes so abruptly touching the businesse of Bishop Fidus p. 25. That I can hardly divine what his meaning is. I conjecture this answer will serve.

• 1. That God himselfe puts the cause, and makes the premisses wider than the effect or conclusion, 2 Pet. 3.9. 1 Tim. 2.4. Yet he doth not warrant us to apply comforts or seales to all.
• 2. That Cyprian in all likelihood speaks to the point in hand: That as circumcision was not denyed to any children of Jewish parents that were members of that Church; so Baptisme is not to be denyed to any so born of men, that is are the children of Parents reputed true members of the Church.

Carelesly] for first he saith, p. 24. [Iohn 4.2. Where it is said That Iesus made more disciples, then, that he baptized; first, it is said, that he made disciples, then baptize.] So Mr T.) Now we must needs say that here is a grosse falshood. For that text, Iohn 4.2. saith expresly, Iesus baptized none at all. Secondly, Mr. T. saith p. 24. [The ordinary rule is, make disciples, that is by prea­ching the Gospell make disciples, as appears Mark 16.15. and bap­tise them: to wit, whom you have made disciples] So Mr T. here. Yet in another place of his Exercitation, Mr. T. doth not forget, but confesseth that Mar. 16.15. is not make disciples, but onely preach the Gospell. And so Mark makes not more of [...] make Disciples (as the Anabaptists would have it) but onely [...] preach the Gospell.

Scatteringly] Not onely floteing so much paper with the Inke of Syllogisme under Syllogisme, and Argument under Syllogisme; as if Mat. 28.19. did not indeed in any shew serve his turn, with­out much lifting: but also in scattering such speeches to the great disgrace of Anabaptisme. ‘For Mr T. saith, p. 25. That Augustine was wont to take out his proof for. In-infant-Baptisme in his disputations against the Pelagians, from Cyprians 59 Epistle to Fidus.’ So that by this Mr T. confesseth that the Pelagians of old were the men that denyed Infant-Baptisme; which brought to mind that great Iames Arminius was an Anabaptist, who had that and other dangerous principles from that unsound Castalio; Mr G. Philips, his Reply and to T. Lamb. p. 137 and that of Master George Philips of Water Town in New-England: That the first that denyed Infants Baptisme, and opposed the pra­ctise [Page 94]of the Churches in this case was one Auxentius an Arrian with his adherents (that denyed the Godhead of Christ) who dyed about 380 yeeres after Christ, as Mr Philpot the Martyr of Jesus, noteth in an Epistle of his, written out of prison, to a fellow pri­soner of his, about the point. So Mr Fox relateth in his book of Martyrs, ad Ann. 1555. Bullinger affirmeth the same. Tom. 3. Serm. 8. Decad. quint. After him the Pelagians and Donatists op­posed it, against whom, Augustine beside others, wrote and defen­ded it. The Pelagians denied it upon this ground, That Infants had no Originall sinne. And in Bernards time, one Peter Abilaird, a­mong many other grosse opinions, wherein he saith, he was Magis Arrius, quam Arrius (rather more then Arrius, then bare Ar­rius) held this also, that Infants were not to be baptized, Ep. 190. So Mr Philips.

But to come to Mr T. his Argument out of Mat. 28.19. The summe of it is this,Exercitat. §. 15. That Christs institution is That those only should be baptized that are made disciples, Mat. 28.19. But beleevers Infants are not disciples. Ergo.

To the place of Mat. 28.19. That is,Animadver. the proof of the Major, We have answered somewhat afore, Chap. 1. of our Animadvers. p. 7. which we intreat the patient reader to ponder over againe; more we have answered but now; by comparing, Mark 16.15. who renders it barely preach the Gospell; which the reader cannot but esteem of more weight then all the interpretations, not onely of all Anabaptists, but of all men. We adde now. 1. That this place can argue no more but that the administration of Baptisme began first on the parents, that received the word, and so descended to their children: they being baptized, their children presently were baptized also. For the Jews generally carried their children with them after Ordinances; whereof we have not onely some spe­ciall instances, that Hanna carried Samuel up to Shilo. 1 Sam. 24. and Mary and Ioseph carried Iesus to Hierusalem, Luke 2.22. and thus they carried him yeerly at the time of the Passeover, Luke 2.41, 42, 43. but we have ordinary instances.

As that when the Jews came to the Passover and followed Christ to hear him preach, and do miracles, they brought their children with them who partook of that they were capable not only of the Passeover, but of the dispensations of Christ: The children partook of the miracle, Math. 14.21. compare Joh. 6.4, 5. The children [Page 95]are offered by their parents and friends that came to hear Christ, to have Christs hands layd upon them and to be blessed of him, and were blessed Mar. 10. And by the same proportion, children are understood when it is said Math. 3.5, 6. Then went out to him Je­rusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him (the parents) confessing their sinnes, and the children accepted under their confession, being put under the same promise, I am the God of thee and of thy seed; even as when Abra­ham expressed his beliefe in God Gen. 15.6. from that time for­ward God proclaimed he was his God, and the God of his seed, and gave them Circumcision for a Seal thereof. Nor is all this to be blown away with the blast of the word [uncertain] unlesse Mr T. could make out hence an expresse exclusion of children from Baptisme, more certain. 2. It cannot bee more then bare presump­tion to say that children that are ordinarily three parts of All Na­tions, should be here reckoned as no part of All nations here meant, first seeing All Nations are here put as an opposite member of distin­ction, to that one Nation of the Iewes; compare Mat. 21.41. Rom. 11.17. The Gentiles have the Vineyard and were ingrasted as the Iews: But the Jews and their children had the benefit of the Vine­yard, and both partook of the stock according to their capacity and method of Gods dispensation. Ergo, so the Gentiles. So that whereas afore, the Word and Sacraments were couched within the confines of the Jewish nation, and them that came into them, now Christ gives a commission to pull down that partition wall; and to send the Word and Sacraments likewise to All Nations of the Gentiles, But to the Jewes, the Word and first Seal coming to the parents; that Seal came likewise to their children: There­fore the same proportion is to be kept in the New Testament. 2. It is not nothing that it is said Go teach all Nations, baptizing them, and not Go teach and baptize all Nations. And therefore the method and order of the phrase is not so closely framed to make teaching and baptizing of an exact equall latitude, that only taught disciples should be baptized; as it might have been if that had been the In­tent of the Text. For Christs institutions are wont to be wonderfull plain in all the things it mainly intends.

2 We answer to the Minor; namely [But Infants of Beleevers are not Disciples.] To which we say that it being taken, as here pro­nounced, that Infants of beleevers without exception are no Dis­ciples [Page 96]we easily prove it is most false; by two Texts of Scripture: The first we have mentioned aforeChap. 1. of our Animadv. p. 8. Namely Acts 15.10. Now why tempt yee God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples? This yoke was Circumcision; which was at first by Institution put upon children, at eight dayes old. Gen. 17. According to which the false teachers out of doubt as the only seeming strength of their Imposition of it did ground it. And therefore pursued it that as the Fathers like Abraham, so the children as Isaac &c. should be cir­cumcised. The second Text is Iohn 9.28. We are Moses his disciples say the Jews. But the only thing that entred them into the school of Moses, that first nominated them to be Moses his Disciples was Circumcision in their Infancy which after tyed them to Moses his observations, Gal. 5.3. Therefore the infants of beleeuers are Disciples.

Some will say (saith Mr T.) that Baptisme of Infants is else­where instituted.Exercitat. Let him that can (saith he) bring forth that In­stitution.

We have out of diverse texts (as clearly and clearlyer then Mr. T. hath brought forth a prohibition) as out of 1 Cor. 7.14.Animadver. Mar. 10. Heb. 6. Gen. 17. which last text is not so much esteemed of professors of the Gospell, as their profession injoynes them. For though it be not a text in the New Testament; yet it is the grand Charter of the Gospell, I am the God of thee and of thy seed, to blesse you through THE SEED Christ; to which as to the originall, all the tenor of the New Testament runnes, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Acts 2.39. &c.

Infants may be sanctified by the spirit of God, Exercitat. &c.

I answer all Anabaptists are not of this mind,Animadver. partly by word of mouth; partly by writings in print. Some say children are not capable of grace, having no faith, &c. others when they are put to it upon this argument; if children may not have grace, and be with­in the Covenant; then (say we) either all Infants dying are damned, or else they are saved without a Covenant, and so without Christ and grace, or else they have no originall sinne; they imbrace the last member of the argument that Infants have no originall sinne".

Yea if it should be knowne to us that Infants are sanctified,Exercitat. I should not doubt that they are to be baptized.

Wee Reply,Animadver.

• first where is that clause in Scripture they must be [Page 97]known to be sanctified?
• 2 Is not the believing parent as well known to beleeve as a new Convert, is known to be converted? If so, then Gods promise to me concerning my childe, I am the God of thee, and of thy seed, is as sure to me, as mans judgement of the Convert that he is converted.

Obj. But some children of believers prove wicked.

Ans. So do some seeming Converts. 2 Pet. 2.1. therefore as we must judge indefinitely charitably of Converts, so of believers chil­dren; for we have not an infallibility of either.

Perhaps (saith Mr. T.) some one will except,Exercit. that Christ teach­eth that taught-disciples should be baptized, but the speech is not exclusive. Refut. It is will-worship (saith he) that follows not the rule. And the Apostle in rectifying the businesse of the Lords Sup­per, brings out onely these words, 1 Cor. 11.23. For I have received of the Lord that which I also have delivered unto you. Besides as Christ Matth. 19.4.8. argues from the institution of marriage against Divorce for a light cause and polygamie, because it is said, two, not more shall be one flesh. So in like manner it may be here ar­gued, Christ said, Baptizing them, and not others therefore these, and not others, are to be baptized.

We answer. The cases of the Lords Supper, Animadvers. and marriage were far different from this of Baptisme.

1. That as there were clear precedent fore-going institutions of marriage and the Lords Supper: So to those institutions the words of Christ and Paul expresly relate.

2. That therefore those repetitions Mr. T. quotes were not the first institutions of those two, but an application of the first instituti­ons unto exact practise accordingly to them.

3. That the occasion of this repetition of the institution of those two were grosse abuses in both, exprest by the Apostle and Christ, for which there was no fair pretence; but an apparent of­fending against the first institution As that a man should for every light cause put away his wife; which was not onely against the first institution, Gen. 2.24. Matth. 5.32.-19.4, 5, 8. but against Moses his dispensation. Deut. 24.1. which was not to put her away, unlesse he found some uncleannesse, that hindred cohabitation according to the intent of marriage. Matth. 19.8. So likewise these were grosse abuses, first, that men at the communion should not tarry one for another; but every faction, they of Paul by themselves, they [Page 98]of Peter or Cephas by themselves, and (first come first served, as we say) should partake of the Lords Supper. Secondly, that after their holy Supper, some that were rich made such large feasts of cha­ritie (which Christ instituted not) of the collections, that they were drunk; whiles the poorer coming after were hunger-bit, had no­thing lest for them.

Now for the businesse of Baptisme in this 28. of Matt. it is quite otherwise in all the said three particulars.

For as for the first particular: either as we say, in circumcision was a full and sufficient foregoing institution of the administra­tion of Baptisme: and then Christ needed not say more here but go teach and baptise, as referring us to the institution of the first seal circumcision in the old Testament. Where after believing Abraham was taught, Gen. 12. Gen. 15. and after circumcised, Gen. 17. he ac­cordingly circumcised his children: and therefore so it should be in the New Testament. The parents being taught and baptized, their children were to be baptized also. Or else (as the Anabaptists say) there was no preceding or fore-going institution of baptisme be­fore Christs time; and that Baptisme differs much from Circum­cision. But if this be true, how doth this place of Matth. 28.19. agree with those quoted places of marriage and the Lords Suppers there being nothing fore-going this, as there is afore them, to make us punctually understand the meaning of it, at least in every main particular; especially in matters of main difference from the administration of the first seal of the old Testament. And therefore,

To the second particular we say, that if this 28. of Matth. be the institution of baptisme; First, as it doth not agree with the places of marriage, and the Lords Supper, to be an application of a former institution of Baptisme to an exact practise; so our faith­full Christ must needs have spoken plainer and fuller in an insti­tution, to have prevented so grosse an abuse (if it had been abuse) that men should apply this Sacrament to any infants if to them it should not belong. For how should it be prevented but from the institution at least? And how from the institution, if Christ will not there speak it?

So for the third and last particular; as Baptisme of believers infants hath, you will yeeld, at least a fair religious pretence for it out of Gen. 17. so the Lord Christ, or John Baptist, or the Apo­stles [Page 99]do not in the least intimate any where, that the baptizing of beleevers children was an abuse, as is intimated about that of marriage, and the Lords Supper: and therefore we cannot attend to any such intention of Christ in the least in this of Matth. 28. to prevent the baptisme of believers infants.

Bat Mr. T. in his Argument afore out of Matth. 28. objecteth, that if any gather thence that Infants are to be baptized because Christ commands all Nations to be baptized, that, first, he is faultie in casting away that restriction that Christ hath put. Secondly, in making the priviledge of believers and their children common to all Infidels and their children.

We answer to the first. That first, that is the question whether Christ hath here put a restriction against believers children? Se­condly, that we extend not this place further then to the chil­dren of taught-or-made disciples; understanding it to refer to Gen. 17. where instructed Abraham was to circumcise his children; as we said afore. Yet it is said, I will make thee a Father of many Nations; and in thy seed all the Nations shall be blessed. So here though it be said, Go teach and baptize all Nations, yet we ex­tend it not beyond the children of parents taught and baptized.

But saith Mr. T. However assertors of baptisme of Infants crack of a priviledge of believers, and their off-spring; yet by their say­ings, and doings, touching baptizing all Infants, they go far from Christs institution, and their own principles at this day, upon which they are now busie to establish Infant-Baptisme. For their doings: first, Mr. T. urgeth their baptizing all Infants offered to them. For their sayings he urgeth, Augustine, and his quotation out of Cyprian. Also Mr. S. Rutherford, Scot; and Mr. Rathband.

Answ. As we did not appoint Cyprian, August. John Gerard, Mr. Rutherford, or Mr. Rathband to speak for us all: So nor do they un­dertake it. We know as these men have and do confesse, they are men, & humanum est errare, man may mistake. Mr. T. assumes not to himself infallibilitie. If August. and Cyprian, &c. did erre on the right hand in saying all Infants may be baptized; yet this doth not inferre, that that is no errour in others that say no Infants are to be baptized; which erres on the left hand. And though we might excuse Cyprian and Augustine, &c. thus farre, (and yet be ex­cused of candid men for so doing) that there is not no difference between saying, Grace is not to be denied to any man; and saying, All [Page 100]Infants whatsoever are to be baptized (let them that can, consult the places of Cyprian, and Augustine) yet we say rather that the Fa­thers had their severell naevos, their blemishes in divers things; as Danaeus on Augustine, and Tossanus upon all the Fathers, note them. Augustine was so sensible of this; that he wrote his Confes­sions to acknowledge the errours of his life, and his Retractations of his errors in opinion. Who knows but that Mr. Tombes, and that other H.D. (that is sharp with Mr. Marshall, for stating the question of baptizing believers children, his practise and others, as he saith, having been formerly larger.) I say who knows but Mr. T. and Mr. D. formerly have so thought, and so done themselves, or at least have not professed against it; which now they dislike in others. Therefore let me offer to Mr. T. and Mr. D. and others of their judgement, these three considerations.

First, who that hath eyes (as they Revel. 4.) as well within as without, may not arreign himself guilty of this encroachment, of extending his practise, beyond the rule? In many practises he throws open all fences, and turns them into common. But if he be questioned by the weakest disputant, he cannot, he dares not justifie himself in his sins: but confesseth his way is butted there, and bounded here; and all the rest trespasse against the line he ought to walk by.

Secondly, who is that professor, especially a Minister living in this Summer of the Gospel, at this time of the assent of Refor­mation to our Pole, that forgets how in the dark and stormy Winter, he saw lesse, and stumbled more? Even many of the Anti­paedobaptists (whom we own as brethren) if they count Non-bap­tizing of beleevers children a peece of further Reformation, a spark of clearer light, must of necessitie confesse, that not long since they thought not, they did not so, why then should we in­sult over our brethrens failing? or taunt them for setting neerer their meridian, closer to the rule? that instead of baptizing all children, they now state the question, that onely believers chil­dren ought to be baptized, unlesse in some speciall cases, of which after.

Thirdly, though meerly that second nature custome, and that whirlwinde of persecution, did precipitate many of later times to baptize all Protestant professors children, confessing Christ to be come in the flesh, and justification to be rooted in his righteous­nesse [Page 101]alone, yet all Ministers did not the same upon the same principles; But,

1. They knew that very anciently (as appears by Tertullian, living ann. Dom. 195. which was not long after St. John. Helvic. This Ter­tullian being alledged in this question by H.D.) the Churches did not baptize the children of unbeleevers out of the Church, with­out Sponsores or Susceptores, undertakers (which we call Witnesses) who engaged themselves as parents to look to the Christian edu­cation of such children, called Godfathers, as if fathers under God, or for godlinesse, to see them trained up in sound Religion. Tertullians words in his Treatise de Baptismo, cap. 18. are these. Ita (que) pro cujus (que) personae conditione, ac dispositione, etiam aetate, cunctatio baptismi utilior, praecipue tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse est, si non tamnecesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri. On which words, Junius his note is this. Tria hic distincti proponit Auctor, quae si rectè intelligantur locus est sanctissimus. Conditio personarum baptizandarum est quod sint in faedere, sive grandiores, sive parvuli. Dispositio est quòd credant & obsequantur Evangelio, profiteanturque. Aetate, non qui sunt in faedere (nam & parvuli piorum liberi in faedere sunt) sed qui profiten­tur fidem recognosci solent. Quum ita (que) dicit praecipue tamen circa parvulos, id de extraneorum, non de faederatorum, domesticorumque li­beris opus est intelligi: ut aetiologia sequente confirmatur. Illud autem sr non tam necesse, etiam sine injuriâ auctoris abesse potest.

Not to spend time in construing all this, we now onely give you the summe of both, in the point now in hand; for we shall more largely speak to every particular afterwards. That which they both say concerning witnesses to children, that in these ancient times, they were used for children whose parents were without, and not of the faith, not of the Church. We speak not for the using of witnesses or godfathers, &c. in baptizing children as the wont was among us. But,

Secondly, that this ancient custome (as ancient at least as Ter­tullian) might possibly have some respect to the Scripture Gen. 17. according to Mr. Cottons observation.His book of the way of the Churche, in N. England. pag. 115. ‘Baptisme (saith he) may orderly be administred to the children of such parents, as have professed their faith and repentance before the Church. Or where either of the parents have made such profession. Or it may be considered also whether the children may not be bap­tized, where either the grandfather, or grandmother have made [Page 102]such profession, and are still living to undertake for the Chri­stian education of the childe. For it may be conceived, where there is a stipulation of the covenant on Gods part, and a resti­pulation on mans part,So M.Grcen­ham also. See his works, where he saith the children of unbeleeving parents are within the co­venant by vir­tue of their believing grandfathers. Or else how is God the God of their seed to shew mercy to thousands of generations of them that love him? there may be an obligation of the co­venant on both parts. Gen. 17.7. Or if these fail, what hinder­eth but that if the parents will resigne their Infant to be edu­cated in the house of any godly member of the Church, the childe may be lawfully baptized in the right of its houshold go­vernor, according to the proportion of the Law, Gen. 17, 12, 13.’ So far Mr. Cotton, both his judgement, and his grounds. Now in imitation of this last clause, in all likelihood were Witnesses used (though abusively) in baptizing the children of some unbelie­vers, and strangers from the Church; yet therefore we have not such cause to trample upon any of our brethren about their error in baptizing too many Infants; seeing they erred with some an­tiquitie, and some pretence of Scripture before they saw this light, for which God must be glorified, and not man prided.

The last thing Mr. T. objects in this Argument on Matth. 28.19. is, that if this place doth not exclude all Infants from Baptisme, then nor doth 1 Cor. 11.28, [Let a man examine himself; and so let him eat] exclude Infants from the Lords Supper, saying by the like elusion, that the speech of the Apostle is not exclusive. Yea verily (saith Mr. T.) neither will the Argument be of force from the in­stitution of the Supper, Matth. 26.26, 27. that believers onely are to be admitted to the Lords Supper.

We answer. And first to that comparison of 1 Cor. 11.28. with Matth. 28.19. we reply two things. First, that there is expressed in 1 Cor. 11. an universall determinating terme, singling out all communicants, man by man, that they must be able to examine them­selves, before they eat. But there is no such determinating word about Baptisine, in Matth. 28.19. For first, we have already in se­verall places of our Animadversions shewed, that there is no cer­taintie at all that the Greek word here must signifie to-disciple, or make-disciples. For first, most learned men render it no more but teach. And so the Syriack, and Arabick Translations.In the best Translations of the French Churches it is Endoctrinez teach ye. Of the High Dutch, Lebret teach ye, of the Low-Dutch, Leert teach. And likewise in Hutter his N. Testament set forth in 12. Languages, in so many of them as I can guesse at, it is rendred onely [teach ye] His Syr. [...] teach ye. Hebr. [...] teach ye. Lat. De [...]te teach ye. Ital. Insegnate teach ye. Of German, Dutch, French, we heard afore. Mark the Euangelist also renders it, Mark 16.15. onely by preach. Second­ly, [Page 103]it is evident the word in the Greek is taken divers wayes; and here is no note of circumstance in Matth. 28.19. to prove that it must signifie to make-disciples. Thirdly, the command is for the Apostle to preach to all Nations, though they should not disciple or discipulate all. If its objected, that if the word in Matth. 28.19. according to Mar. 16.15. signifies but to teach or preach; yet mention of baptizing immediately follows teaching or preach­ing: We answer. So is baptizing expressed to follow believing, saying, He that beleeveth and is haptized shall be saved. But in con­verting the Proposition, that is in turning it, negatively, it is not said, He that is not baptized shall be damned; because Infants (as Mr. T. confessed afore) though of a day old unbaptized may have the sanctifying Spirit. Therefore may be baptized, Act. 10.47. Our Answer then is, that Teaching and baptizing doth not run evenly together.

Secondly, we now observe that the Lord having said, go preach to all Nations, he addes, baptizing them, indefinitely; not expressing all, or some (for them doth not in the Greek agree Grammatically with Nations) and so must needs leave us to compare this Text with other Texts afore-written. As with Gen. 17. where though Noah, 1 Pet. 3.19.2.2 Pet. 2.5. and Enoch, Jude v. 14. had preach­ed to all the old world; yet so contrary to teaching were they, that but eight persons were left alive by the Flood: and of these that remained alive, even to, or quite to the time of Abraham, but few were taught-men; as Noah, that dyed the yeer before Abra­hams birth; Shem, alias Melchisedech, and Abrahams father Terah; and Lot, few more about this time (Job was long after about Mo­ses his time) were taught persons. Now among the these taught men, God would to Abraham communicate the first signe or seal; and he being signed, he should signe his children also.

Or with John Baptists practise; who (as it is said expresly) bap­tized the parents, confessing their sins, but doth not exclude (by any expression) their children.

So then we must needs conclude that here is no determinating word in Matth. 28.19. to exclude believers Infants. And that this Text doth but give in the two main parts of the Apostles commis­sion, but not expresly all the parts, as the Administration of the Communion, nor all the main circumstances of those two as touching childrens baptisme.

Secondly, we answer to the comparison of that place of 1 Cor. 11.28. with Matt. 28.19. Let a man examine himself, that the 1 Cor. 11.28. relates (as the Apostle there expresseth, v. 23. I have recei­ved of the Lord that which I delivered) I say relates to an expresse in­stitution, wherein Christ gave the communion to his Disciples that were of ripe yeers, and not to children. But that place of Matth. 28.19. relates to no such expresse institution of the first seal, excluding Infants, but rather refers to such places as do in­clude them, as we shewed afore.

Secondly, to that collation or parallel comparing Matth. 26.26, 27. with Matth. 28.19. first we reply, that 1 Cor. 11.28. declares that Matth. 26.26, 27. is intended for an exclusion of unbelie­vers from the Communion; but there is no place to declare to us that the meaning of Matth. 28.19. is to exclude believers chil­dren from the first seal, Baptisme.

Obj. But Mr. T. saith he will make it appear in the next Ar­gument, that there are places to declare that Matth. 28.19. did intend the exclusion of believers Infants from Baptisme.

Ans. We shall by Gods leave shew that there are none to make any such declaration, when by and by we come to answer that Argument. Mean while we say secondly, that there is no other place to shew that apparent unbeleevers, whiles such, were ad­mitted to the 2. Sacrament; and therefore that institution, Matt. 26.26, 27. is sufficient to exclude from the Lords Supper. But we have largely shewed that there are no places of Scripture to ex­clude Infants of believers from the first seal, but many for inclu­ding them as belonging to it; and therefore we cannot take that generall expression, go teach and baptize, Matth. 28.19. to intend to exclude them from Baptisme.

CHAP. I.

MR. Tombes his third Argument against Infant-Baptisme,Exercit. Argum. 3. Sect. 16. From John Baptist and the Apostles practise. is from the Apostles, and John Baptist, which (saith he) is the best interpreter of our Lords institution, from whence this Argu­ment is formed.

That tenet and practise which being put, Baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles did administer it, [Page 105]agrees not with the practise of John Baptist, and the Apostles. But the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme being put, baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles admini­stred it. Ergo.

1. We answer.Animadvers This Argument doth not in terms conclude the thing in question. For make the supposition that John Baptist and the Apostles, the best interpreters of our Lords institution, had never any opportunitie, or occasion offered to baptize any believers Infants; would it therefore follow that the institution did not allow it when it doth not forbid it, but leaves it to be re­ferred to the institution of the first seal in the old Testament? Moses the best interpreter of the Ceremoniall Law, and so of the institution of Circumcision given by God, had not any occa­sion (that we read of to our remembrance) of circumcising any Jews of ripe yeers; would it follow therefore that he might not have done it according to the institution?

2. We answer. That when Mr. T. is to answer our Argument, that the Apostles baptizing whole families, likely baptized some Infants, he makes it doubtfull whether they baptized any Infants; and now Mr. T. puts it out of doubt that they baptized none. Or else he would prove one doubt by another.

But let us come particularly to the Argument. The minor, namely, [the tenet and practise of Infant-baptisme being put; Baptisme cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred is denyed. For it doth not appear that they bap­tized no children. But Mr. T. will prove the minor thus. Before the baptisme of John even the Jews did confesse their sins; the Apostles afore baptisme did require shews of faith and repen­tance. Matth. 3.6. Luk. 3.10. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.12, 13, 37. Act. 9.18. Act. 20.47. Act. 11. 17, 18. Act. 16.15.31, 32, 33. Act. 18.8. Act. 19.5. Act. 22.16. But this cannot be done in the baptisme of Infants. Ergo.

We answer by limiting the major. That in baptizing people of ripe yeers, de facto in fact confession of sin, &c. did precede and forego; But neither John Baptist nor the Apostles make any such expresse rule, that de jure of equitie none should be baptized by them, but those that could make confession of sin, or profession of faith. Nor doth all the Scriptures brought by Mr. T. prove any such rule. Mr. T. himself intimatedly confesseth, that John the [Page 106]Baptist did not make a rule for confession; but onely in practise those Jews of ripe yeers that John Baptist did baptize, did first con­fesse their sins. And that Act. 2.39. Act. 16. &c. have been alreadie discussed that they shewed children were baptized; who could not make confession or profession.

But Mr. T. objects, Act. 8.37. If thou believest with thy whole heart thou mayest be baptized. Where the Apostle implies in his speech to the Eunuch that defect of faith was an impediment of baptisme.

We answer. Mr. T. afore confesseth, p. 24. Infants may be san­ctified. If therefore he means the defect of manifestation of faith, we answer. It is true in men of ripe yeers. For there it is known that they are worse then Infants. So was it in circumcision. If Ishmael be a known scoffer, he is cast out, and so his children are not cir­cumcised, unlesse perhaps after at yeers they gave good testimo­nie of their due subjection to the Law.

So that to the whole argumentation we say, that here is men­tion of the manner of the practise of that first administration of baptisme to the parents, with confession and profession by many examples, and intimations, but not a rule set down that thus it must be in the succession of believers children.

We list not to speak any thing more of this major Proposition, and the proofs; onely wonder that among the crowd of Scrip­tures Mr. T. quotes, he would thrust in that of Act. 19.5. for bap­tisme of water, which was onely a conferring of the miraculary gifts of the holy Ghost, by imposition of hands; as many argu­ments from the place can evince.

But Mr. T. objects this for a confirmation of his Argument. That if it be rightly argued from 1 Cor. 11.28. that the Lords Sup­per is not to be granted to Infants, because self-examination is pre-required; by like reason we may say, Baptisme is not yeeld­ed to Infants, because repentance and faith are pre-required. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.37. and that of those that descended from Abraham, and to whom the promise was.

Besides what we said afore, we answer to this Argument (great in shew) that there is not the like reason between those places for Baptisme, and that for the Lords Supper. For,

• 1. That of the Lords Supper speaks of every Communicant viritim, as counting one after another; Let the partie whosoeuer it be enter into self-examination before eating. But that Act. 2.38. speaks in [Page 107]the gub, or generall to the parents. And that Act. 8.37. is spoken to one onely man, and in that phrase that cannot be found else­where on that occasion.
• 2. There is no intimation in the New Testament of children admitted to the Lords Supper. But in that Act. 2. presently in the next verse, v. 39. there is an intimation of their Infants admitted to Baptisme; as before we have evinced.

That clause of descending from Abraham, and the belonging of the promise, is of no weight in this Argument. For,

• 1 The parents by putting to death Christ, had made them­selves in wickednesse worse then Gentiles.
• 2 That confession and profession is expresly called for, onely from them that were so apparently wicked.
• 3 That if they did come in by repentance, the promise (saith the Apostle) presently runs to their children.

CHAP. XIII.

THe fourth Argument (saith Mr. T.) is taken from the next Age after the Apostles.Exercit. Sect. 17. The 4. Argu­ment against Infant Bap­tisme from the practise in the next age after the Apostles. That tenet and practise is doubtfull, of which it cannot be proved, that it was in force or use, in the next age after the Apostles: But it cannot be proved, that the te­net or practise of Infant-Baptisme was in force, or use, in the Age next after the Apostles. Ergo.

The major is of it self manifest. The minor is proved by the testi­mony of Lodovicus Vives above-recited, to which Vossius in the sibus Historico-Theologicis of Infant-baptisme joyns the testimony of Wa­lafridus Strabo, and by the examining of places brought to that purpose, and by the continuation of questions propounded to the baptized in Ages following, and others tokens from Councils and Ecclesiasticall Writers, which in historicall businesse are wont to beget credit.

The words of Walafridus Strabo, who lived about the yeer, 840. in his book Derebus Ecclesiasticis, Chap. 26. are these; ‘We are also to note, that in the first times the grace of Baptisme was wont onely to be given to them, who by integritie both of body, and minde, were already come to this, that they could know, and understand what profit is to be obteined in Baptisme, what is [Page 108]to be confessed, and believed, what lastly is to be observed of them that are born again in Christ. Thus farre Mr. T. and his quotation of Walafridus.’

1. To Mr. T. his major we say,Animadvers. that it is not of it self manifest. For what if we cannot produce any Records of Antiquitie for the use and practise of many things in the Age next to the Apostles; are they therefore doubtfull, when as we have the Word of God for them? Therefore the meer failing of the Votes of humane Wri­ters do not make a thing doubtfull: though the Papists urge us with the like Argument, that the Protestant Churches are not true, because we cannot produce Histories, &c. to shew their suc­cession in all Ages. If we fail in Records of Antiquitie, we may thank the Papists chiefly, who, as we may say, martyred by fire, and otherwise, as well good books, as godly men: and yet the Truth according to Scripture stands where it did.

To Mr. T. his minor we say, In generall.

1. That Mr. T. tels us beside of Lodovicus Vives, and Wal. Strabo, of places brought to that purpose, of the continuation of questions propounded to the baptized in ages following, of other tokens from Coun­cils, and of Ecclesiasticall Writers, but quotes them not; which is not the way to beget credit in the judicious Reader. It were too much to believe every Author upon his bare word, without other cir­cumstances; and therefore by much more too much to believe Au­thors not produced but onely intimated by Mr. T.

2. Mr. Tombes gives us in, two late-men in comparison of the stream of ancient Antiquitie, which is contrary to those two.

3. If those two had been a considerable number, or had pro­duced to us any considerable Reasons, or quotations of Antiqui­tie higher then themselves, or any fair probabilities, or circum­stances how they gather it, they would sooner have begot credit, then as they are now proposed.

In particular, first, to Ludovicus Vives, we answered afore in our Reply to Mr. T. his 13. Sect. touching the Argument of the fail­ing of the Churches succession; in the 9. Chap. of our Animad­versions. And we adde now, that both he and Walaf. Strabo speak as if they had not been acquainted with Antiquitie in this point, as will appear by and by from that we shall be able to quote.

2 To Walafridus Strabo, who is but of yesterday in comparison (by Mr. T. his confession) to barely assert against higher appro­ved [Page 109]Antiquitie, We answer; that if Mr. T. would but have gone on in the place he quoted out of the 26. Chap. of that Wal. Stra­bo, de Rebus Ecclesiasticis, and translated a line or two further, the world might have better seen what an acurat Antiquarie that Strabo was. We will therefore translate onward immediately where Mr. T. left.

‘For the venerable Father Augustine (saith W. Strabo) reports of himself in his books of his Confessions, that he continued Catechumenus, a catechised person almost to the twenty fift yeer of his age, namely, to that intent, that by this delay of time, he being well learned in every particular, he might be led by his own free accord to choose that which he liked.’ Thus Walaf. Strabo.

Upon which, Ger. Joh. Vossius his observation is this. ‘Thus far Walafridus (saith Vossius) in whose words, instead of the twenty fift yeer (as he is in printed copies. Bibl. p. p. T. 6. Ed. 2. and cited of learned men, Joseph vice com. observ. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 1. &c.) we ought to read the thirty fift yeer. For Augustine as appears by his books of his Confessions was converted in the thirty first yeer of his age.’ For the two yeers following he continued under catechising, in which time he wrote against the Academici, and wrote his Soliloquies. At thirty foure yeers old he was baptized by Ambrose at Midain; which declare with how weak an argument Walafridus doth contend. Thus far Ger. J. Vossius.

3 To Mr. T. his manner of quoting Vossius, as if Vossius added another testimonie to that of L. Vives, out of Walaf. Strabo against Infant-baptisme. We answer, Mr. T. doth but hereby neatly occa­sion, if not cause the unlearned to fall into a mistake; as if Vossius were against Infant-Baptisme, when as he is altogether for it, with many Arguments, wherein is shewed much divine learning. He that hath but Latine may read them at large. Ger. Joh. Voss. Thes. Theolog. & Histor. Disput. de Paedobapt. Thes. 3. &c.

4 Mr. T. intimating a referring himself in this cause of the ancientnesse of Infant-baptisme, to Antiquitie, Councils, Ecclesiasti­call Writers, &c. doth but reach down a rod for his own opinion, and a confutation of his minor Proposition he pretended to prove by Antiquitie. For the best antiquitie of the Fathers, &c. are for us against Mr. T. that Infant-baptisme was in the next Age to the Apostles, and so downwards: which (to follow Mr. T. in his own [Page 110]we are forced to produce, and to refell Mr. T. and Mr. D. exceptions against some of them (as alledged by some of us) that we may leave things clear as we go.

1 Justin Martyr Justin Mar­yr, saith Bu­cholcerus, apologized for the Christians, in the yeer 141 after Christs birth. And was converted to Christianity before that, in the yeer after Christs birth, 130. saith Helvious. He was a pro­fessor of Philosophy, before his conversion, and therefore in all likelihood was at least 20. yeers old, if not 30, at his conversion, and so lived very neer the time of John the Apostle, who dyed not till about Ann. 200 after the birth of Christ. And therefore Justin Martyr mu [...] needs know the customes in the Apostles dayes. in his books unquestionably his, in some things we cast our eye upon (for we had not time now to read over Pamphlets of this question, much lesse volumnes) seems to hint something towards Infant-baptisme, in his Dialogue, Cum Tryph. Jud: Have ye not read that, that soul should be cut off from his ge­noration which shall not be circumcised the eighth day. And this is equally established concerning strangers, or those bought with money. This Cove­nant therefore or Testament you despising, you neither have any regard of the Commandments following; and then adjoynes. There is now need of another circumcision, &c. And in his 2 Apol. [...], After washing in that manner, we bring him that hath believed, and is joyned to us, unto the biethren as they are called, where they are gathered together, and make prayers and supplications in common, both for them selves, and for him that hath been eluminated (that is baptized) &c.

Again in his Dialog. cum Tryphone, he opposeth baptisme with water to baptizing with sin; but we are baptized with sin when children. [...].

Again one in a Treatise which goes under the name of Justin Martyr, namely, in the Questions to the orthodox. Question and An­swer 56. disputes the different condition of children dying bap­tized,EXAMEN. Perk. prepara. to the Demon­strat. of the Problem. Rivet. Crit. Sacer. R. Cook of Leeds, Cen­sur. patrum. Exercit. & unbaptized. Therefore children were baptized in his time.

Mr. T. in his Examen. objecteth, that it is proved by Mr. Perkins, by Rivet, and by Cook, that the Quest. ad orthodox were not Justin Martyrs, for as much as they mention not onely Irenaeus, but also Origen, and the Manichees.

We answer. Although we will not peremptorily pronounce that those Questions and Answers ad Orthodoxos were Justin Martyrs, neverthelesse it doth not yet appear to us as infallibly proved by Mr. T. his Arguments, that those Quest. ad Orthodox. were none of his. 1. For the mention of the Manichees there is a mistake. The [Page 111]place where the Manichees are mentioned; is not affirmed by di­vers learned menCook. cens. patr. Rivet. Crit. Sacer. Possevin. App. to be in the Questions to the orthodox, but in Quae­stiouib. & Responsionib. ad Graecos, there we find them often menti­onedResp. ad Qu. primam, &c. often. Perk.. For mention of the Manichees in the Questions ad Ortho­doxos, once, in some copies, in Quaest. 127. Mr. T. hath it but out of one Author. And very likely it was thrust in to the Quest. ad or­thod. in latter times by the Scribes. For the sence is perfect with­out it. And the inserting is but in manner of a quotation, to ex­plain how in those times Justin Martyr met with some opinions then arising, which in after-times grew infamously famous, got an head, and a Name of Manicheisme: which being known to the Scribes of latter times, they might put in the name Maniche, as an­swerable to the thing disputed, and for the information of the Reader. Who that is a Scholar doth not know that Marginall notes on books at last have crept into the Text? Many instances might be given of books of many sorts. So then this reason is not a certain evincing Argument; that the Qu. ad. orthod. are not Ju­stin Martyrs.

2. To the mention of Irenaeus we say,Resp. ad Qu. 115. ad or­thod. that this Argument is weak also. For, first, Justin Martyr is put in Anno 130. after Christ. And they say he was martyred not till Anno 165Helvic.. yea some say not till 169Buchol.. And Irenaeus was a Bishop Anno 170; and therefore must needs be famous many yeers before Justin Martyrs death; and therefore well might they quote one another in their books. But to allow more then Mr. T. objects, namely, as some object, that Justin Martyr in the said place cals Irenaeus martyr, when as he was martyred long after Justin Martyrs death. We answer, that if that word Martyr were not put in by some late Scribe since, for the honour and distinction of the man, however in the English the word martyr be taken, yet usually in Latin, and more con­stantly in the Greek, it signifies onely a witnesse. And Irenaeus was a famous witnesse to the truth by pen and profession in Justin Martyrs time, though not by blood. Again, if Martyr be taken for a sufferer, yet not alwayes for a sufferer by death: Isaac is said to be persecuted by Ishmael onely mocking him. Gal. 4.29. Gen. 21.9. Which kind of oppositions, and worse, Irenaeus no doubt met with in those persecuting times of his, and of Justins, as fore-run­ners of the effusion of their blood.

3. To the mention of Origen, in his Qu. ad orthodox. Resp. ad qu. [Page 112]82. & 86. we say, that Chronologers and Historians (those few we could cast a look upon) are so uncertain about the life and death of these two Fathers as is wonderfull.Bucholcer. It is confessed by some, that Origen and Justin Martyr were within some 14 or 15 yeers one of another. And we heard afore that some made Justin Martyr far longer lived then others did; now if indeed (as who knows to the contrary) either Origen was born sooner, or Justin Martyr lived longer, but a few yeers; Justin Martyr might well hear of Origen; who was a great Scholar, very young, even before he was 18 yeers old: and wrote soon, and much, in all 7000 books, as Hieroni reports.

I confesse for my part (I speak my conscience) if that be all the objection, I should sooner believe mens writings quoting one an­other, as sufficient testimonies that they lived some yeers at the same time when it is neer confest by Authors, then to doubt of such because some Chronologers or Historians cipher or say them to be 14 or 15 yeers after one another. But where doth these Questions ad orthodoxos quote Origen? we can find but two. One in the Answer to the 82. Quest. on which let any ingenuous man look and observe how he is named (if he,) in the last close of all, and the fulnesse of the Answer, without mention of the supposed Origen, and he will say, verily this was but some marginall Note since Justin Martyr, thrust into the Text. The other place is in the beginning of the Answer to the 86. Question, and therefore very likely to be thrusted too into the text. For let a man put out the first words, [...], It is expounded by Origen, and yet the sence will be full thus: That to a man that is skilfull in the Hebrew tongue, there is an interpretation of all the Hebrew names in the Scripture. Which is further strengthened, because in the close it is said, [...] not [...] that is, if you consult that interpretation, not that Origen (if he). Besides, a man that is critically skilled in the Greek, which I professe not, he would haply examine, if Origen be here quoted, first, why [...] man is needlesly put in. And whether it be so proper to construe the verb passive [...] is interpreted by Origen, there being no praeposition, accor­ding to the usuall rule. And lastly, whether [...] be not some other word signifying some other thing then a proper name to fignifie Origen. We could give instance but for haste.

But to give Mr. T. an Objection which he doth not make: to [Page 113]wit, that the Qu. ad orthodox. are not thought to be Justin Martyrs, because in them there is such contradictions contrary to what is said in Justin Martyrs works (as Mr. T. his R. Cook observeth) as that in the 52. Qu. ad orthodox. it is said the Witch, 1 Sam. 28. did delude the eyes of all the beholders that they might think it was Samuel. But in his Dialog-cum Tryphone, the contrary is affirmed. Qu. 142. ad Orthodox. it is said, that it was a created Angel, that talked with Jacob; but in his Dialogue cum Tryphone, he proves him to be an uncreated Angel.

To which we answer. That so learned Tossanus observes upon Augustine, that he sometimes contradicts himself in those books which he accounts the very book of Augustus. M. T. knew learned Mr. P. who would say, Can any meer man write much, and not in any thing contradict himself? And for the instances they are not of mo­ment. As one Angel talked with Jacob, so he saw many more. There might be a materiall body patcht up by the devil, accord­ing to the sphere of angelicall power, and yet he must delude the eyes of the beholders too, to make them think it was Samuels reall body.

Mr. T. goes on against those Qu. ad orthodox. Now (saith he) what doth this Bastard Treatise say?

Answ. These are sesquipedalia verba, high words. For, first, by this we have said; it may appear that it is not yet so out of doubt that the Qu. ad Orthodoxos are not Justin Martyrs. Secondly, there are failings enough in the other Treatises of Justin Martyrs, by which these Questions are judged. Thirdly, that there are not wanting men of great learning that think the said Questions may be accounted of like Authoritie with the rest of the Treatises, though they were not truly Justin Martyrs. And Scultetus saith, that though this Treatise be not Justin Martyrs, yet not to be re­jected, there being many Gemmes, though mixt with some chaffe. And H. Grotius on Matth. 19.14. quotes them with as great re­spect, as other Fathers, yea so quotes this 56. qu.

Well, and what doth Mr. T. say to this Treatise which he so cals Bastard? This: He translated all the whole 56t. Question and Answer, named Justin Martyrs ad Orthodox. The Qu. and Answer, of the named Justin Martyr, in full as Mr. T. translates it, is this. Qu. If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works, what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptized by others, and have done nothing, and of those that have not been baptized, and in like manner have done no­thing? Answ. This is the difference of the baptized from the not baptized, that the baptized obtien good things (meaning at the resurrection) by baptisme: but the unbaptized obtein not good things. And they are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their Baptisme, by that faith of those that bring them to Baptisme, So Mr. T. [...]is translat. and then Mr. T. [Page 114]makes these observations upon it.

• 1 That In those times they did not baptize Infants upon Mr. Marshals ground, namely, upon the Covenant of Grace, made to them and their Infants.
• 2 But they baptized them, because they thought the not-baptized should not obtein good things at the resurrection, but the baptized should.
• 3 That those baptized Infants obteined those good things by reason of the faith of the bringers, what ever the pa­rents were.
• 4 That therefore they baptized the children of un­beleevers, as well as of beleevers if they were brought. Mr. T. ho­ping by this translation, and these Notes, to bring the Author, and his words into disgrace, as he himself hints it to us.

But we answer in generall, that Mr. T. hath likewise quoted Authors, and among them even his much esteemed Ludovicus Vives that have had their harsh expressions and worse, as before we have noted. 2. The intent and manner of quoting the Quest. to the orthodox, was onely to testifie that the baptisme of Infants was a known custome in those times.

In particular, we answer, first to his first observation, that the said 56. Question, was not urged by my self, or Mr. T. to prove baptisme of Infants upon the ground of the Covenant. But the question being whether in point of Fact, the Churches used an­ciently to baptize Infants? to that the quotation of those Que­stions named. Justin Martyrs was alledged, and to that it serveth fitly and fully. For he was a very ancient Author, in the judge­ment of divers learned men. Sylburgius thinks that he was a Justin that might write about the time of Theodoret. But Photius thinks that it might be Iustin Martyr, interlined by some other Iustin or other after; as Ruffinus dealt by Origen, as Mr. T. confesseth.

To Mr. T. second observation we answer. That as we that are believers (as it is in the Answer to that 56. Question) cannot ap­plaud, nor comfort our selves in a willing neglect of baptizing our children according to the Gospel institution (as we now stand to maintain) so doubtlesse we are to expect good things on Gods part to our children according to the intent of Baptisme. We find it so on earth in their comfortable application of baptisme at [Page 115]ripe yeers; and why not then to beleeve the fruit of it in heaven, if they dye in childhood? Why may not Baptisme as well com­fort the supposed Iustin Martyr, and us, as Circumcision did the Patriarks concerning their childrens receiving the first seal. This expression in this 56. Question and Answer is esteemed by Grotius on Matth. 19.14. (whom Mr. T. so oft quotes) [...], &c.

To his third observation we answer. That there is no such clause or intimation in the said place of the 56. Quest. ad orthodox. as Mr. T. here inserts, namely, [what ever the parents be]. The con­trary is more probable; the Author calling the bringers of the In­fants [beleevers]. And who so likely to bring the children, as the parents. And therefore the parents here most probably are those believers. And whereas Mr. T. renders [...] [worthy] worthy of good things, he might by warrant from the GospelAs Matth. 10.11. enquire [...], who is fit, or meet, that is to re­ceive you, as it is expound­ed in v. 14. have ren­dred it by a more orthodox and fit terme, viz. [meet] or [fit]. And lastly, it being more probable then any thing Mr. T. can bring to the contrary, that the children were brought to baptisme by their beleeving parents, and so made meet for good things as the fruit of it, let the Reader judge whether all this doth not imply that respect here might be had to the Covenant of grace as the ground of baptizing children; which Mr. T. but now so peremp­torily denyed, as if it were infallibly contrary to the Text of the Author.

To his fourth observation we need say no more but that Mr. T. speaks it without all warrant, or such probability from the text of the Author, as there is in it to the contrary.

Now let the world judge whether the words of the Author, considering his time, are so vain, or so impertinent, as Mr. T. would meke them, had they been alledged in full, and beyond that the quotation extended to.

Thus for Justin Martyr. Next we come to Irenaeus, IRENAEVS. who lived in the same century, namely, in the next age to the Apostles, and not at the last end of that age neither. For Bucholcerus (one of the most approved Chronologers by Vsher) puts him in the yeer after Christ, 178. And Helvicus puts him higher, namely, in the yeer,Testis. D. H. secum enutri­tus. 170. And both of them put him down as Bishop at that time (of Lyons, saith Bucholcerus) and therefore was famous no doubt di­vers yeers afore, and an observer of the customes of the Churches. [Page 116]Having this advantage for that purpose, that he was the Scholar of Polycarp, as Polycarp was Scholar or disciple to some of the Apo­stles, as divers Chronologers tell us.

That which Irenaeus hath to our purpose in the point in hand, is in his 2 Book, 39. Chap. about the middle. His words are these. Magister ergo existens, &c. that is, ‘Therefore being a teaching Master, he had also the age of such a Master, not refusing, or going beyond a man, nor dissolving the law of humane kind in himself, but sanctifying every age by that similitude that was in him to it. For he came to save all men by himself; All I say, who by him are BORN-AGAIN unto, or, into God, IN­FANTS and LITTLE-ONES, boyes, and young men, and elder men. Therefore he went through every age, and was made an Infant, to Infants, sanctifying Infants. Among little ones, a little one, sanctifying them that have this age: being also made an example to them of pietie, and justice or righteous­nesse, and subjection. Among young men being made a young man, and sanctifying them to the Lord; so also an elder, to the elder, that he might be a perfect teaching master, not onely ac­cording to the exposition of truth, but also according to age, sanctifying the elder, being made also an example to them. And then he went also unto death, that he might be the first-born from the dead, holding the primacy in all things, &c.’ So Irenaeus. Whom we have translated above and beneath the place we are to use, that there might be the lesse exception by any, that they could not see the coherence and scope of the place. The words we stand upon in which Irenaeus intimates the baptisme of Infants in that his time, next after the Apostles, are, [All I say, who by him are BORN AGAIN unto, or into God, or according to God INFANTS, and LITTLE ONES, &c.] The word Renas­cuntur, that is, regenerated, or new-born, or born again, signifying, or implying Baptisme. So the Scriptures, so Irenaeus, and the Fathers mean by Born-again, new born, or regenerated, though Mr. T. de­nies it.

Scriptures. The first Scripture is in Joh. 3.5. Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit. Where the Spirit signifies the inward work, accompanying or following (where God converts) the outward signe, seal, and conveighance of Baptisme; as we have before discussed this place, where we have given you the generall [Page 117]consent of orthodox Authors, and some Reasons, that the water of Baptisme is here understood. We now adde, first, the water of baptisme must be here meant, because of the order: water is put first, the Spirit next. Now where a metaphoricall epithite, or word is put to set forth the nature of the Spirit, the Spirit is put first, and the metaphoricall terme or word after. Matth. 3. Baptized with the holy Ghost and fire, that is, with the holy Ghost which is like fire. Secondly, Christ is speaking to Nicodemus one of the Phari­sees, who did put much in outward, legall, and ceremonious washings, Mark 7.1, 2, &c. Therefore doubtlesse Christ would apply his speech sutable to the condition of Nicodemus, to take him off that washing, by propounding to him the Gospel wash­ing of Baptisme, already begun by John Baptist, on which usually followed an inward effectuall work of washing by the Spirit. Both these Reasons are hinted by Beza, who by all means would rather have an externall washing here meant, beside the inward of the Spirit. And prevents an objection; that grace is not here tyed to the Sacrament of Baptisme, the peculiar Sacrament of re­generation (saith he) no more then it is to the Lords Supper. Ioh. 6.53. Besides, saith he, there is mention after of the Spirit with­out water. Thirdly, regeneration is attributed to the outward and more common means of preaching the Word, 1 Pet. 1.23. why not therefore to Baptisme the peculiar Sacrament of regeneration? And so Nicodemus hath here for the businesse in hand which is his conversion, all three means compleatly represented to him, Christs word, Baptisme, and the holy Spirit.

We list not to abound in proof of a thing so plain, and com­monly received. If one or two think otherwise, it is not of weight to say so without proof. Nor do I know any reason why any should dissent, unlesse for a dream of tying grace to Sacraments which (Beza and others excellently take off) or for fear of mens private interests in an argument which is not considerable.

The second Scripture is, Tit. 3.5. According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost. Where washing (according to divers learned orthodox Authors) signi­fies or implyes Baptisme. The reasons that evince our consent is,

• 1. That the word [...] for washing, signifies not so much the act of bare washing, as the place where the water is, and the action is done. For it signifies a Bath or laver of water; and therefore [Page 118]cannot be so fitly applyed to the inward washing of the Spirit, as to outward baptisme.
• 2 The spirituall working of the Spirit follows in the next clause, The making of us new by the Spirit.
• 3 It is usuall with the holy Ghost to call the whole work by the name of the outward signe of baptisme. Gal. 3.27. Col. 2.12. even as Circumcision is called the Covenant, Gen. 17. though but the signe or seal of the Covenant.

Thus of the Scriptures, that by the words, born again, new born, or the like, is signified or implyed baptisme: sutably to Scrip­tures.

Secondly, Irenaeus takes his own word Renascuntur, that is, born again, or new born, to signifie baptisme. Compare that place of Ire­naeus lib. 1. cap. 18. where speaking of the corruptions by Hereticks touching redemption, and Baptisme, &c. he hath these words in the beginning of the Chapter. This kind (that is of Sect) was sent by Satan for the denying of the Baptisme of regeneration, or new birth to­wards or according to God, and for the destruction of the whole faith. This place clears the thing, and Mr. T. his exceptions; which are, 1 pos­sibly this might not be Irenaeus his words. 2 That Irenaeus is cor­rupted by the Latin Translation (we wanting the Greek copie.) To which we answer. That this quotation out of the first book and 18. Chap. of Irenaeus takes away both objections. For Mr. T. his Rivet confesseth, That the first 27. Chapters of the first book of Irenaeus are inserted in Epiphanius his Panarium, which we have in Greek. And so much of Irenaeus entirely is to be had in Greek in Irenaeus his works. And accordingly Epiphanius saith, that That circumcision continued serving to the time, till the greater circumcision came, which is the laver of regeneration. So Epiphan. lib. 2. cap. 28. We have not time to seek more; though he speaks often of baptisme; sometimes calling it the great circumcision, sometimes onely the laver, &c.

But Mr. T. objects,Mr. T. EXAMEN. Sect. 4. that Voss. Thes. Theolog. de Paedobapt. intimates that the proper acception of renascuntur, that is, born again, or new-born, is to signifie sanctification.

We answer. Vossius doth not speak so much for Mr. T. but against him in this point,Animadvers. as we conceive. Whether we conceive aright, let the Reader judge. Vossius his words are these. We can prove by apparent testimonies of them that lived before the Pelagian Here­sie, that Infants were baptized. Such a testimony is Irenaeus. lib. 2. cap. 39. [Page 119]Where he saith Christ came to save all by himself, all I say, who by him are born-again, or new-born by him, towards God, in­fants and little ones, &c. where by the word born again, or new-birth, is set forth Baptisme according to the common form of speech of the Anci­ents. Although if we take the word born-again curiously, yet in as much as Irenaeus saith, regeneration is in Infants. It sufficiently refuteth the opinion of them, who indeavour by this Argument to prove that because regeneration (as they think) may not be in Infants, that therefore they may not be signed with the outward signe. So Vossius.

But Mr. T. objects again,M. T. EXAM. Sect. 4. that Irenaeus his scope is to confute the Gnosticks that hold Christ did not exceed 31. yeers of age, against whom Irenaeus alledgeth that Christ lived in every age, that by his age and example he might sanctifie every age.

We answer.Animadvers. But Irenaeus layes the foundation of his sanctifying all sorts of ages in this, that they are new-born by Christ to Godward both Infants and little ones; and then follows, he was made an In­fant to Infants to sanctifie them: having before regenerated them; whereof what signe is there to us, but Gods institution and act that Infants should have the first seal?

But Mr. T. yet further objects,Mr T. EXAM. Sect. 4. that Irenaeus speaks not of bap­tisme, because he saith, Born again by him, that is by Christ.

We answer.Animadvers. That Mr. T. well knows subordinate things are not contrary. Christ regenerates therefore doth he not do it by his Ordinances, Word, Baptisme, &c? We have heard afore that though Christ be the Author of our salvation, yet it is said we are born again by water and the Spirit. And that for the conjunction of the signe and thing signified, the thing signified is called by the name of the signe. We adde, Ephes. 5.26.1 Pet. 1.23. where it is said, that we are sanctified by the washing of water by the Word; And we are born again by the Word of God; and yet we know Christ by his Spirit, is the Author of these.

3 Others of the approved Ancients as Commentators on Ire­naeus call baptisme, by the name of regeneration. Nazianzen cals Baptisme [...], the laver of regeneration, or of the new-birth. Nazianz. Orat. 40². in Sanct. Bapt. Augustine saith, As by the first man, men are born in sin and death, so by Christ [renascuntur] they are born again in or into righteousnesse and eternall life, in or through baptisme. Aug. lib. de Bapt. & hab. & Cons. Ambrose saith, God the omnipotent Father who hath regenerated thee [Page 120]of water, and the holy Spirit. Ambros. de Sacram. Hieronimus. The bloody bodies of Infants are washed as soon as they are born; so the spirituall generation stands in need of the saving laver. Hie­ron. lib. 4. Ezek. ca. 16. More might be alledged, but these enough to clear the businesse in hand, that Irenaeus meant by being born-again, or regenerated; Baptisme.

But Mr. T. objects,Mr. T. EXA­MEN. Sect. 4. p. 7. that Irenaeus saith, Christ was fifty yeers old, a [...] he had received it from those that conversed with John the Apostle; and thereby Mr. Tombes would blemish Irenaeus his testimonie.

We answer.Animad. First, men have their mistakes, else they were not men but as Angels. Secondly, Mr. T. referred us to far worse Au­thors, full of superstitions, in Scham. before. And his Ludovicus Vives, and his Walafridus we and Vossius too have noted before, for their grosse expressions and mistakes. Thirdly, which is mainly to the point, Irenaeus saith, Infants may be born again, that is baptized, as from himself; though he reports the whole age of Christ from others, who if they wrote his age by ciphers, in after-times fifty might easily be mistaken for thirty.

The third and last Author we will urge from this first age,TERTVL­LIAN. or first hundred yeers or century next following the Apostles time, is Tertullian. Whom Helvicus puts in the latter end of the age afore said, namely, in the yeer after Christ 195. which was as about the 95 yeer after the death of John the Evangelist. But the same Helvicus saith this of him (put in that yeer) out of Eusebius and Hieron. That he put forth his book of Praescriptions, and that he was the third Latin Writer. And Bucholcerus mentions him as fa­mous about the yeer after Christ 208, that is 108. after St. John, that is but about thirteen yeers after the time set down by Hel­vicus. For he saith that about that time,Hieron. in Catalogo. Cyprian (as Hieron testi­fies) did ascribe so much to Tertullians writings, that when he called for one of his Authors or Writers, he would say, Da Ma­gistrum, that is, Give me my Master, when he meant Tertullian. There­fore he wrote divers yeers afore.

The words of Tertullian to the point in hand of Infant-Bap­tisme, Lib. de Anim. cap. 39. & 40. are these; Hinc enim & Ap [...]st. &c. that is, ‘For hence also the Apostle affirmeth that of either sex sanctified are procreated those that are holy, as by the pre­rogative of SEED, so by the discipline or rule of institution. [Page 121]But they were born unclean, as if by this neverthelesse he would have it understood that the children of beleevers are [designatos] the designed ones of holinesse, and thereby also of salvation; that these pledges of hope might patronage those marriages, which he had judged to be kept (undissolved.) Otherwise he had mind­ed the Lords determination, Vnlesse one be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdome of God, that is, He shall not be holy. So every soul is counted to be in Adam till he be recounted to be in Christ; and so long to be impure, till he be recounted.’ Thus Tertullian. Whence note first by the way, how the opinion of Antiquity touching that place, 1 Cor. 7.14. is con­trary to Mr. Tombes his opinion. Secondly, directly to the point in hand of the Baptisme of the children of beleevers, he holds forth these Notions.

First the birthright of beleevers Infants, the parents and children being both under that promise, I am the God of thee and thy seed. They are (saith Tertullian) by the Sanctification of one of the Pa­rents, procreated holy, partly by the praerogative of the SEED (I am the God of thee beleeving Abraham, and of thy seed, Gen. 17.7.) partly by the discipline of Institution (THEREFORE thou shalt keep my Covenant to give the first seal to every male of thy seed, Gen. 17.9. Or Act. 2. The promise is to you, and you being called, to your children also.) So that Tertullian meanes that the children of beleevers are reputatively and federally holy: Which is the more plain by that which follows, of counted in Adam and recounted in Christ.

Secondly, The capacity of children, of grace and Salvation (and consequently of the seal, for the deeds and their seals follow the right of the inheritance; so all along the Scripture, as we have shewed in part) I say Tertullian shews childrens capacity of grace, 1. In mentioning their being holy. For its in vain to talke of account­ing holy, if none may be holy; yea therefore God will have belee­vers children indefinitly accounted holy, because he hath made some holy in their childhood, Isaac, Iacob, Samuel, Iohn Baptist, those Mar. 10. &c. 2. In mentioning that place, Iohn 3.5. in relation to children; Except a man be born again of water and the Spi­rit, &c. From all which we may perceive, that Tertullian grounds Infant-Baptisme upon Scripture, not upon unwritten Tradi­tion.

Nor is it my opinion onely, that this place of Tertullian is for Infant-baptisme, but of learned Vossius too, (whom Mr. T. so oft quotes with respect:) For Vossius by this place proves that it was the mind of Tertullian in that noted place of Chap. 18.H. D. Mr T. in his 10th Argument. of his book De Baptismo, That Infants should be Baptized; which some alleadge against Infant-baptism, but is indeed for it. Tertullians words are these. Itaeque pro cujusque personae &c. ‘Therefore according to every persons condition, disposition, and age, the delay of baptisme is more profitable; but especial­ly concerning little children. For what necessity is there [Those words between [] Junius saith may be left out: Mr T. in his 10th Argu­ment leaves them out. But in the best Editions of Tertullian they are in. Vossius takes them in and alleadg­eth them. If it be not so much a necessity] as to have witnesses also in the danger? The Lord saith indeed, forbid them not to come unto me; let them come therefore, when they grow up to youth, &c.’ So Tertullian in the aforesaid book concerning baptisme. Upon which place Vossius Thes. Theo­log. & Hist. de Paedob. saith thus; We think that nothing is here denyed but onely the necessity of baptisme, when there is no danger of death; for that's the meaning of those words [What necessity, if there be not so much necessity as, &c.] but in no case did he deny that Infants might be baptized; yea and if there be danger least afterwards they be not baptized, its plain they ought to be bap­tized, which we do not obscurely discern by that which Tertullian writeth in his booke of the soul, and the 39. and 40. chapter, and then recited the words, which before we quoted and translated to you. Thus Vossius.

Give us but leave to give you learned and pious Iunius his note too on this place of Tertullian, and we shall have done with Ter­tullian. The words of Iunius are these: Tria hic distinctè proponit Auctor, Notae Franc. Junii, ad Ter­tul. de Baptis. &c. that is, The Author propunds here three things di­stinctly, which being rightly understood, the place is most holy.

• 1. The CONDITION of persons to be baptized is that they be in Co­venant, whether they be of age, or little children.
• 2. DISPOSI­TION is when they beleeve, and obey the Gospell, and make pro­fession.
• 3. They are not accounted to be OF AGE which are in co­venant (for the little children of Godly men are in Covenant) but who so professe the faith.

Therefore when he saith ESPECIALLY CONCERNING LITTLE CHILDREN, that must needs be understood of the children of strangers or Forraigners, not of the children of those that are in Covenant, and so domestick or of the family of the Church; as is confirmed by the following Aetiologie [Page 123]or GIVING THE CAVSE, namely what necessity is there, if there be not so much necessity as for witnesses or God-fathers and God-mothers &c. For we know that the first invention of witnesses was for the children whose parents could not be accounted mem­bers of the Church.Mr T. his ob­jections after against Tertul are prevented here, and fur­ther answered in the 14 chap. of our Animad­versions at the word CYPRI­AN in the Margin.

That this was the mind of these Authours, Justin Martyr, Ire­naeus and Tertullian in this age next after the Apostles, will further appear by the consent of the most approved Ancients that follow­ed them in the next succeeding ages, which we have thought most proper to defer to the next chapter of our Animadversions upon Mr T. his fifth Argument.

CHAP. XIIII.

THE fifth Argument:

That which in succeeding Ages, in which it was in use,Exercitat. Argu. 4. § 17. The Ar­gument from the wrong ori­ginall of In­fant-Baptism, confirmed a­gainst it. was in force,

• 1 as a Tradition not written;
• 2 Out of imitation of Jewish Circumcision;
• 3 Without universall practise;
• 4 Together with the error of giving Infants the Lords supper, and many other humane inventions, under the name of Apostolicall traditions;

That is deservedly doubtfull.

But in some ages after the first from the Apostles, the tenet and practise of Infant-Baptisme was in use, 1 as a tradition not written, as appears from Origen, Hom. on Rom. 6. Of which book neverthe­lesse let me add the censure of Erasmus on the Homilies of Origen upon Leviticus, But he that reads this work, and the enarration of the Epistle to the Romans, is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus. And the testimony fetched from these books for Infant-Baptisme, is so much the more to be suspected, because Augustine, Hierom, &c. rely (so far as yet is manifest to me) on no other testi­mony, then of Cyprian and his fellow-Bishops in the Councell, of which mention is made Epist. 59. ad Fidum.

Secondly, out of imitation of Jewish Circumcision, as the doubt of Fidus, in the 59. Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus, in­timates, though there were also other reasons of Infant-bap­tisme; as the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme to salva­tion, and the greedinesse to increase the number of Christians, and [Page 124]perhaps the imitation of heathenish lustration of little ones; and some other.

Thirdly, without universall practise: for it is manifest that Constantine, although borne of Helena his mother, a Christian, was not baptized till aged, as Eusebius in the life of Constantine written by him. The same is manifest from the booke of Confessi­ons of Augustine, concerning Augustine himselfe, whose mo­ther Monica was a Christian. The things which may be drawne out of Theodoret, Augustine, and others, concerning Theodosius, Alipius, Adeodatus, and many others (although my bookes and notes out of them are wanting to me, by reason of the injury of the times) unlesse I be deceived, will evince that (though in the Churches of those times, little ones were baptized, yet) many were not baptized, whose baptisme its likely the Church would sooner have dispatched, if the opinion of Baptisme that now obtains, had then obtained.

Fourthly, together with the error of giving the Lords supper to Infants, as is manifest out of the booke of Cyprian de lapsis, and others. And that many other Inventions of men, under the name of Apostolicall tradition, out of a wrong likeing of Judaism did then prevail, as the Paschall solemnity &c. is so obvious to him that reades Fathers, and Ecclesiasticall Writers, that no man will need proof. Ergo.

And in very deed, as of old, because the right of Infant-Bap­tisme seemed to be of so great moment against the Pelagian heresie, and for the authority of the Councell under Cyprian, the Councell of Milevis, Augustine, Hierom, and others, rather then for any solid argument out of Scripture in former ages, Infant-baptisme prevailed; so in this last age, some moderne men seeme to imbrace this tenet of Infant-Baptisme out of horror of mind, least they should go headlong into the pernicious errours of former Anabap­tists, and their madde furies, or least they should seeme to desert the leading-men of the reformed Churches, or move troubles in the Church; rather then from perspicuous foundation in the Scriptures; which they will thinke that I have not said as one that dreames, who shall read what Robert Lord, Brooke hath in the end of his Treatise concerning Episcopacy; Daniel Ro­gers in his Treatise of Baptisme, and others elsewhere.

We Answer.Animadver. 1. To the major; Take away the captain or lea­ding [Page 125]particular to wit [A tradition not written] and all the soul­diary of the other particulars with the great Rear [to wit, Many other humane inventions] are not strong enough to make a true major proposition. For what if according to Mr T. his ad particu­lar of [Iewish] that Baptisme be an imitation of the Iewish pas­sing through the red sea, 1 Cor. 10.1. &c. And the Lords Supper an imitation of the 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 [Page 126] 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 [Page 127]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 borneSo 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 schooleHelvic. 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 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 [notSo 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 Haer [...]s [...]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 [Page 128] 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 Ʋsher, 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: [Page 130]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. 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 [Page 131]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 ChristHelvic., and so also was in the second century, 100 years or age after the first from the Apostles (according to Mr T. his language) othersBucholc. 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 EpistleAlias, 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 [Page 132][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 Ne [...] ­phyt. Hom. in Gen. & in Ps. Ambros. in Luc. Hierom. sub [...]inem l. 3. Dia­log. contra Pe­lagian. August Epist. 28 ad Hi [...]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 [...]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 [Page 133](in his book of baptisme chap. 18.) the baptizing of Infants. And i [...] he did allow it (as Mr T. adds) it was onely in case of necessity, as may appear by his words in his book De Animâ. Chap. 39.

We Reply to this. 1. That both these places of Tertullian are before alleadged, translated, and disc [...]ssed,Animadver. to be for Infant-bap­tisme, chap. 13. of our Animadvers. at the word TERTUL. in the Margin, which we desire the Reader to peruse over again: where you may see, that Tertullian hath nothing of allowance of Infant-baptisme onely in case of Necessity; but (if the places be well weighed) he saith, that which he saith, for Infant-baptisme, without any such limitation: which Infant-baptisme among other passages is asserted by Tertullian, in those words, That the children of either Parent-sex sanctified, are holy, partly by the prerogative of the SEED, partly by the RVLE OF DISCIPLINE: Which, what can it be but Baptisme? And in those words, Those children are Designati sanctitatis, the designedones of holinesse, or, the marked ones of holinesse. It is more like that Mr T. meant, that Tertullian restrained Infant-baptisme to necessity. lib. de Bapt. cap. 18. But we have abundantly cleered this also afore, in the 13. Chap. of our Animadvers. at the word TERTUL in the Mar­gin: and that not out of our own thoughts onely, but out of learned Ju [...]ius and Vossius. Let the Reader have patience to peruse that we have there said. We adde now, That the most of Tertul­lians dispute against hastning baptisme (chap. 18. of his book con­cerning Baptisme) is against suddain baptizing men of ripe yeers; For his words are, Give not Baptisme rashly, Give not holy things to dogs, (he counts not Infants of beleevers such as you heard out of his book De anima, and here by and by calls them, The INNO­CENT age) If the Eunuch were suddenly Baptised, yet the Spirit commanded Philip to go to his Chariot, If Paul were suddenly bap­tized, yes he was soon known to Jude his Host, that he was a chosen [...]essell: So Tertul &c. It is true that after Tertullian speaks of In­fants, but what saith he? Quid festina [...] innocen [...]a [...] a [...] ad remissionem peccatorum? [Why doth innocent age hasten to forgivenesse of sinnes] (meaning Baptisme.) Is this a good reason, a Scripture ground to defer the Baptisme of Infants? He saith himselfe in his said book and 8 chap. De animâ, That children are not holy, till they be counted so in Christ. And how in Christ? When they be by means of one of the holy Parents, under the promise, of being a [Page 134]holy seed, and by the rule of Discipline, which for children, while such, was onely Baptisme. And whereas Mr T. brings in learned Grotius as countenancing him, in relying upon Tertullian against Infant-Baptisme, we have largely and plainly layd open, after, in our Animadversions in this Chap. upon the sixth Section of Mr T. his EXAMEN (see the margin there:)

• 1. That Grotius rejects Tertullians opinion, as nothing swaying him, against Infant-Bap­tisme.
• 2. That Grotius by many Arguments is for Infant-Baptism.
• 3. We now adde, that it is true Grotius doth say, Tertullianus de aetate quâ baptizandi essent qui Christianae disciplinae a parentibus cons [...]crabantur nihil definitum fuisse suis temporibus, hoc ipso do­cet, &c.

That Tertullian sheweth that in his time, The set time of Baptizing them that were CONSECRATED BY THEIR PARENTS to Christian Discipline, was not determined. But what is this to prove that in those times beleevers children must not be baptized, till they are out of their Parents guardianship, and of ripe years?

2. Mr T. Objects against Cyprian, EXAMEN. Sect. 7. that indeed he handles Infant-Baptisme at large in his 59 Epistle ad Fidum, and saith in that Epi­stle enough for it, and more then enough, unlesse he had spoken to better purpose. The truth is, the very reading of the Epistle, upon which Hierom and especially Augustine rely, for the proving of In­fant-baptisme, is sufficient to discover how great darknesse there was then upon the Spirits of those that were counted the greatest Lights in the Church. You say, * upon this occasion Fidus denyed not the baptisme of Infants, Mr T. speaks to Mr M. but denyed that they ought to be Baptized be­fore the eighth day. But you might have observed that Fidus allead­ged, That the Law of ancient circumcision was to be considered. And That the footstep of an Infant being in the first dayes of birth, is not clean. Whence it plainly appears, that there was a relique of Ju­daisme in him, and that he did not well understand the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law. And the truth is, the contentions about Easter, neer that age, do plainly shew that Judaisme was not quite weeded out of the minds of the chief teachers among Christians: Thus Mr T.

We answer.

• 1 That however Mr T. despiseth here Cyprians testimony:
  Animadver.
  yet the renownedst, pious, learned, esteemed it; as Cyrill, or John of Hierusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Hierom, Augustine. The places where, in their works, [Page 135]we quoted a little afore in the margin, over against the end of the testimony of Cyprian. Nor do ancienter writers onely esteeme it (on whose spirits Mr T. saith there was such darkenesse, and on whose spirit is there not some at this time of great light?) but also la­ter learned pious writers; even Mr T. his beloved Vossius & Grotius so oft quoted by him. Vossius saith,
  Vossius Thes. Theolog. & Hist. de paedo bapt. Thes. 9. Grotius in Mat. 19.14.
  that this testimony of Cyprian is above or beyond all exceptions. Grotius saith, That the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of baptizing Infants &c.
• 2 When Mr T. urgeth the fathers in the least, as one place out of one Origen, or &c. in a point of great doubt, we must entertain it (by Mr T. his intendment,) but when we urge many places out of many; then saith he they are this and that.
• 3 Better men then these fathers may have some darknesse: John Baptist was greater then the prophets; and he that is least in the Kingdome of the Church now, is greater than he.
• 4 Many men may in these dayes hold a solid truth, yet not upon the best grounds of it, for want of knowledge of them.
• 5 That Fi­dus thus far expresly held the ceremoniall law to be abrogated, that Baptisme was come in the room of Circumcision, and might be ad­ministred at least as soon as Circumcision was to children.
  Act. 21.20. Gal. 2.
• 6 We know that many Christian Jewes in the time of the Apostles, and Peter himself did too much Judaize; shall not we therefore receive that true light that was in them?
• 7 For that of Ester, wee know the controversie too farr and too long about that time invaded Chri­stian England, shall not we therefore be regarded in any truth?
  Mr Fox book of Martyrs.
  Yea did not the observation of Ester reach down to Mr T. yet he would be beleeved in his Exercitation.
• 8 What is all this that Mr T. hath said, to the point in hand? For we alleadge not Fidus his Epistle to Cyprian, but Cyprians to Fidus, relating their judgement and reasons for Infant-baptisme of which afore largely and fully. And now observe, that Cyprian saith, in the name of the rest, in that his Epistle to Fidus, that concerning that opinion That the footstep of an Infant in the first dayes of his birth is unclean, and so not to be then baptized. It seemed far otherwise to all of us in the Councell; and then reasons against it.
• 9 Hierom and Augustine did not so rely on Cyprian, but that they had many reasons of their own out of scrip­ture, to prove Infant-baptisme, of which after.

3. Mr T. objects against Cyprians Epistle to Fidus, EXAMEN. Sect. 7. ‘you (saith Mr T. to Mr M.) say Cyprian assures Fidus that by the unanimous [Page 136]consent of 66. BPP. in a Councell, baptisme was to be admini­stred to Infants &c. and not to be restrained to any time; (which is true saith Mr T.) but you add (saith he to Mr M.) and proves it by such arguments as these; They are under originall sinne; they need pardon, are capable of grace and mercy, God regards not age.’ But (saith Mr T.) the resolution of Cyprian with his colleagues is not so lightly to be passed over, seeing the determination of this Councell, as far as I can finde by search, is the very spring head of Infant-baptisme. To conceive it aright, it is to be considered that you are mistaken about the proofe of their opinion; the things you mention are not the proofe, but are produced in answer to objecti­ons. The proofe is but one, unlesse you will make a proofe of that which is in the close of the Epistle, which is; That whereas none is to be kept from Baptisme and the grace of God, much lesse new-borne Infants who in this respect do deserve [...]he words [...]erentur de, [...]ight have [...]in translated [...]ore favoura­ [...]ly by Mr T. [...]or 1. Mercor [...]gnifies some­ [...]mes onely to [...]et, attain, or [...] receive.2. [...]n opposition [...]o merit, Cypri­ [...]n saith, nihil­ [...]liud faciunt, [...]ot agunt.3. [...]e saith, de [...]pe nostra. Now what can [...]n Infant me­ [...]it of a man.4. There is a [...]ifference be­ [...]ween mereri [...]liquid, and mereri de aliquo which latter oft signifies to owe to one. As Infants owe more to Gods mercy.5. It is said Gods MERCY. more of our ayd, and of Gods mercy, because in the beginning of their birth they presently crying and weeping do nothing but pray. The onely proof is this, the mer­cy and grace of God is to be denyed to none that are borne of man, for the Lord saith in the Gospel, that the son of man came not to destroy mens soules, but to save them, and therefore as much as in us lies, if it may be, no soul is to be lost, and therefore all Infants at all times to be baptized.

Animad. We answ. That in much of all this, Mr T. rather seems to pursue a man then the matter. I shall rather pursue the matter then Mr T. for so doing. Therefore I animadvert; First, the Matter is not of consequence whether there be one or two or three proofes. Doubtlesse the ingenuous reader may see in that Epistle, that Infant-baptism is argued for, out of Scripture first and last, & in the middle, & according to the light of the times. And let us blesse God for that of their records we have, to shew us the practise of ancient Chur­ches, in many materiall points. Had we lived in their times, it is a question whether we should have seen as much as they did. If we now see more its because we dwarfes are set upon the shoulders of those Gyants. Secondly, that Cyprians Epistle is not the spring-head of Infant-Baptisme. First, Because that Councell, of which Cyprian speakes in that Epistle, did not first coyne that opinion as meerly their opinion, depending upon their Votes, but as arguing it (according to their Light) out of the Scriptures.

• 1. That it is a part of Gods favour that sent his Son to save; and [Page 137]that is by Ordinances.
• 2. The equalitie of Gods divine gift to all In­fants, and men, as in Elisha his fetching the child to life.
• 3 God is no excep­tor of persons, and so not of ages.
• 4 That by that law which is now establish­ed spirituall circumcision is not to be hindred by the carnall circumcision, (that is as he had said afore in that Epistle, by restraining bap­tisme to the eighth day, and not under) but to admit all (that is of all ages) and to count none unclean as Peter speaks, Act. 10. with other Reasons there urged.

Secondly, because that Fidus afore the ad­vise of this Councell (as it seems come) was for baptisme of In­fants no doubt, from the ground of circumcision, onely he stuck too much on the ceremonie of the eighth day. Thirdly, before Cyprian or that Councell, were Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clem. Alexan­drinus, Tertullian, and Origen; all for Infant-baptisme, in many passages; all which we have before translated, alledged, and dis­cussed, excepting Clem. Alexandrinus; See in the margin after CLEM. ALEXAND. whom we alledge by and by after this. Therefore Mr. T. how ever it seem to you, it cannot seem to us that the resolution of Cyprian with his Collegues was the spring-head of Infant-baptisme. To the last clause [therefore all Infants at all times to be baptized] we shall speak to in our An­swer to the next objection.

Secondly,EXAMEN. Sect. 7. Mr. T. objects against Cyprian out of that we have translated, that his testimony conteins some grosse things, as, first, that they thought baptizing, giving Gods grace; and the denying it, the denying of grace. Secondly, they thought that the souls were lost, that were not baptized. Thirdly, that therefore not one­ly Infants of believers, but all Infants were to be baptized. Whence Tossanus in his Synopsis notes this for Cyprians error, that he taught, that Infants were straight wayes to be baptized, lest they pe­rish, because that the mercy of God is not to be denied them.

We answer. 1. In generall. If we should grant all this to be true,Animadvers. yet this doth not overthrow, but that in Cyprians time the Chur­ches held Infant-Baptisme, and that is the main point in hand.

Secondly, in particular we answer. To the first particular we say, that what error or hurt is it to say, that baptisme gives grace instrumentally; and that without warrant wittingly to deny bap­tisme, is to deny Gods grace. Even as it is said in the Scripture, The word of life, The washing of regeneration, The bread we break is the communion of the body of Christ. So on the contrary, Where there is no vision the people perish. Ʋnlesse we are born again of water and the Spirit, [Page 136] [...] [Page 137] [...] [Page 136] [...] [Page 137] [...] [Page 138]we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. All which are meant instru­mentally, and according to Gods o [...]inary dispensation (allowing him his prerogative roy all to save without means.) And there­fore Cyprian and his Collegues cannot be justly blamed for speak­ing no more then that the Scripture speaks, and in the like phrase.

To the second particular the same answer will serve; where al­so we have somewhat out of Cyprian to justifie that to be his mean­ing, viz. instrumentally not absolutely. For he saith [seeing Christ came not to destroy mens souls, but to save them] therefore quan­tum in nobis est si fieri potest nulla anima perdends est, & idcirco [...] baptis­mo, & gratiâ Dei, qui omnibus misericors, & benignus, & pius est, ne­minem per nos debere prohiberi. That is, [As much as in us lies if it may be] no soul is to be lost; and therefore from baptisme, and the grace of God who is mercifull, bountifull, and pitifull to all, no man is to be prohibited [by us.] So that as the Scripture saith, 1 Pet. 3.21, 22. that eight souls were saved in the Ark; by water; that is, instrumentally, the like figure or antitype whereunto baptisme now saveth, meaning too instrumentally, for otherwise there is no name under heaven where­by we must be saved, but Jesus Christ; Act. 4.12. Just so Cyprian speaks.

To the third particular, [that not onely Infants of believers, but all Infants were to be baptized.] I find no such passage in all Cyprians Epistle, that All Infants are put as the opposite member of the di­stinction, to believers Infants. This onely I find, first, that all Infants are put into opposition to Infants above eight dayes old: that is, that not onely Infants above eight dayes old, but those under eight dayes old may as well be baptized. As we heard afore in the quo­tation of Cyprian in answer to Fidus, whilest Fidus thought that before the eight day Infants might not be baptized. Secondly, that all Infants are put in opposition to believers of ripe yeers (and therefore most likely all believers Infants are meant) For saith Cy­prian [if greater sins cannot hinder men of ripe yeers from bap­tisme, after they believe, much lesse may originall sin onely, hin­der an Infant from baptisme.] So Cyprian, which Mr. T. after quotes in this his 7. Sect. of his Examen. God himself he would have all men to be saved, yet commands not all ordinances, no nor baptisme to be given to all men. So Cyprian may speak gene­rally in the premisses, yet intend onely a particular conclusion, [Page 139]that onely some Infants are to be baptized, sutable to the case he had in hand.

Lastly, we answer to that of Tossanus, first, that there is no such sentence in all that Mr. T. hath translated, out of this Epistle of Cyprian. And therefore Mr. T. needed not to annex Tossanus his words to that he had translated with a WHENCE, saying, whence Tossanus notes this for Cyprians errour, that Infants must be presently baptized lest they perish, &c. Secondly, that there is no such sentence in all Cyprians Epistle, as Tossanus reports; nor to that effect; But onely this, as we translated afore upon another occasion: That Cyprian speaking of baptizing Infants though they were not eight dayes old, because the mercy and grace of God is not to be denyed to any born of men, argueth thus. Seeing the Lord saith in his Gospel, the Son of man came not to destroy the souls of men, but to save them, as much as in us is, if it may be, no soul is to be destroyed. See here candid Reader, Cyprian doth not say Infants perish if they be not baptized. But we should not by wilfull neglect of baptisme, as much as in us is cause them to perish.

The rest that is in Mr. T. his Analysis of Cyprians Epistle, is onely against Mr. M. about querks, and nothing to the point in hand; and therefore needs no answer from us.

Yet thus much we say; that wheras Mr. Tombes would not have it, that Cyprian doth at all put in originall sin among his Argu­ments for the baptizing of Infants; This is clearly intimated by Cyprian, That as men of ripe yeers beleeving, are baptized to put away their many greater actuall sins; so Infants are baptized to put away their lesser, originall sins.

And for Mr. T. his calling this Epistle of Cyprian, an absurd E­pistle; it is somewhat boldly spoken, and with too much disrespect of so famous a man and Martyr in those times; we might have more justly have said so of divers of the Authors Mr. T. hath quo­ted; but have forborn it, knowing that such words are not con­futations, but revilings. I am confident that the intelligent Rea­der hath seen that the allegation of Cyprian hath not been absurd to the main point now in question; to wit, whether Infant-bap­tisme was in use and practise in the Churches in Cyprians time; which so to have been, Cyprian hath fully held out unto us; and so Mr. T. his absurd is nothing to the purpose.GREG. NAZIAN.

The next witnesse for the same is Greg. Nazianzen, who lived [Page 140]about the yeer after Christ, 375.Helvic. His words areOrat. 40. quae est in sanctum bap­tisma. Baptisme is a seal for them that enter into the course of this life. [...], &c. And therefore (saith he, speaking of baptisme) we must with all care and diligence provide that we want not this common grace or favour. Some man may say, let these things be so as concerning them which require baptisme, but what will you say concerning them which yet are of a tender age, and perceive not [...]urt, or grace, shall we baptize them also? Yea by all means, if any danger presseth thereunto. For it is better to be sanctified without sence or feele, then to depart this life without the seal and innitiation. And of this thing, circumcision is a reason to us, which was wont to be done up­on the eighth day, which after a sort did represent a figure of baptisme, and was offered or given to them, which yet had not the use of reason. After the same manner also that anointing or sprinkling given to the doore-posts Exod. 12.7.13., which were things void of sence, did bring salvation to the first-born. Con­cerning others, I thus judge, after expectation or waiting three yeers, or somewhat lesse, or a longer space of time (for then they are able to hear some mysticall, or spirituall thing, and give answer, and if they understand not so fully, and exactly, yet they are instructed, and informed) at length they may sanctifie their souls and bodies by means of the great Sacra­ment or mysterie of Baptisme Gr. [...]. But Vossius, Bill. Prun. Mich. in Erem. render it Bap­tisme. And they that are acquainted with the use of the words, [...], among Ecclesiasticall Writers, Fathers, and the Septuagints, do well know that commonly by [...] is meant Baptisme. And so here without all peradventure it being the businesse in hand dis­cussed by Nazian or else h [...]s conclusion had not answered to the premisses, who before expres­ly named baptisme: and ioyns [...] together. Consecration, or sanctification. Thus, Greg. Naz. on whose words learned Vossius speaks my sence. Non igitur, &c. Therefore (saith Vossius) Nazianzen doth not deny the baptisme of little children, whom, if there be any danger of death, he commands also to be baptized; but onely judgeth that otherwise, it may not unprofitably be deferred to the third or fourth yeer. Which is onely one Doctors opinion, and not the common judgement of the ancient Church. Thus Vossius. Take we in also the Note of Vincent. Lirinens. cap. 39. Quicquid unus vel alter Patrum quam [...]is ille sanctus, &c. that is, Whatsoever one or other of the Fathers, albeit he be holy, and learned, &c. shall think, besides or contrary to all the rest, let that go among his own proper, hidden and private opiniol's or conceits, as different and severed from the Authoritie of that common judgement, &c.

And lastly, give us leave to adde our observation. 1 That (ac­cording to the designe in hand) Nazianzen holds the baptisme of [Page 141]little children that have not yet the use of reason, not as an un­written tradition, but according to his judgement (as well as o­thers) rightly grounded on the Scriptures in the institution and administration of circumcision; and that of the sprinkling of the Paschal blood on the doore-posts, Exod. 12. Had baptisme of In­fants been held in his time onely as a Tradition, he had not ar­gued it from Scripture. 2 That for deferring of baptisme of some till three yeers old, or lesse, (as he saith) what did this con­duce more to that which some of the Anabaptists require at Bap­tisme, as manifestations of true grace; then to baptize them at eight or ten dayes old, upon Gods Covenant with the believing pa­rent.

Here to clear things as we go, we must answer some objections made against what we alledge out of Nazianzen.

First, Mr. D. in his Antichrist unmasked. Objections of H. D. against Nazianzen cleared. 1. Obj. Nazianzen (saith he) restrains baptisme of Infants to danger; but there is no dan­ger if they be not baptized. Ergo, Nazianzens mind is not that In­fants should be baptized.

Answ. This Argument playes with an equivocation of the word danger. H. D. means there is no spirituall danger, if an In­fant dies before it be baptized: But Nazianzen means danger of bo­dily death; and therefore gives it as a precept or command, that in case there be danger that the Infant may dye before it be seal­ed with baptisme, let it be baptized; according to the figure there­of circumcision, &c. See before.

Obj. 2. Nazianzen (saith H. D.) was not baptized till he was 30. yeers old; as it is said, In his life.

Answ. If that in Nazianzens life say this truly, yet this might be by reason of the persecutions of those times, or indisposition of his parents, or other pressing necessities; and therefore doth in­fer no more, then that circumcision ought not after the Israelites came into Canaan to be administred till men were fourty yeers old, because so long it was deferred in the wildernesse. Christ himself was not baptized till thirty yeers old, yet the Anabaptists will not make a rule of this, that onely those of just that age must be baptized. Sure enough if Nazianzen his baptisme was deferred past childhood, it was not intended by him for a regulating ex­ample, but oft in that Oration fore-quoted in severall places ex­horts to hasten Baptisme [...], &c. Hast an Infant? lest improbity snatch away the opportunity let him be sanctified from his in­fancie, mean­ing baptisme, having spoken in the very next prece­ding words against delay of bap [...]isme. Naz. Orat. [...]0. p. 648. See also p. 646 Think all time to be certain & determined for baptisme., and not to defer it after the example [Page 142]of Christ not baptized till thirtie yeers oldIbid. p. 658. Edit. Paris. Graec. & Lat.. And you heard in the place quoted, that he mentions deferring in any case but till 3 or 4 yeers old, or lesse sometimes; which is all one in effect with baptizing beleevers Infants at three moneths or three weeks; un­lesse the mathematicall consideration of words, spoken without knowledge (as Persius his Parrat spake Greek)One of the Anabaptists in a book called, The character of the Beast, saith, If one confesse his sins, though there be no signe of grace, he ought to be baptized. prevails with some.

Secondly, Mr. Tombes objects in his EXAMEN against Na­zianzen. EXAMEN. Sect. 6.

1. He objects, (with an interrogation) but doth Greg. Nazian­zen (saith Mr. T.) seem onely to restrain it to the case of necessitie? The words (saith he) are plain, that Nazianzen gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptized, [...], that they might not misse of the common grace. But [...], He gives his opinion of others, that they should stay longer, that they might be instructed, and so their minds and bodies might be sanctified. Thus Mr. T.

Animadvers. We answer. First, if Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why In­fants should be baptized, in case they are not likely to live to be of riper yeers, it is so much the better for us. Secondly, he doth give another reason, beside that of partaking of common grace, namely, 1 [...], For it is better they should be sanctified, without a feeling of it, then to depart without the seal. So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancie, as well as at riper yeers. 2 [...], A reason also of this to us is circumsion, that was wont to be done on the eight day, &c. Thirdly, we answer, that all three Reasons stand in force as well for all believers In­fants (God putting them under the promise, Gen. 17.) as for those Infants that are in danger of death. Fourthly, that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine Reasons (to him evincing) for the baptisme of Infants not in danger of death: but for the delaying of others not in danger of death, he saith, [...], I give my opinion. He cals it his opinion. And what is it? that [...], such children should stay till three or foure yeers old, more, or lesse? And what is to be expected from children of that age? more then from In­fants, towards baptisme? For Nazianzen himself confesseth, that though they may then hear and answer some spirituall things, yet they understand imperfectly. But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing? None. Doth he give any [Page 143]Reason? Even in effect the same as for baptizing of Infants in danger of death, to wit, that they may be sanctified in mind and body.

Secondly,EXAMEN. Sect. 6. Mr. T. objects (upon our alledging Nazianzen) against all the Greek Fathers, in effect that we have alledged, and the custome of the Greek Churches touching Infant-baptisme, first thus; It is wonder to me, (saith Mr. T.) that if it were so manifest as you speak, you should find nothing in Eusebius for Infant-bap­tisme, nor in Ignatius, nor in Clemen. Alexandrinus, nor in Athana­sius, nor in Epiphanius.

Animadvers. We answer.

• 1. Mr. T. brings but one place out of one Origen, to prove (as he pretends) that Infant-baptisme is but a tradition. We bring foure for the contrary, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, and Nazianzen, and yet these are not sufficient with him, unlesse we hear Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, &c. say so too?
• 2 A non dicto and non factum, not valet consequentia. Many things have been done in the Church, which those Authors may not mention.
• 3 They may speak of Infant-baptisme in some of their works which long since were lost.
• 4 Mr. T. saith, that YOV should find nothing in Eusebius, Ignatius, &c. for Infant-baptisme. And we say, it is won­der Mr. T. did find nothing in them to the contrary, in his 7 or 8 moneths time to write his EXAMEN, which we not having much above 8 weeks for our Answer, and so have not time to ransack e­very book. But fiftly,
  CLEM. ALEXAN. li. 3. Str [...]m. p. 461. He flourished about the yeer of Christ, 193. Buchol. Helvic.
  this we cast our eye upon in Clem. Alexand: (which makes me think somewhat might be found in him to­wards Infant-baptism if we had time) [...], &c. Neither doth Gods divine providence now likewise command, [...] of old, that he that hath risen from the conjugall bed should be washed. For the Lord doth not necessarily take off from procreation of children those that are believers, whom he hath by one Baptisme washed in all respects ac­cording to his wont; who by one baptisme comprehends all the Baptismes of Moses. Therefore the Law of God by carnall generation foretelling our regeneration, did for the seminall facultie of generation hold forth baptisme,
  Vide Grae­cum textum.
  not loathing humane generation. Thus Clem. Alex. with much more, which for haste we cannot stand to translate.

Give us leave to adde a note or two. 1. Let me observe with Hervet. Aurelianus, that this place relates to Levit. 15, 16, 17, 18. If any mans seed of copulation shall go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean untill the evening. And every garment, [Page 144]and every skin whereon is the seed of copulation shall be washed with wa­ter, and be unclean untill the Even. The woman also with whom the man shall lye with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean untill the even. This is the LAW, and these are the BAPTISMES of MOSES, of which Clem. Alexandrinus speaks here.

HESYCHIVS 2. Take the note of ancient and learned Hesychius He flourished about 402d. yeer after Christ. Helvic. on this place, which is this. The Lord himself (saith he) sheweth that man­kinde must have the necessary regeneration of baptisme, saying, Ʋnlesse a man be born again, of water, and the holy Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Joh. 3.) The untowardnasse of which filth in us, was transfused from Adam. Whence David saith he was born in iniquity, and conceived in sin. (Psal. 51.) not accusing his mother, but intimating his sinfulnesse, which ran down from his progenitors. And now the Law­maker commanded him, out of whom proceedeth the seed of copulation, that is, [...]e that hath effused his seed for procreation of children, yea also the wo­man that hath received it, to wash the body, because she hath received it; by which is described this whole temple of ours, that is the whole man con­sisting of soul and body. In that Adam was made filthy by disobedience, he made his seed to be filthy, and so necessarily the body to be filthy which is of the seed, in which he is unclean untill the Even, that is the end of the time wherein Christ coming shews the water whereby our generation should be cleansed; And that till then we remained unclean, is proved from thence, that they also that had not yet sinned (actually), that is, were in their tender age, have necessarily the seal of baptisme, lest by death preventing, they dye unclean, &c. Thus Hesychius with much more.

Thirdly, If it pleaseth Mr. T. he may read Gentinus Hervet [...] Aurelianus his note on the place of Clem. Alexandrinus (who is carefull to set forth the sence of Clemens, though we heed not all his owne excursions.) Therefore Clem. Alexandrinus (saith, Gent. Hervet. Anrel.) intimateth that many were the Baptismes of Moses an­ciently, which were figures of our regeneration by Baptisme, by which originall sin is washed; which one onely Baptisme indeed is necessary, for by it, it is that the seed is no more uncleane, though after to be further cleans­ed. So Gent. Herv. with much more.

Thus you have a touch out of one of Mr. T. his five Gr. Authors, which he saith have nothing of Infant-Baptisme. Wee will give you another touch out of another of his silent Authors (as Mr. T. intimates) and so dismisse the rest, as not having all the Au­thors, [Page 145]nor time to go looke after them.EPIPHA­NIƲS. contra Haeres. 30. p. 52. Epiphanius in his second Booke 2. Tom. contr. Haeres. speaking before ‘of the Circumci­sion of Christ, that he was circumcised, to dissolve or abro­gate that Circumcision to bring in a greater. And that the Circumcision injoyned Abraham was not perfect, but a signe of grace given, and for the instruction of them in future times, and thence wisheth Ebion not to imitate Christ in Circumcisi­on of himself or others,’ at last he speaks in these very words, For the Lord (saith Epiphanius) hath removed the time of this (Circum­cision.) For he came, and fulfilled it having given the perfect Circumcisi­on of his mysteries, and that not in one member onely, but in the whole body sealed and circumcised from sinnes; and saving not one onely part of the people, that is men only, but also all the people of Christians indeed, signing or sealing men and women, and liberally for the inheritance of the Kingdome of Heaven; and not in exhibiting the seale defectively to one ranck or state (virorum) of men, in the time of their imbecility, but to all the people &c.

Thus far Epiphanius writes there of Infant-Baptisme, and I am confident more might bee found in other places touching it (had we time to seek,) though Epiphanius sayes nothing of it (as Mr. T. weakly objects) in lib. 2. Haeres. 46. vel 47. in his dispu­tation for Infants inheriting Heaven, against the Hieracites. We are not to teach other learned men what to speake; nor when to speak, nor to say they speake not at all of such a point, if they do not speak where and when we expect.

2. Mr. T. objects against the Greek Fathers alleadged by us,EXAMEN. Sect. 6. and in them against the custome of the Greek Churches touching Infant-Baptisme; thus. But besides, the continuance of the que­stions to baptized persons, and answered by them, in many Au­thors mentioned, this is to mee and it seemed to Hugo Grotius An­not. in Matth. 19.14. no small evidence, that Baptisme of In­fants many hundred yeares was not ordinary in the Greek Church. Grotius adds that the Canon of the Synod of Neo-Caesa­rea in the yeare 313. determines that a woman with child might be baptized, because the Baptisme reached not to the fruit of her womb, be­cause in the confession made in Baptisme each ones free choyce is shewed.

We answer. First, that this seemes no otherwise to mee, but, as the confessions of sinne,Animadvers. and profession of Faith in the New Testa­ment by them, that at the first Institution of Baptisme were bap­tized [Page 146]at ripe yeeres; doth not imply but that Baptisme descen­ded to their children whiles children; yea so much the rather because the Parents were baptized, the Promise then being actu­ally instated on them,Acts 2. the Promise to you, and to your children; even just so may we say of those questions put to the baptized, and answered by them, in the Greek Church. For though, being Gentiles the Parents at first were to make confession, as a token of their conversion from Hethenisme, before their Baptisme; yet this doth not in the least argue that their children must be able to make confession before they were baptized. No more then the Circumcision of Abraham, and the strangers are bought with money when they were believers of riper yeeres, did inferre that all Christs children from age to age should not be circum­cised till they were so too.

2. Touching Grotius, we answer foure things.

1. That he in discussing the point (on Matth. 19.14.) touching Infant-baptisme, alleadgeth diverse things to shew that some in the Greek Church, in severall ages did not baptize their In­fants; but hath no such passage, as that Infant-baptisme was not ordinary; in the Greek Church.

2. In all he alleadgeth touching this, he saith not to the con­traty, but that the Non-baptizing of some Infants might bee, because their Greek Parents were not converted from Gentilisme.

3. For that Neocaesarian Synod Of which there are many Editions vary­ing one from another. the cause and intent of it, in part at least might bee as was intimated afore out of Clem. Alexand. (a Greek, who flourished long before the Neocaesarian Synod, and therefore likely this Synod would have respect to him,And to Tertullian, of the same time with CLEM. who hath to the same effect as CLEM. Tertulli. Lib. de Anima. chap. 39. 40. of which afore chap. 13. of Animad. vid. in marg. TERTVL.) to wit, that though by the Baptismall washing of the Parent (by vertue of the Promise, I am the God of thee and thy seed, and the Promise is to you and to your children) the seed of that Parent was account­ed holy, yet so, as not to anticipate and prevent the baptizing of that seed when it was borne.

4. Grotius himselfe intimatedly confesseth, that Interpreters doe take the words of that Synod otherwise then to intend against Infant-Baptisme.

5. For Grotius his owne opinion, it is cleere and full for Infant-baptisme upon that 19. of Matth. ver. 14. who alleadgeth and asserts these particulars.

• 1. That it was gratefull to Christ that little Children should [Page 147]be brought to him, as the designed ones of holinesse, and so of salvation, according to Tertullians expression.
• 2. That (according to Irenaeus) Christ passed through every age, hee became an Infant to sanctifie Infants, a little childe to sanctifie them of that age, &c.
• 3. That upon this text of Christ receiving little ones, &c. a­mong other grounds, doth (saith Grotius,) leane the practice of baptizing little one, and Infants.
• 4. That in Augustines time (saith he) it was a common necei­ved practice to baptize Infants as is cleere by this, that when the Pelagians (holding some how against Infant-Baptisme) were pressed with this Argument of the practice of all Churches in baptizing Infants, they durst not deny it to be true.
• 5. That by Hieroms and Augustines quotation of Cyprians Epi­stle to Fidus it is cleere, (saith Grotius) that it was not doubted in Cyprians time whether Infants might be baptized, but onely some stuck at this, whether they might bee baptized afore they were eight dayes old. And it was determined in a Councel then, whereof Cyprian was one, that Baptisme should not bee denyed to Infants newly borne, if they were offered thereunto.
• 6. Grotius saith; that in an ancient book entituled the Consti­tutions of Clement, it is [...], &c. Baptize your Infants also, then trayne them up in the instruction and nurture of the Lord.
• 7. Grotius having quoted somethings out of that Synod, of Balsamo and Zonanas, Walafridus Strabo, &c. that in many ages, all Infants had not been baptized; he concludes, but (saith he) as those things hold forth a liberty, antiquity, and difference of custome; so they bring nothing to prove why Infant-bap­tisme should be rejected, when their Parents &c. offer them to be consecrated, with the prayers of the Saints, and vowes of pious education of them, which among other things, is not unfitly signified in Baptisme. Neither ought that to bee any hindrance to the Baptisme of Infants, that all things which in like manner are signified by Baptisme, cannot agree properly to that age. For Repentance also, which we know is signified in Baptisme, and indeed had a greater place in them that having long lived a most impure life, testified their purpose of changeing their whole conversation then in others, had no place at all in Christ [Page 148]when John baptized him; who as Tertullian saith was not bapti­zed as any debtor to repentance.
• 8. Grotius quotes the Author of the Qu. ad Orthodox (whom Mr. T. hath so be-bastarded afore) I say Grotius quotes him as a worthy Author; citing these words [...], &c. Infants are counted meet for good things by Baptisme, by meanes of the Faith of them that brought them.
• 9. In that Christ saith of Infants, Of such is the kingdom of God, that Christ did in that say thus much (saith Grotius), by so much the lesse is that age to be despised as prophane, by how much men of ripe yeers that yeeld themselves up to my government must become children again.
• Lastly, to Mr. T. his objecting that Constantine the great, and Greg. Nazianzen were not baptized til they were of age. I answer
  • 1. That Mr. T. hath ill urged Constantine a Latin, for an instance that baptisme of Infants was not ordinary in the Greek Church.
  • 2. To Constantines and Greg. Nazianzens baptisme we have answer­ed afore.

The next testimonie is of Ambrose, AMBROSE. who flourished about the yeer 381Helvic.. He in his 2. book of Abraham, Chap. 11. saith: Neither the old Proselyte, nor the Infant Native is excepted, because every age is obnoxious to sin, and therefore every age is meet for the Sacrament. For unlesse one be born again of water and the holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom 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 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 sameArius 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 [Page 149] 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,HIERONI­MƲS. 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 [Page 150]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;AƲGƲST. 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. 24So 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.
• [Page 151]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 [Page 152]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.

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 Ʋsher, 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 Church: Now the reason of Augustines authority was this, the Pelagian heresie being generally condemned, and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed, as being the hammer of the Pelagians, the following [Page 154]refuters of Pelagianisme, Prosper, Fulgentius, &c. the Councells that did condemne it as those of Carthage, Arles, Milevis, &c. did rest altogether on Augustines arguments, and often on his words, and Augustine in time was accounted one of the four Doctors of the Church, esteemed like the four Evangelists, so that his opinion was the rule of the Churches Judgement, and the schools determination, as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and others have been of late. Now Augustine did very much insist on this Argument to prove originall sinne, because Infan [...]s were baptized for remission of sinnes, and therefore in the Councill of Milevis he was adjudged accursed, that did deny it: But for my part I value Augustines judgement just at so much, as his proofs and reasons weigh, which how light they are you may conceive.

August. tom. 1. Confess. lib. 1. c. 11. & Signabar signo crucisejus & condiebar ejus sale jam inde ab utero matris meae, quae multu [...] speravit in te. And then fol­lows, how be­ing young and falling sick, he desired, and his mother thought to have him bap­tized, but up­on his recove­ry it was de­ferred. First, In that whereas he makes it so Universall a tradition, his owne baptisme not till above thirty, though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica, the Baptisme of his sonne Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius, if there were no more, were enough to prove that this custome of baptizing infants, was not so received, as that the Church thought necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their infancy. And though I conceive with Grotius annot. in Matth. 19.14. that baptisme of Infants was much more frequented, and with greater opinion of ne­cessity in Africa, then in Asia, or other parts of the world, for (saith he) in the Councells you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome, then the Councell of Carthage. Yet I doe very much que­stion whether they did in Africa, even in Augustines time bap­tize children, except in danger of death, or for the health of body, or such like reason: I do not finde that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases, for it is cleare out of sundry of Au­gustines, Tracts, as particularly tract. 11. in Johan. that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized, and the use of Catechizing afore baptisme, still continued, yea and a great while af­ter, insomuch that when Petrus Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis, he said only, that there had been none but Infants bapti­zed for 300 yeares, or almost 500 years in Gallia, Spaine, Germany, Italy, and all Europe, and it seemes he denyed not the baptizing of growne persons in Asia still; whence I collect, that even in the Latine Church, after Augustines dayes, in sundry ages the bapti­zing [Page 155]of persons of growne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants, till the great darkenesse that over-spred the Westerne Churches, spoyled by Barbarous Nations, destitute of learned men, and ruled by ambitious and unlearned Popes, when there were none to Catechize, and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptisme of the King of that Country, though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity, but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still, which hath been the great cause of the upholding of Papacie, and corrupting of Christian Churches, I meane this great corruption of baptizing, making Christians, giving Christendome (as it is called) afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was, or if they were taught any thing, it was onely the ceremonies and rites of the Church, as they called them.

2. You may conceive how light Augustine's judgement was,Rivet. tract. de Patrum auth [...] ­ritate, c. 9. Augustinus ae­ternis flammis adjudic at In­fantes sine bad­tismo morientes by considering the ground upon which Augustine held, and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently; which was, as all know that read his workes, the opinion he had, That without baptism Infants must be damned, by reason of originall sinne, which is not taken a­way but by baptisme, yea, though he wanted baptisme out of ne­cessity; urging those places, Joh. 3.5. Rom. 5.12. continually in his disputes against the Pelagians, particularly tom. 7. de natura & gratia, c. 8. And tom. 2. ep. 28. he saith, Item quisquis dixerit, quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli, qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt, hic profecto & contra Apostoli­cam praedicationem venit, & totam condemnat ecclesiam. And in the close of the Epistle, calls it, robustissimam & fundatissimam si­dem qua Christi ecclesia, nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit, nisi per gratiam domini Christi, quam in suis Sa­cramentis commendavit, posse liberari. And this, Perkins in his Pro­bleme, proves, was the opinion of Ambrose, and many more: And hence, as Aquinas, so Bellarmine, proves baptisme of Infants, from Joh. 3.5. And this hath been still the principall ground. The ground that you go on, that the covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their seed, I cannot find amongst the Ancients. Yea, as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleadged, although Ambrose and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 22 yeilded, that either Martyrdome, or the desire of Baptisme, might supply the defect of Baptisme, and some of the School-men, Biel, [Page 156]Cajetan, Gerson, do allow the desire and prayer of parents for chil­dren in the wombe, in stead of Baptisme: Yet we find no remedy al­lowed by them, but actuall baptisme for children borne into the world: So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the neces­sity of Baptisme for Infants born.

3. You may consider, that Augustine held a like necessity of In­fants receiving the Lords supper, from the words, John 6.53. as is plainly expressed by him, lib. 1. de peccat. merit. & remis. c. 20. And accordingly, as in Cyprians tim, the Communion was given to Infants, as appears by the story which he relates of himselfe, gi­ving the Communion to an Infant, in his book de lapsis, mentioned by August. epist. 23. So it is confessed by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first, Bishop of Rome, held it necessary for Infants; and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 years in the Church, though it be now rejected by the Romane Church in the Councell of Trent.

4. You may consider, that Augustine held such a certainty of ob­taining regeneration by Baptisme, that not onely he puts usually regeneration for Baptisme, but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants, though they that brought them, did not bring them with that faith that they might be regenerated by spi­rituall grace to eternall life; but because by Baptisme they thought to procure health to their bodies, as is plain by his words, epist. 23. ad Bonifacium. Nec illud te moveat, quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt, vt gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam, sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem: non enim propterea illi non regenerantur, quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur; cele­brantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria. By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter, so as to excuse, if not to justifie their fact, who made use of Bap­tisme in so prophane a manner, as to cure diseases by it: which is no marvaile, if it be true which is related, of the approbation that was given of the Baptisme used by Athanasius in play amongst boyes.

5. You may consider, that in the same Epistle when Bonifaci­us pressed Augustine to shew how Sureties could be excused from lying, who being asked of the Childs faith, answered, He doth beleeve, (for even in Baptisme of Infants they thought in all ages [Page 157]it necessary that a profession of faith go before) He defends that act in this absurd manner: Respondetur credere propter fidei Sacra­mentum, and thence he is called a believer, because he hath the Sa­crament of faith. Which as it is ridiculous playing with words, in so serious a matter before God, so it is a sensl [...]sse answer, sith the in­terrogation was of the Childs faith before it was baptized, and the answer was given before, and therefore it cannot be under­stood of believing by receiving the Sacrament of faith, which came after.

6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle, that Infants were then admitted to baptisme, whether they were the children of believers, or not; it was no matter with what intention they brought them, nor whose children were brought; yea it was counted a worke of charity to bring any children to baptisme, and in this case the faith of the whole Church, was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith: So that whereas the pre­sent defenders of Infant-Baptisme pretend Covenant-holynesse a priviledge of beleevers, it was no such matter in the time of the An­cients, but they baptized any Infants, even of Infidels, upon this opinion, That Baptisme did certainly give grace to them, and if they dyed without Baptisme, they did perish. And thus I grant, that it is true, the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Au­gustine. But neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it; nor doth it advantage your tenet, that you have cited his citation of it: Thus farr Mr T. his long answer to Mr M. short quotation of Augustine.

Wee answer, and,Animadver. First to that [That the Authority of Augustin was it, which carryed the baptisme of Infants in the following ages, almost without controul] we answer three things. First, that Au­gustine flourished not till long after the first age from that that was next after the Apostles; which was the time Mr T. said afore wherein baptisme of Infants began to be in use as an unwritten Tradition. For Mr T. saith, Augustine flourished not till 405 or 410 years after Christ. So that his authority prevailed not but in his and the times following him. But what was it that carryed the Baptisme of Infants the 300 or 400 years afore Augustin? For all that time it was frequent as we have abundantly shewed out of good Antiquity. Secondly, if any after were carryed by Augustin to hold Infant-baptisme; sure they heard or read Augustin arguing [Page 158]the thing by Scripture and divine reasonAs against the Donatists & Pelag. &c.. And then doubtlesse they were carryed by the Scriptures and Reasons he urged; and so not by the authority of the man Mr T. him­self confesseth in a matter of 40 lines after, that Councels &c. that did depend on Augustine, de­pended on his Arguments.. Augustin himselfe had taught them better, who in his works professedly rejects some of the Fa­thers when he thought they went not along with the Scriptures. Thirdly, It cannot be said that Augustines authority did in his time carry Infant-baptisme in a manner without controle; seeing he had so much bickering with the Pelagians about it who under some notion did contend against it, as wee shewed afore.

2 To Mr T. his quoting of Walafridus Strabo, we answer first, That seeing that author is in such credit with Mr T. in that he quotes him so oft, we expect he should be believed as well for as as against us. Now Walafridus is for us, against Mr T. in these things.

1. About Imposition of hands, that it did suppose baptisme, which Mr T. denyed upon the discussion of Heb. 6.2. in his 14. Sect. of his Exercitation. But Walafridus affirmes it, De rebus Ecclesiasti­cis, chap. 26. sub initium: Saith hePrimis tem­poribus impo­sitione manu­um baptismum confirmari so­lere.. In the first times Baptisme was wont to be confirmed with Imposition of hands.

2. About Athanasius, that in Athanasius his time, to his know­ledge there was Baptism of little children. Mr. T. doubts of it in his Examen, Sect. 6. But Walfride shews us that Legitur quoque in ultimo Ecclesiasticae historiae libro Athanasius adhuc puer, &c.

That, saith he, we read in the last book of Ecclesiasticall history that Athanasius being but a little child, did act the imitation of Baptisme among his childish companions, which being done with recitall of the words that the baptizer did aske, and the baptized answered, when those able to speak were baptized: Alexander the chiefe Minister of Alexandria knowing the same, judged they should not be re-baptized, but ratified with confirmation. Thus Walafridus.

3. About Infant Baptisme; which Mr T. denies, but Walafridus Strabo quotes many authorities and antiquities for it. As that it In concilio Gerundensi unius diei infans si in discrimine sit baptizari jubetur. In that Councill it was commanded that an Infant one day old, if in danger of death, should be baptized. Divers passages he hath to the like purpose.

2. We answer to the Quotation of Walafridus Strabo, that he [Page 159]faulters and is much faulty in the thing he is quoted for.

• For first, He calls the times of Augustine who is but of late in comparison of many Ancients we have quoted Prima tempora, that is, the first times, for Walafridus quotes Augustins practise, that was not bap­tized till of ripe years, to proove, that in the first times (as Walfridus calls them) men were not baptized till able to know well and make profession, when as Augustin himself, as we have shewd, and Mr T. hath confessed, did refer himselfe to ancienter times a great deal, as to Cyprian that was almost 200 years afore him, for the practise of baptizing Infants.
• 2. Walafrid saith, illis solummodo, &c. that is, To them onely the grace of Baptisme was wont to be given, who were of integrity or ripenesse of body and mind, &c. but gives not proofs or reasons, but onely one single instance of Augustine himselfe, for an universall proposition.
• 3. As we noted afore, that Walfrid grossely mistook in the alleadging that one instance of Augustine. For Walfrid saith in his book De rebus Ecclesiasticis (which we have under our eye) that Augustine reports in his confessions of himselfe that he continued a Catechumenus a chatechised person, till he was 25 years old, before he was baptized; when as Augu­stine saith of himselfe in his books of confessions, that he was not converted till about the thirtieth year of his age, after which he continued a Catechized one about two years, in which time he wrote against the Academians, and wrote his Soliloquies, and in his 34 yeer of his age, he was baptized at Mellain of Ambrose. You see then how little credit is to be given to dreaming Walafrid in this point of Augustine.
• 4. Walafrid confesseth that upon the increase of diligent search into divine Religion, men of understanding in Christian doctrine finding that peccatum originale Adae. &c.

the originall sin of Eve did hold guilty, not onely those that had com­mitted actuall sinne, but those that had not; according to the 51 Psalm, in sin did my mother conceive me, and Rom. 3. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that from Adam we had all sinned, &c. That upon these grounds of Scripture they, that is, those religious men, baptized their Infants into remission of sinne. And this practise of Infant-baptisme Walfrid judgeth a token of the growth of Religion. And alleadgeth Augustins book of baptism of Infants, and the African Councills, and the Fathers in generall for Infant Baptisme, against that of Augustines practise, baptized at ripe yeares; and withall Walafrid saith, That thus those wise [Page 160]Christians did Baptize their Infants into remission of sinnes, and for regeneration; and not as some Hereticall persons contra-opposing against the grace of God, contend that Infants are not necessarily to be baptized.

And now I hope I have given Mr T. enough of his Walafrid (up­on his so oft and confident alleadging him) and have satisfied the Reader touching him.

If Mr T. speaks of Walfridus his mention of the invention of Gossips (as they call them) following upon Infant-Baptisme, and spirituall kin of Gossips following upon that, as thereby to blemish Walafridus, then Mr T. breaks his own shins. For Mr T. did go upon the legs of Walafridus to fetch us an antiquity against Infant-baptism; If Mr T. doth but use Walafridus his antiquity of the in­vention of those two things: We Answ. 1. Gossips were long before Augustines time, even in Tertullians time many hundred yeers afore. Superstitions of divers sorts, crept into the Church soon after Constantines time. And spirituall kin of Gossips, is but a novell late dream of yester night (in comparison) of the Church of Rome, falsly so called.

3. That neither of these inventions necessarily depend on Infant baptisme, more then a rope of sand, or pebles in a With: for as much as if beleevers practised the baptisme of their children, it was seldome, but one of the Parents were alive in the Infancy of the child. Kneeling followed the Communion, and adoration of the Elements followed that kneeling; yet these do nothing disparage the Communion it selfe in the Institution and substance of it, but onely defiled the Communicants that so superstitiously used that sacred thing.

Thus of Walafridus Strabo. Now of Peter de Bruis and of Peter Cluniacensis his Epistles to two A. B B. and two B B. against him, which are called Epistolae contra Petro-brusianorum & Heinriciano­rum haereses. And well may De Bruis and Heinricus be taxed with Herefie if that be true Cluniacensis chargeth upon them. And he professeth twice that he would not accuse them upon uncertain­ties and reports; but upon that writing taken from them, and brought to him, wherein he chargeth them as from their own mouths, that they denyed all the Scriptures, especially in the New Testament excepting the four Evangelists. Evangelium at supra dixi vos suscipere. Epistolas Pauli &c. cur non suscipitis? Re­spondetis [Page 161]quia non adeo certa nobis earum authoritas est. And for this cause Cluniacensis spends two long chapters in proving the Old Testament and the New to be the true Word of God, by quotati­ons out of the four Evangelists, which Evangelists Bruis and Hen­ricus did acknowledge, and Cluniacensis goes over all the Bible so, book after book, to so approve them to Bruis and his collegue. But to come to the point in hand of paedobaptisme.

1. Mr T. tells us that Peter de Bruis denyed Baptisme, but tels us not the rest that Peter de Bruis denyed in that very point. Mr T. shewed us fairly the green grasse, but not the snake lurching in it. Truely I could not but with fadnesse read Cluniacensis of Peter de Bruis, when I found how there as formerly, Mr T. takes here and there a touch of Authors that is for his turn, and conceals that which is most necessarily mixed and twisted with it; which if Mr T. had but intimated, would have overthrown his quota­tions.

For Mr T. his Petrus Cluniacensis gives us the first Preposition (so he calls it) of Petrus de Bruis thus: [Mar. 16.15. Qui cre­diderit & baptizatus fuerit salvus erit, qui verà non crediderit dam­nabitur. Ex his apertè monstratur, nullum nisi exediderit, & bapti­zatus fuerit, hoc est, nisi Christianam fidem habuerit, & baptismuni perceperit, posse salvari. Nam non alterum horum, fed utrumque pa­riter salvat And a little after this is made more plain, Nec bap­tismus sine pro­pria fide, nec propria fides sine baptisme aliquid potuit, Neutrum cuim sine altero sal­vat. That is, unde infantes, licèt a vobis baptizentur, quia tamen credere, obstante aetate, non possunt, nequaquam salvantur. Non re­baptizamus, sed baptizamus, quia nunquam baptizatus dicendus est qui baptismo, quo peèccata lavantur, lotus non est: that is, Mark 16.15. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that beleeveth not shall be damned. Hence it is apparently demon­strated (saith Peter de Bruis) that none unlesse he beleeve and be baptized, that is, hath Christian faith, and receives and perceives Baptisme, can be saved. For not one of these alone doth save, but both of them joyntly, (see the MarginNeither could baptism without ones own proper faith be ableto do any thing, nor ones own proper faith without bap­tism. For nei­ther of them without the other saveth. So doth Peter de Bruis after explain him­selfe.) Therefore (faith De Bruis to Cluniacensis his partee) though Infants be baptized by you, yet because through the hinderance of their age they cannot believe, by no means are they saved. We (saith De Bruis) do not re­baptize, but baptize, because he is never to be said to be baptized, who is not washed in the Baptisme wherewith sinnes are washed away. Thus was the Tenet of De Bruis, as it is in Mr T. his Cluniacensis. Whence observe, [Page 162]

• 1. That De Bruis did hold, That no Infants, while Infants, can have any faith. Contrary to that, That Iohn the Baptist was filled with the holy Ghost, from his mothers womb; which filling, or in being in a sanctifying manner, is by the fruits of the Spirit, Love, joy, faith, Gal. 5. As it is said, Rom. 5. The love of God (that is, as part of the meaning, the apprehension of the love of God) is shed into our hearts BY HIS SPIRIT. The little children Mar. 10. had grace, because Christ confirmes their grace. And all gra­ces go together.
• 2. De Bruis did hold, That all, whether beleevers Infants, or beleevers of ripe yeares, dying unbaptized, are damned. And so condemnes many of the Martyrs to hell.
• 3. By this opinion of De Bruis, he falsifies the Text he quotes. For though it be sayd in the affirmative joyntly. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved; yet it is not said joyntly in the ne­gative, that unlesse One de both beleeve, and also be Baptized, he shall be damned; but onely singlely, he that beleeveth not shall be damned.
• 4. De Bruis holds, that God the principall agent, cannot work or doth not work (he wants power or will to worke) the work of mans Salvation without the Instrument Baptisme. So that God is stript of his Prerogative, and tyed to meanes.
• 5. That if a man be baptized at ripe years, and that by De Bruis or his companion Heinricus, they conceiving him to be a beleever, yet if it prove after he was not a beleever, at that baptisme he is not to be said to have been baptized. So that if after indeed that he be­leeves, he be baptized, that is no re-baptizing, because his former baptism was nothing.

By this the Intelligent Reader may see:

• 1. That ill might Mr T. alleadge De Bruis for the Antipaedobap­tisme he contends for.
• 2. That well might De Bruis refuse not onely the Fathers but all Orthodox Writers; for this is such an Opinion as he knew he must stand alone without company. And therefore his best course was to professe it as a singularity.

2. M. T. tells us that Cluniacensis saith of De Bruis that he did reject the authority of the Latin Doctors, being himselfe a Latine, ig­norant of the Greek.

To this I Answer, That I have run over with mine eye De Bruis [Page 163]his proposition of Antipaedobaptisme, and Cluniacensis his answer, and proof; but finde not that sentence, nor sence, that De Bruis was a Latin ignorant of the Greek. This I finde that Cluniacensis confesseth of himselfe he was a Latine, and not skilled in Greek, as we shall shew by and by. See ☞ in the Margin a little after, in our translation of Cluniacensis, and at our third particular in our an­swer to Mr T. his fourth particular, viz. his Observation.

3. Mr T. saith, that Cluniacensis saying of De Bruis, that he did run to the Scriptures, Cluniacensis alleadgeth against De Bruis the examples in the New Testament of Christs curing of persons at the request of others to prove Infant baptisme by.

To this we Answer, that the naked truth is this:

1. That one of Cluniacensis his businesses was to prove, That chil­dren were counted neerer to Salvation, by the faith of the Parents, and so a fortiori urgeth as from the non parentall-kin, to the belee­ving Parent, from the curing of the body to the curing of the soul, that Christ cured the bodies of some upon the faith of them, (that were no Parents) that brought them. 2. Another of Cluniacensis his businesses was to prove, That infants might be saved while Infants; and accordingly alleadgeth. 1. That as in the first Adam children, whiles children, dyed spiritually; so children, whiles chil­drend. might be made alive spiritually in the second Adam Christ. 3. That there was not an absolute necessity of a joynt concurrence of baptisme, with faith in all that should be saved, or else no Sal­vation: (For if Cluniacensis had not spoken to this, he had for sa­ken the termes and state of the question:) And therefore urgeth some of the Martyrs; and that saying of Christ, He that confesseth me before men, him will I confesse before my Father in heaven, and many other things, that some are saved without baptisme, that Martyrdome goes for baptisme. His fourth businesse was to prove that children might be baptized, and for that urgeth Mat. 19. Mar. 10. Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, &c.

4. Mr T. makes an observation upon the former passages, as he himselfe hath represented them. From these passages (faith Mr T.) I gather, that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for Paedobaptisme the authority of Augustine and the Latine Doctors; so Peter de Bruis and Heinricus appealed to the Scriptures, and the Greek Church.

We answer. Here Mr T. makes a great treble intimation.

• 1. That Cluniacensis urged Latin Doctors.
• 2. That therefore Au­gustines Authority was then in the great esteem to carry the questi­on of Infant Baptism.
• 3. That De Bruis did appeal to the Greek Church, as if that were for him against Infant Baptisme: But I can finde neither of these in Cluniacensis. This onely I finde (which I suppose is that Mr T. alludes to) that Cluniacensis speaks to De Bruis, and Heinricus the Apostle (as he is called, and De Bruis too) thus. Ad Vestram, &c.

Ad vestram brutamhaeresin refellendam innumera mi­hi doctorum Ecclesiastico­rumtestimonia suffragantur. Sed vestra au­thoritas & sa­pientia tanta est, ut cos co­ram producere non praesu­mam; maxime cum didicerim Hilarium, Am­brosium, Augu­stinum, Hiero­nymum, Leo­nem, Gregori­um, &c. judi­cio majestatis vestrae esse damnatos. Cumque Lati­nos omnes & a regno caelo­rum excluscri­tis, nescio si Gracis, vel alterius linguae hominibus peperceritis. Quod si forte vel illi so­brietate vestri examinis, peremptoriam sententiam evadere potuerunt: Mihi quid? quan­tum ad praesens negotium spectat, aut parum aut nihil prodest? Cum homo tantum Latinus, peregrinae linguae quam ignoro, testimoniis, quibus vos aut convertere possim, aut convin­cere, uti non valeam. Quia sanctis Ecclesiae Doctoribus fidem praebere dedignamini, ad pu­ritlimum rivulorum omnium fontem mihi reverteudum est, & de Evangelicis Apostolicis seu propheticis dictis testimonia, si tamen vel illa suscipitis, sunt proferenda. That is to refell your brutish heresie, innu­merable testimonies of the Ecclesiasticall learned D^rs give me their Votes. But your Authority and wisdome is so great, that I may not presume to produce them; especially seeing I have understood that you have cast off or excluded Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Hierom, Leo, Gregory, &c. from the chair of the learned Doctors, and from the kingdome of heaven. I know not whether you will spare the Greeks, or men of any other language. But if perhaps they at least, by meanes of your sober examination, have escaped your peremptory sentence, what is that to me? So far forth as concerns the businesse in hand it little or nothing advantageth; see­ing I am onely a Latine, I cannot use those testimonies of a strange tongue which I understand not, whereby I may convert or con­vince you. Because ye disdain to give credit to the holy learned Doctors of the Church, I must return to the most pure fountain of all rivulets; and witnesses are to be brought out of the sayings of the Evangelists, Apostles, and Prophets, if neverthelesse you receive so much as them.

This is the onely likely place that I finde in all Cluniacensis his chapters and Treatises agaist De Bruis touching the point of paedo­baptisme, which I can imagine Mr T. should mean. And in all this let the reader judge whether Mr T. his 3 suppositions in his Obser­vation can be found; but rather the contrary: As

1. That Cluniacensis did not urge the Latine Doctors, but ex­presly waved them. And of Augustin particularly he saith in ano­ther [Page 165]place, in arguing against De Bruis out of the Scriptures, Ee [...] hoc non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli. I have produced this not out of Augustine, but out of the Gospel.

2. That therefore Augustines authority is not advanced in this point by Cluniacensis against De Bruis.

3. That De Bruis did not appeal to the Greek Church; nor doth Cluniacensis charge it upon De Bruis, that he the said Bruis being ignorant of the Greek, did appeal to the Greek Church; But as you heard in the translation of Cluniacensis, That he the said Cluni­acensis, professed himself a meer Latine ignorant of the Greek. For Cluniacensis makes a supposition, that perhaps De Bruis and Hein­ricus might despise the Greek Church and other Churches as well as the Latine. Or if perhaps they did not despise the Greeks, yet Cluniacensis being a Latine could not urge them. So also in the Translation afore. And there is the lesse probability that Cluniacen­sis should charge De Bruis with appealing from the Latine Church to the Greek, as if it sided with De Bruis in the point of Anabap­tisme; For Cluniacensis urgeth on his own part the Greek Church for Paedobaptisme against De Bruis in a generall historicall way; thus: Tota Gallia, Hispania, Germania, Italia, ac universa Euro­pa a trecentis, vel quingentis ferè annis, nullum nisi in infantiâ bap­tizatum habuerit. That is, All France, Spaine, Germany, Italy, and all Europe hath not had any baptized for the 300. or 500. yeers, but Infants. All Europe containes Greece, Continent and Islands, And Cluniacensis wrote (as Mr T. quotes out of Vsher) about the yeer after Christ, 1150.) and so his 500. years reacheth up to 650 after Christ. This passage of Cluniacensis comming to my eye as I read him, I observed after that Mr T. should think that Cluniacensis charged De Bruis with appealing to the Greek Church as with him, against Infant Baptisme; When as Cluniacensis at most doth but intimate that perhaps De Bruis and Heinricus may not so peremp­torily censure the Greek Doctors, as they had the Latine. How­ever if they didor did not, Cluniacensis was not skilled in Greek Doctors to quote and urge them to convert or convince De Bruis and his collegue; which to me is an intimation that Cluniacensis had understood some how, by Latine history or report, that the Greek Doctors also were for Infant Bapiisme; or else he would not have spoken by way of excuse, that he was onely a Latine and not [Page 166]skill'd in the Greek, thereby to convert or convince De Bruis, in case he had appealed to them.

After the allegations aforesaid of Walafridus and Cluniacensis Mr T. goes on in the same Section of his EXAMEN to tell us a sto­ry,EXAMEN sect;. 8. ‘That the reason of Augustines authority was this; The Pela­gian heresie being generally condemned, and Augustines workes being greatly esteemed,’ as being the hammer of the Pelagians, the following refuters of Pelagianisme, namely, Prosper, Fulgen­tius &c. the Councils that did condemne it, as those of Carthage, Arles, Milevis &c. did rest altogether on Augustines ARGU­MENTS and often on his Wordes.

We answer, that here Mr T. asserts much without any proofe;Animadver. and to what great purpose I know not. But I must follow Mr T. Therefore we say; It Augustines workes were greatly esteemed, as the hammer of that detestable Heresy of the Pelagians then ge­nerally condemned (as Mr T. confesseth); I hope Mr T. dislikes not this, that men should be famous for opposing an infamous he­resie, especially seeing by Mr T. his words, Wicked Pelagianisme was as well generally condemned as hammered by Augustine, who could do no lesse in faithfullnesse to the place and time he lived in, against an heresie bolted forth just in his time when he began to bee famous. And they that condemned the totall of Pelagianisme [That men by their own free will can repell sinne and keepe the Commandements] (so apparent against Scripture, as was no need for any to pin their faith on Augustines sleeve) they could not but condemne that shredd of Pelagianisme;See before in our Quotat. of Hierom and the Council of Carthage and the 90. Ep. a­mong Aug. Epistles. That [Infants need not be baptised into remission of sinnes as having none; but if they must needs be baptized, then they are only baptized into the Kingdome of heaven] An apparent lye against the truth of Scripture; That saith in Adam we all dyed, who sinned not after th similitude of his trans­gression. Rom. 5. And in sinne did my mother conceive mee. Psal. 51. with many more Scriptures which would have informed the Chur­ches if Augustine had held his peace, that Infants have sinne in them and are baptized into remission of sinnes or into nothing: Or if the Churches had wanted prompting from learned men, Cyprian, Clem. Alexandrinus, Hierom, with many other ancient orthodox learned, yea Mr T. his Walafridus would have held out so much, if Augustin had been mute.

For Prosper its true he hath some verses on the Acts of the Coun­cill [Page 167]of Carthage, wherein being inflamed with an incomparable zeal against the Pelagian heresie, he describes the convention of the Africans Vide Notas in Concil. Cap­thag. Et Baron. an. 416. nu. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.. But what is this to Prospers resting upon Augustine? or if Prosper writes De Gratiâ & libero arbitrio in defence of Au­gustine, this shewes that he was rather an Advocate for, then a Cli­ent to Augustine. Therein Augustines workes depended on him, not hee on them. And if hee writes to Augustine, in that not as from Augustine.

For Fulgentius, I finde not that he doth quote Augustine, in the main dispute touching Pelagianisme in his responsory book to Peter Deacon; but often and aptly quotes the Scriptures. In his bookes to Monimus touching piae destination, he recites Monimus quoting Augustine. And at the end of Fulgentius his workes are printed at Basil together with them, Augustines or rather Prospers booke of answers to articles imposed upon him; and some bodies 6 bookes Hypognosticon in answer to the Calumnies of the Pelagians; Now whether all this may argue Fulgentius his relyance on Augustines arguments, let the reader judge.

For Mr T. to say, Prosper, Fulgentius, and those three Councels rested on Augustines wordes, and to bring us no instances, or to say they rested on his arguments, and to bring us no paralell of both their arguments, is to dictate, not to prove: Or to say they relyed on his arguments, and after to say they relyed on his wordes, is an expression of inconsistencies: Or to say they relyed on his argu­ments, is improbable: Likely they might rely upon arguments by him used, but not as his, but as divine out of the Scriptures, where Augustine urged them. But for Mr T. to say they relyed altogether on Augustines arguments, is impossible for Mr T. to make good to us; or for us to believe of those worthyes.

For the Councells Mr T. doth not intimate, much lesse Cipher to us which (for there are many of those names) he means. If he mean those Coetanian convented in the same 416 year after Christ,Reus. Bucholc. Perk. when about (by consent of Chronologers) Pelagianisme began to be con­demned in Councils, and Augustine had now a while been famous; Wee answer, it is true that in this Councill of Carthage, Pelagius and Coelestius the Hereticks are condemned; but by notable Scrip­ture-arguments, without the least mention of Augustine. And it is true that that Councels Epistle to P. Innocent the first, and that P. Innocents Epistle backe to that Councill, are by some body put a­mong [Page 168]the Epistles of Augustine; and are there the 90. and 91. Ep. But neither doth P. Innocent in his Epistle take the least particular notice of Augustine; nor do the Councill in their Epistle. Nor do I know whether Mr T. doth confide that Augustine was at this Council, by the names subscribed thus; To the most blessed, and most honoured brother, Innocent the Pope, Aurelius, Numidius, Rustic [...]anus &c. who were present in the Councill of Carthage? Therein being then Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, as appears in the Epistle of the aforesaid Council of Milevis to the Emperours, Ar­chad. and Honor. But when Augustine Bpp of Hippon is named at a Council, he is called Augustinus. And if there be two of the same name at a Council, they are both named with alius. As at this Council of Carthage, Restitutus, alius Restitutus, and Victor, alius Victor. But here is but once Aurelius, and no Augustinus.

As for the said Council of Milevis, it is true that in their Epistle to P. Innocent there is among the rest expressed Silvanus, Valenti­nus, Aurelius, Donatus, Restitutus, Lucianus, Alypius, Augustinus, Placentius &c, And that that Council also was convented against Pelagius and Coelestius. But we finde not either in the Acts of that Council, or in the Epistle or &c. that there is any more particular notice of Augustine then of any of the rest; much lesse of any of his arguments against the Pelagians, or of his urging any one argu­ment. Yea Bucholcerus saith that after these two Councils, viz. in Anno 417. Augustine began to refute the Errors of Pelagius. By this Augustine should rather learn at these Councills to dispute a­gainst Pelagianisme, then they to rely on him.

In the next Council of Carthage in order of the printed Councils though Augustine be there, yet any Dispute of Pelagianisme is not there.

In the seventh Council of Carthage, Bin. alias a part or 2 Session of the sixt, we finde but five titles of chapters or canons: But they say there were recited 105 whereof a great part were those at the third Council of Carthage and in the Council of Milevis as they say in the title of this seventh or sixth Council. But that which they call the third Council of Carthage, they date in the title to be in Anno 438, which was saith Bucholcerus, 8 years after Augustines death. If they mean that Council of Carthage and Milevis of the same 416 year after Christ, to them we have answered already. If the residue of the Canons of this seventh Council of Carthage are [Page 169](as the notes on it tell us and I rather believe) recited in the follow­ing African Council convented in the time of Boniface and Celestin; there indeed that Council is in diverse Canons against Pelagius, and Coelestius too, and that about baptisme of Infants which wee mentioned afore at large. But there is no mention at all of Augu­stines persons or rrguments there: and is after that which Mr T. Quotes.

For the Council of Arles, if Mr T. meanes the second. It was too ancient, being under Siricius who was Anno 385. I say too an­cient to be swayed by Augustine (who was not famous according to Mr T. till Anno 405. or 410.) against Pelagianisme, if there had been in it any debate about it, as there was none. If Mr T. meane the third Council of Arles this was too young and of too later times (being Anno 461 or as others 514 under P. John 1.) for Augustine to be there. Nor was there need of his arguments, for there are but few Canons, and none about Pelagianisme. It is true one Faustus writes an Epistle to one Lucidus a Pelagian against his Errours which he had vented in a book which Caesarinus, Avitus, and Jo­hannes Antiochenus, confuted in writing; and this Council ap­proves Faustus his Epistle; in neither of all which is there the least mention (that I can find) of Augustines name or arguments.

If Mr T. think I have not said enough or not punctually to his 3 Councils, and two Fathers, let him blame his non-quotations, and generall and confused intimations. Thus of Fulgentius, Prosper, and the three Councils.

Next Mr T. objects that Augustine being counted as one of the four Doctors of the Church, like the four Evangelists,EXAMEN §. 8. his opinion was the rule of the Churches judgement, and the Schooles de­termination; as to the great hurt of Gods Church, Luther and others have been of late.

Answer.Animadver. To that of Augustines respect and authority in matters of dispute we have spoken once and again: that it hath not beene so high, as Mr T. his elevation. There were sundry Antagonists and some honestly minded as Acrius &c. did pritty well keep Au­gustine, Hierom &c. from too much hight and extravagancy, as the Calvanists did the Lutherans; and like instances might begiven of later times.

But Augustine, EXAMEN Ibid. saith Mr T. proved originall sinne from the bap­tisme of Infants, and so did the Council of Milevis anathematizing [Page 170]them that did deny it. Ergo, great was the sway of Augustines authority.

We answer,Animadver. (having spoken of the Councills afore and of their Scripture arguments) that Augustine proved Infant-baptisme from the Scriptures, as we have often quoted; and then the result of Mr T. his argument will be only this. Augustine read the Scriptures for originall sinne in Infants, and Infant-baptisme, and so did the Councill of Milevis. Ergo, the Counc [...]ll [...]f Milevis depended on the authority of Augustine: A non-sequitur that every man will perceive. Two Councellours urge the same clause of a statute, or the same deduction thence, clear to both their reasons, will it follow therefore that the ones judgement depended on the other?

But saith Mr T. I value Augustines judgement,EXAMEN just so much as his proofes and reason weigh.

Wee answer,Animadver. That's well: But as we may not extoll good men too much, so nor depresse an Augustine, a Luther, as if we would by a back blow strike out their eyes, and then say they saw nothing. Augustines retractations, and Luthers voluntary suffering of so ma­ny losses, and crosses for the truth, are incomparable signes they a­spired not to be high in authority over mens consciences. Augu­stine argued out of the Scriptures plentifully according to his light for that he held; so doth Mr T. so do others. Therefore let us not too rashly despise one anothers arguments. The Councill of Milevis did Anathematize them that did deny originall sinne, and perhaps them that said Infants were not baptized into remission of sinnes; but they do not curse them that will not make Infants ori­ginall sinne an argument for Infant-baptisme. Sure Augustine did not so Anathema, and therefore the C. of Milevis tooke no such thing from him, and therefore no wonder they doe not practise it.

But Mr T. again urgeth the baptisme of Augustine at above 30 years old,EXAMEN §. 8. of Alipius his friend, at ripe years, of Ad [...]odatus his sonne at 15, to prove that the custome of baptizing Infants was not so received, as that the Church thought it necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their Infancy.

Wee answer first in generall:Animadver. That they were perswaded that of Equity they ought to baptize all Christians children as the stream of Antiquity hath carried it, of which afore abundantly. And Mr T. himselfe chargeth Augustine and Cyprian, that they thought [Page 171]too many Infants were to be baptized, namely all that had Christian parents or undertakers. If therefore in fact some few were not bap­tized in infancy, it must needs be that there was some outward forcible stop, no inward lett in the judgement. As the Israelites in fact gave not their children the first Seal or signe of Circumcision for 40 years in the wildernesse by reason of their pilgrimage there so long; and God bare with it; though by equity they should have done it upon the eighth day after birth upon pain of cutting off, Gen. 17.

2 In particular: Touching Augustine's baptisme, that it was not done till he was about 34 or 35 yeares of age we have before acknowledged and we shall give a full account why, anon after, when we have done with this 8. Sect. of Mr T. his EXAMEN, and returne to his EXERCITATION. Section 17. where Mr T. urgeth the same thing touching Augustine. But mean while for Adeodatus Augustines sonne, if Mr T. be sure he was baptized at 15, the cause might be this: Seeing Augustine when he was at mans estate about 32 years old ranne into most blasphemous errors, and after that became Catechumenus A Catechised, about two years, and so not baptized till about 34, or 35, he might possibly have a sonne of about 15 years old unbaptized till the father were owned in the Church for a Christian, and then he and his sonne Adeodatus and his friend Alipius might be baptized the same Day; Augustine and his friend being men; Adeodatus his sonne being a youth of 15 years of age. But there is no mention or probality that either Ali­pius had believing parents; or that Alipius had been long a Chri­stian, but rather the contrarySee August. Confess. lib. 6. c. 7.. And it is uncertain to me (and not to me only; looking more wishly on the wordes of Augustine, whether Adeodatus were baptized the same time his father was or no?Inde ubi tempus adve­nit, quo me nomen dare o­porteret, relicto rure, Mediolanum remeavimus. Placuit & Alipio renasci in te mecum, Jam indato humilita esacramentis tuis congrua, & fortisumo domitore corporis, ulque ad Itali­cum solum glaci [...]e [...]udo pede obterendum insolito [...]su. Adjunximus etiam nobis puerum Adeodatum, ex [...]e [...]tum carnaliter de peccato meo. Tu bene feceras eum. Annorum erat fe [...]me qui decim, & ingeni [...] praeveniebat multos graves & doctos viros. Munera tua tibi co [...]f [...]eor, do nine deus meus, creator omn [...]um, & mul [...]um potens reformare nostra deformia. Nam ego in illo puero praeter delictum nihil habebam. Quod enim enutriabatur a nobis in disciplina tua, tu inspiraveras nobis, nullus alius. Aug. Confess. lib. 9. cap. 6. Nor is it of moment whether he was or was not. For Mr T. his conclusion from these premisses of Augustine, Adeodatus, [Page 172]and Alipius, I say his conclusion, that the Church thought it not NECESSARY That all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their Infancie, doth not necessarily follow.

But Mr T. in his EXAMEN. Sect. 8. asserts further, that though he conceived with Grotius on Mat. 19.14. That Baptisme of Infants was much more frequented and with greater opinion of ne­cessity in Affrica, then in Asia, or other parts of the world; for (saith he) in the Councilis you cannot finde ancienter mention of that custome then the Councill of Carthage; yet Mr T. doth very much question whether they did in Africa even in Augustines time baptize children, except in danger of death, or for the health of body, or for such like reason. I do not finde (saith Mr T.) that they held that Infants must be baptized out of such cases; for it is cleer out of sundry of Augustines Tracts, as particularly Tract. 11. in Johan. that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptized, and the use of catechising afore baptisme; still continued.

ANIMADVERS. We Answer.

• 1. For the judgement of Grotius as it appears there, we have abundantly spoken of it a­fore, as for us.
• 2. For this particular quotation as applyed by Mr. T. we say, besides that it is a naked thing, not backed to a sufficiency of a cleer and manifest assertion from negatives; especially in the point of necessity;

we may justly Quare. 1. How much more frequencie and necessity doth Mr T. meane? How much more can he make appear? For sure he cannot dispute from punctilio's. And what use will Mr T. make of it, if for a time there appeared a grain more in Africa then in Asia?

An Argument is not managed by countenance, or gravity of asser­ting. Men in divers countries may more frequently, and with more [...]al practise a truth, and yet the truth be still the same. Yea diffe­rent complexions and conditions of Countries in receiving, or oppo­sing a truth, may make it to be more or lesse practised, and yet the minds of true Christians in both, may be alike one with the rule. Yea if the more frequency of Infant Baptisme were never so ancient in Africa, according to the Councils there, whereof that in Cypri­ans time was one,Cyprian was within 148 yeers after the Apostles. yet we know that it came first from Asia, This Asia the grea [...] consisted of Anatolia, Sy [...]ia, Palestina, Armenia, Arabia, Media, Assy­ria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Chaldea, Parthia, Hircania, Tartaria, China, India, the Islands of the Indian and Mediterranean seas. where man was created, Christ born, wrought mirocles, suffered; [Page 173]All the pen-men of both Testaments acted; were the Monarchies and captivities over the Church. Great Asia included Asia the lesse, since called Anatolia This Ana­tolia or Asia the lesse com­prehendeth Cilicia, Pam­phylia, Lycia, Bythinia, Pon­tus, Paphlago­nia, Galatia, Cappadociae, Lycaonia, Piss­dia, Armenia the lisse, and Asia propria. (that is, the Estern Country) where were the seven Churches Revel. 1. this included Asia Propria Which comprehends Caria, Jonia, Lydiaa, Aeulis, and both the phyrigiae's. of which at least is meant that Act. 19.10. and 27. All Asia heard the Word of the Lord Jesus; And certaine which were the chief of Asia sent unto Paul. Sutably we quoted Justin Martyr for one of our wit­nesses since the Apostles time, of Infant Baptisme. He was a Sa­maritan (which is part of Palestine in Asia the Great) Genere Sa­maritanus, atque è Samaritanis ad Christi fidem transiit, Epiphan. Some of Samaria were converted by Christ, John 4. v. 5. v. 29. v. 30. v. 39. After in the Apostles time the Word was preached to many Villages of the Samaritans Act. 8.25. Justin Martyr was converted to the faith about 28 yeares after the Apostles.

To that of not baptizing children in Africa but in danger of death, or &c. we have shewd the contrary out of severall antiquities, & par­ticularly out of Cyprian whither we refer the reader. And sure enough, from the life of Augustin (of which anon after) it is cleer that Augu­stines sicknes whiles young, was some occasion of deferring his bap­tism for that time. For he saith in his first book of Confessions, and c. 11. That having been sick, they deferred their thoughts of baptizing him, that they might the more freely give him his will to do what he would for the furtherance of his recovery, which they might not allow him if once he were under the bonds of Baptisme.

Those words Mr T. addes, Children were baptized for the health of body, or such like reason, seem to clash against that he so often presseth in his book, that Augustine and the Ancients did too much put salvation, and the taking away Originall sinne, in Bap­tisme, which presently Mr T. repea [...]es within 25 lines following. You may conceive (saith Mr T.) how light Augustines judge­ment was, by considering the ground upon which Augu­stine held, and urged the baptisme of Infants so vehemently; which was (saith Mr T.) as all know that read his works, the opi­nion he had, that without baptisme Infants must be damned by reason of Originall sin, which is not taken away but by baptisme; and for this quotes severall places out of Augustine, T. 7. de Nat. & Gra. c. 8. T. 2. Ep. 28.

For the distinction of the Chatechised and the Baptized, and that the use of catechising afore baptisme still continued, and a great [Page 174]while after (he means Augustines time:) All this doth not over­throw the common tenet and practise of that antiquity, and up­ward, as well as downward, in baptizing Christians children. The chatechising being for the children of those whose parents were not supposed Christians, as before we abundantly shewed out of Tertullian, and Iunius upon him: and out of Pareus, Calvin, Bul­linger, Marlorat, &c. on Heb. 6.2. And this is practised in all Protestant Kingdomes to this day, notwithstanding the constancy of baptizing Infants. If there be not used a right judgement to de­termine who are Christian-parents, that is the fault of men, not of the Ordinance, or its institution. If I should go about to answer that quotation of Augustine, with others out of Augustine, I might abound with his sentences for Infant Baptisme. As his collation of Baptisme and Circumcision, in many places of his works. His Col­lation of baptisme, with the Flood, the Cloud, and Red Sea, divers times. ‘His sayings, That Baptisme is not to be deferred. That re­pentance is not absolutely universally necessary before baptism; His severall tracts of the Baptism of little ones, &c.’ Which we need not quote to them that are acquainted with Augustine. All which shew in what sence Augustine spake of catechising before baptisme; viz. of those whose Parents were not Christians. If with Nazianzen he had held that little children of three years old, being Chatechised, to answer that they understood not, might be bap­tized; what is that more to the purpose then to baptize them whiles Infants? We must understand that in most of the Fathers times there were no whole Kingdomes, or for the most part converted, or Religious worship set up by allowance of the state, but the generall of them were heathens. Therefore of necessity, there must have been some catechising afore the baptizing of some. And for bapti­zing Infants for bodily health, &c. named but not quoted out of Augustine, as his opinion, we can answer it out of Augustine who saith;T. 7. Col. 84. c. Edit Basil. Ibid. Col. 55. That Baptisme doth not profit all. That Baptisme profits not without charity. That one baptisme by faith purgeth. And that the Vertue of Baptisme is not in the water but in the word; which we forbear to quote and translate at large, as having too much (if it might have been prevented troubled the read [...]r with quotations al­ready. They are obvious to him that reads Augustine.

But Mr T. EXAMEN §. 8. objects that catechizing afore baptisme continued in Augustines time, and after a great while, in Asia, because Peter Clu­niacensis [Page 175]saith that there had been none but Infants baptized in all Europe for 300 or 500 years afore his time: but doth not deny the baptisme of men of ripe years in Asia.

We answer, First touching Cluniacensis we have said abundance afore. Secondly,Animadver. that this Argument doth no more determine any thing about Asia, then about Affrica (which is Mr T. his Qu. in hand). And for Affrica we have heard abundantly out of all sorts of antiquity of the baptizing of Infants. Thirdly, Cluniacensis pro­fesseth himself a Latin, ignorant of Greek and other tongues, and therefore doth not determine here any thing concerning places out of Europe, but is silent, concerning them. Fourthly, Touching baptisme of Infants in Asia we heard afore.

To that Mr T. objects Augustine and Ambrose his judgement for Infant-baptisme, as putting too much in the ordinance, as condu­cing to salvation;

We answer;

• First, we have but now in that answered for Augu­stine by Augustine.
• 2 That the Papists put too much of justification in faith, as it is absolutely considered as a quality; may not we there­fore hold justification by faith relatively considered as taking in the object Christ? So the over zeale of those fathers touching the ne­cessity of Infant-baptisme, must not beat us off from the mediocrity of truth touching it.
• 3 For Augustine let us go no further then Mr T. his quotation of him, to clear him. Tom. 2. Ep. 28.

That In­fants cannot be saved but BY THE GRACE OF THE LORD CHRIST, which he hath commended to us in his Sacraments. He saith there they are saved by the Grace of the Lord Christ. And saith only Christ commendeth his grace to us in the Sacraments. And for my part when Augustine and others of the Fathers do speak so con­fidently of the salvation of Ʋnbaptized Martyrs, yea of the Ʋnbap­tized Theefe; I cannot imagine that it was their constant absolute opinion that salvation lay in the very bare ordinance; Or that all unbaptized Infants were certainly damned.

We gave you touches afore, that the fathers writing infinit much, speaking sometimes in one extream against the opposites on the one hand, did after in their polemicall dealing with the opposites on the other hand, or in a doctrinall way moderate the same. So we must take their sayings altogether, or we shall wrong them and our selves too. And therefore Mr T. might have done well, not to have charged up so fiercely upon Augustine and Ambrose in this point, [Page 176]seeing Mr T. confesseth presently following, That Ambrose and Augustin in his 4 book de Baptisme contra Donatistas. c. 22. yeilded, That either Martyrdome, or the desire of baptisme might supply the defect of baptisme. We could add severall other expressions of Au­gustine to the same purpose:Tom. 5.713. Edit Bas. con­tra Donat. l. 5. To. 7.452. Edit Bas. Ibid. 101. Ibid. 663. As that death sometimes supplyes the place of baptisme. That suffering, faith, conversion of the heart, supply the room of Baptisme. That the Baptisme of blood, is grea­ter then the Baptism of the river. That little ones not baptized have a most easie condemnation. Lastly, whatever the rigidnesse of Au­gustin and Ambrose was in some passages touching Infant-baptism; the grand point in hand is whether Baptisme in these mens, and o­ther fathers times were in practise as an unwritten tradition, or as grounded on the Scriptures? And for the latter, those and the rest of the ancients are full, and to purpose, as we have heard.

For Mr T. indeavouring to detract from Augustine touching his inferring the necessarynesse of Infant-baptisme from Iohn 3.5. Because Aquinas and Bellarmine urge the same place for the same point;See Marlorat on the place & Bullingers words. to me is a poor argument. Do the Papists and we agree in no truth? Do not generally all our most famous godly and learned Protestants within this last hundred years understand that very place of baptisme? And dare any of us in our Pulpits say there is not (necessitas praecepti & medy) a mandatory and instrumentall necessity of ordinances, that at our perill we may not wilfully ne­glect them? So that with Cyprian afore quoted we conclude, we must not as farr as in us lies debarr our posterity from sal­vation.

Likewise the next objection of M. T. is not so considerable,EXAMEN §. 8. where he saith that he cannot find among the Ancients for Baptisme, that ground of ours that the Covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their Seed.

For first we demand;Animadver. must not the worthy Ancients be said to hold a tenet upon scripture-arguments (for that is the point at pre­sent) unlesse they hold it upon all arguments? 2 We find few of our arguments against Episcopacy in the Fathers; yet in this we side with Aerius against them; though they condemned him for Hereticall. 3 Antiquity hath somewhat of the Covenant of grace in relation to Infant-baptisme, in the things we have afore quoted. Tertullian sets recounting in Christ, over against counting in Adam. Cyprians Epistle tells us in those times they looked to circumcision [Page 177]for Infant baptisme. Gre. Nazianzen once and Augustine oft makes parallels and comparisons between Circumcision and Baptisme. Ter­tullian again saith that the children of either parental-sexe sanctified, are holy by the prerogative of the seede, and the rule of discipline. See also before Clem. Alexandrinus, and Hesichius; yea some of the An­cients were so farre transported in the consideration of the descent of the line of the Covenant of grace, from the parent to the child, that they did transcend to this opinion, that the child conceived and being in the mother at her baptisme, was some how baptized in the mother. This appeares partly from Augustine disputing the contrarieAugust. lib. 6 contra Iulian. Col. 11 19. edit Basil. (and it is not my note only, but the note of some o­thers also); and partly from one clause in a decree of the Neo­ [...]asarien Synod, held Anno. 313. after Christ, (as some inter­pret itBalsam. et Zanar.) wherein they decree [...], [...], &c. That is, the woman great with child may be baptized when she please; for in this she that is about to bring forth, imparteth no­thing to the child that is to be borne. Now if this be so (Ex malis moribus bonae procreantur leges) that a law supposeth a fault; then there is some how, some what too much inspection in some of the ancients, upon the Covenant of grace in relation to the Baptisme of Infants.

EXAMEN Animadver. As for the Popish Schoolmen, Biel, Cajetan, and Gerson tou­ching the necessity of the Baptisme of Infants which Mr. T. allead­geth; we are not carefull to give any answer to them, as we are not to care for their opinions. Protestants are not tyed to make good the dreames of Papists. Or if this will not go for an answer, let one of their owne tribe answer them; namely Peter Lumbard in his sence of the text, 3 of Ioh. ver. 5. upon which Aquinas and Ballarmine and the rest of that route towred up on high their too sublime and absolute necessitie of the baptisme of Infants upon paine of salvation. Peter Lumbards words are, The place of Ioh. 3.5. unlesse a man be borne againe of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, is to be understood (saith he) of those which may be, yet contemne to be baptized.

To that Mr. T. objects about Augustines opinion of giving the holy Supper to Infants; we will answer to (God permitting) anon when we returne to Mr. T. his Exercitation Sect. 17. Where he hath the same charge against Augustine, though it be quite beside [Page 178]the point in hand of Infant-Baptisme, and without all coherence of argumentation in the dispute.

Mr. T. Yet againe urgeth (even to a surfeit upon it) Augustines opinion of the necessity of Infant-Baptisme,EXAMEN. in that he held such a certaintie of obtaining reg [...]n [...]ration thereby.

We reply. 1 This is no good argument,Animadver. Augustine held Infant baptisme too rigidly; therefore he held it not at all. This must be the argument or else it is to little purpose. For Mr. M. quotation (to which Mr T. gives the present objection as part of his an­swer) is that also in Augustines time, as formerly, Infants-Bap­tisme was the Tenent and practise of the Christian Churches. 2. Mr. T. might haue excused Augustine, and answered himselfe touching this out of Grotius whom he hath so often quoted for his own turne, which Grotius tels himThe words of Grotius on Matt. 19.14. are; caeterum illa sententia, infantes non baptizatos certo suppl [...] ­ciis aeternis quanquam levioribus addici, tam rigide defensa ab Augustino, ne ipsi quidem Augustino pla­cuera [...], ante quam cum Pelagio collide­retur. Voss. de necess. bap. Thes. 21. that Augustines, rigidnesse about the neces­sitie of Infant baptisme, Ne ipsi placuerat Augustino, was not plea­sing to Augustine himselfe before that he disputed with Pelagius. Likely he might Confesse, or Retract somewhere in his workes somewhat of that rigidnesse; but we have not leasure as that Empe­rour to hunt after every fly. 3. Let Ʋossius answer. They object (sayth he) that Augustine, Fulgentius, Gregorie, and the Author of Hypognosticon, adjudged those Infants to Hell torments that dyed without Baptisme. And this was Socinus his objection as well as Mr T. his, here in the margin of his 8 Section of his EXAMEN. p. 15. But sayth Vossius, 1 The later ancients (that also held infant baptisme) did justly disapprove of their judge­ment as Bernard disputeth against it in his 77. Ep. And of the same judgement was his fellow Petrus Blesensis of the same time with Bernard. Serm. 22. de S. Trinitate saying Sufficit &c. The spirit and water suffice, the spirit and bloud suffice; if not the CONTEMPT OF RELIGION, but the point of necessitie excludeth the water. The spirit if selfe will suffice, because the testimonie thereof hath weight. So again the same man Serm. 24. In festo Iacobi. By this you may see how farre Mr T. his former assertion is true, that Augustines authority carried others without controll, in the point of Infant baptisme. 2, Ʋossius answers we oppose (saith he) Au­gustine to Augustine; For nothing is more cleere and manifest then those words of Aug. lib. 5. de Baptismo contra Donatistas. I againe and again considering (sayth Aug. there) do find, that not only suffering for the name of Christ, may supply that which was wanting of [Page 179]baptisme, but also faith, and the change of the heart, if perhaps by reason of the distresses of the time, recourse cannot be had to baptisme. By this you may perceive whether we gave a just reason why Au­gustines, and his son Adeodatus his baptisme was deferred (if Adeo­datus his was deferred).

But how doth Mr T. prove his last allegation of Aug. rigid opi­nion of the necessity of Infants baptisme?EXAMEN §. 8.

First thus. Augustine usually puts Regeneration for Bap­tisme. Animadver.

Wee Retort. Yet beforecap. 13. in our answ. to EXA­MEN §. 4. EXAMEN §. 8. Mr T. did much doubt whether Ire­neus might mean baptisme, by the word Renascuntur, that is, are re­generated.

Secondly Mr T. proves it out of 23. Epistle of Augustine to Bo­niface. That though people brought children to baptisme out of their by-intention to procure the childrens health, or &c. yet those children might be regenerated.

We demand in answer to this,Animadver. What great thing is inferred hence; we say not to the qu. of Infant-baptisme in Augustines time (for it is nothing to that) but what is it to Mr T. his design of dis­gracing Augustine upon the by (as Civilians do witnesses, that all judgement may lie in their own breasts)? For what if Augustine went to hear Ambrose meerly to be tickled in the eare with his elo­quence as he confesseth, and at that time God converted him by Ambrose his Ministry: And whiles another went to a Sermon of purpose for bodily sleep, was converted out of the spirituall sleep in sinne; Doth this advance the Ministry of the word too high, to say hereupon and in the like instances, that the word converts men to the true end, whiles they come to it for a false end? The same may be said of Baptisme; and in charity (that hopeth all things) of Au­gustines meaning. For it is clear out of severall places of Augustine so common that we need not quote more then those quoted afore, that Augustine did think that baptisme did not profit all that re­ceived it.

But Augustine (saith Mr T.) was so corrupt in this matter,EXAMEN so as to excuse it, if not to justifie this fact of so bringing Infants with a sinister end to baptism.

The bare r [...]citall (say we) of Augustines words will be a suffici­ent confutation of this objection.Animadver. Nec illud te move at and let not that move thee (saith Augustine to Boniface. Epistle 23.) that some [Page 180]bring their little ones to receive baptisme, not with that faith that they may by spirituall grace be regenerated to eternall life; but because they think by this remedy they may retaine, or receive tem­porall health. For not therefore, are those children not regenerated, because they are not offered by them with this intention. For by them the necessary ministry or service is Celebrated. By all which words I should thinke that Augustine doth no way justifie or excuse their bad intention; but magnifieth Gods powerfull operation, that he can bestow the right end of an ordinance, whiles by men the wrong is intended. Let us interpret others with that candor we our selves would be interpreted, as farre as words and Grammer will permit.

Vpon this quotation of Aug. 23. Ep. Mr T. Concludes his period thus;EXAMEN No marvile then if it be true, which is related of the approbation that was given of the baptisme used by Athanasius in play among boyes.

And upon this Objection we make these animadversions.Animadver. 1. That it was not Augustine that approved it, but Alexander the chiefe Minister of Alexandria 60. yeeres afore Augustine. 2. That this story is in Mr T. his esteemed Walafridus. Chap. 26. de reb. eccles, by him before quoted; yet here he mistrusts him. 3. By this it seemes Athanasius (upon whom Mr T. before called to speake in the point of childrens baptisme) knew that in his time little children, at least as soone as they could well speake,EXAMEN were baptized.

But Mr T. objects that Augustine absurdly answers to Boniface about excusing Gossips from a lye when they say the child to be bap­tized doth beleive.

We answer Seing Mr T. doth not here question but a child may have faith,Animadver. the rest is so light a thing he speakes of and so imper­tinent to the Qu. Of the Tenet and practise of Infant baptisme in Augustines time, as that it deserves no answer. Only we desire but this equitable favour of Mr T. and his friends, that upon just occasion we may have but the same freedome to plainly lay downe to the world the strange phantasies of severall ages of Anabaptists or Antipaedobaptists, as he hath wrung even to bloud as we say a few unwary expressions, and pettie mistakes of the most Godly and learned Martyrs and Saints of God.

EXAMEN Whereas Mr T. doth paraphrase upon Boniface his question to Augustine about Sureties at baptisme [That even in Baptisme of [Page 181]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 parentsAs 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, [Page 182]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 [Page 183]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 th [...]s work in hand to Animadvert a little upon Mr T. his Exercitation, I have oft wondred that he speakes sometimes so unwarily, (that had such long time to consider) sometimes gives forth great things with small hints, and glanceth intimations for positions and probations. But I answered my self with this, likely he remembred he was pro­pogating a now-taking-opinion. He therfore that will not consider; but will be mistaken, let him be mistaken, if he will be mistaken.

Thus of Mr T. his first particular in his minor, That Infant Bap­tisme was an unwritten tradition in some ages after the first of the Apostles: but he cannot tell when as we have proved.

To his second particular of Jewish imitation. Exercitat.

We have spoken already in answer to the Major. Animadver. And we have shewd that the pious learned ancients had other Scripture reasons, then only Circumcision, or their greedinesse to increase the number of Christians (who so oft gave warning to take heed to whom they gave that sacred thing baptismeCaeterum Baptismum non temere credendumesse sciunt quorum officium est. Nolite dare sanctum cani­bus; ne par­ticipes a liena delicta &c. Textul. lib. de baptis. cap. 18.) or Mr T. his perhaps (a fine word for an argument and in divine things) heathenish lustration of little ones; When Justin Martyr, Tertullian &c. apologized a­gainst heathenisme for Christianity; and many of our quoted au­thors sealed their opposition against Heathenisme with their blood. And if there were any true Jewish imitation of Circumcision in In­fant-baptisme, it was in Fidus that thought children might not be baptized till the eight day, and not in Cyprians Epistle that confu­ted him. Nor do they more intimate the necessity of baptisme to salvation then Christ himself Iohn 3.5. Except a man he borne a­gain of water and the spirit &c. (which is a place they oft quote) or the Apostles that say we are baptized into remission of sinnes, and for receivall of the holy spirit, which they, Hierom and others also [Page 184]alleadge. And it is most sure there is such a necessity in regard of Gods precept and means as to us in the use of ordinances, as let them venter their salvation on the willing neglect of them that dare; I dare not. As it is a sinne to put more in an ordinance then God ever put in it (as the Anabaptists talke of wonderfull strange manifesta­tions at and in the act of dipping, I know what I speak) or to think one is damned without an ordinance when God prevents the ha­ving it, by death or otherwise; so greater is the sinne to contemne an ordinance injoyned when it may be had: As Tertullian speaks in his book de Baptismo chap. 13.Hic ergo sce­lestissimi illi &c. Here those most gracelesse follows provoke questions: So that they say baptism is not necessary, to whom faith is sufficient &c.

To Mr T. Exercitat. §. 17. his third particular in his Minor, that Infant-baptisme was not universally practised; for Constantine was not baptized whiles an Infant, though his mother Helena were a Christian: Nor Augustine, though his mother Monica was a Christian &c. We answer.

1 No wonder if baptisme of Infants be not universally practi­sed in all ages,Animadver. when so many Sects under one notion or another, more or lesse stuck at it; First Arrians in one age; after that the Pelagians in another; after them Arminius; then the Anabaptists in Luthers time; then the Anabaptists in Ainsworths time; and now the Anabaptists in our times. Shall these men make a practise, and then make of it an argument for themselves? who will be sway­ed with such an argument as that? They should make out their practise from an argument, and not make an argument of their practise.

2 Mr T. doth not here so much as say that Helena was a Christi­an at Constantines birth, or that Monica was a Christian at Augu­stines birth, which to have cleared was necessary to the argu­ment.

3 Who doth not know, that histories make mention of Helena as of a very weak and wonderfull (I had almost said) superstitious Christian,Socrat. schol. Ecles. hist. lib. 1. chap. 13. ac­cording to the English trans. in digging for the crosse of Christ at Hierusalem, and ‘finding three, to wit those two also on which the theeves were crucified on: and being perplexed which was Christs, a miracle of curing a dying woman with that which was Christs, resolved which was his; and so shee locked up some of it in a silver chest, and the rest was set up upon a pillar in the market place at Con­stantinople [Page 185]so called of Constantine for the preservation of that City. As also that she finding the nayles that fastened Christ to the Crosse, shee sent them to her sonne Constantine the Em­perour, whereof he caused bittes for bridles, helmets, and head­peece to be made, which he wore in battail.’ So Socrate Eccles. You see how vaine a story here is. And that all the Christianitie by this appearing in Helena, relates to the time of her sonne Con­stantines being Emperour. And therefore what Mr T. can make of it to his purpose I know not.

4. At this time of Constantines birth were great persecutions risen now almost towards the highest; it cost after that Constan­tine many a battle before he could quiet things, and therefore He­lena the Emperesse, the wife of Constantius the Emperour (Re­ligion then daring little to peepe forth; more then in notorious suffering for it) might well be affraid (if she were then a Christi­an) to doe such an act as to carry her sonne to Baptisme, as Ministers might be afraid to doe it, Constantius the father not being a Christian, though politically moderate.

5. For Augustine. 1. It is cleare out of Aug. Confessions The first Booke, and 11. Chap. that his father was not a beleever at his birth, nor when he was growne up to be a little boy of some un­derstanding. For he sayth there in the description of himselfe while he was Puer a little boy, or lad. ‘Ita jam credebam, et illa et omnis domus, nisi pater solus &c. So I and my mother and all the family did now beleeve, except my father onely, who notwith­standing did not controule my mothers power over me, where­by I should not beleeve in Christ. For shee rather endevored, that thou O my God shouldest be my father, rather then he; so Augustine.’ Now the want of the fathers concurrence in car­rying a child to baptisme in those difficult times, might be some delay of that Sacrament. For secondly, We say persecution was walking among Christians about that time, for Augustine in his third Booke chap. 25. Contra literas Petiliani saith that after the death of the great Tyrant he went into Africa. Intimating also that his mother lived a very private life, his father being then dead. Third­ly, Augustine tell us in his first book of confessions and 11. chap. That Cum puer One is said to begin to be a Puer from [...] 4 yeere old & so upward to 14. essem, et quodam die pressus stomachi dolore &c. ‘When I was a little boy, or lad, being a certaine day oppressed in my stomacke, and sick even to death, thou O God sawest, because [Page 186]thou art my keeper, with what motion of minde, and with what faith I earnestly desired from the pietie of my mother and of thy Church the mother of us all, the Baptisme of thy Christ, and of God my Lord. And the mother of my flesh was much troubled, &c. and earnestly hasty that I should be initia­ted and washed with the saving Sacrament &c. But being now refreshed that my purifying was delayed.’ And Augustine tels us the reason in many words; the effect in short was this. That his friends thought that more indulgence was to be allowed to let him have his will to doe what he listed, being yet weake, and not fully recovered; then was fi [...] to be permitted in case h [...] had bin Baptized. ‘Which thing Augustine there bewa [...]es in these words, my Baptisme was delayed, as if it had beene necessary I should be more defiled, it I would live. It founded in my eares from these and those, let him alone to doe what he will, for he is not yet Baptized. And yet of the health of the body we say not, let him be wounded more, for he is not yet healed.’ Fourthly, when he was Post pueritiam, past the age of childhood or of a little boy, or lad, many and great waves of temptation hung over him.So in the same booke & chap▪ of his Confessions. ‘And though in his child-hood or lad-ship, he loved not his learning, and hated to be urged to it, yet there was lesse feare of him then then when he was a youthIn adole­scentia. So in the 12. chap. of that first booke of his Confessions, Fifthly, After this, before his Bap­tisme (which was about the 34. yeere of his age as we shewed afore) he ranne into blasphemous errors, in so much as his mo­ther would not admit him to her table, so he confesseth in his third booke of Confessions Chap. 11.’ And thus you see the life of Augustine, and the causes of the delay of his Baptisme, sure enough the delay of his and Constantines baptisme was not from the custome of the Churches as we have before prooved. From a non-fact, to a non-equity is no consequence, though they were not Baptized young, yet they ought.

But Mr. T. Exercitat. §. 17. gives other instances for his particulars in his minor, of Theodosius, Alipius, Adeodatus that were not baptized in their child-hood; and so Infants baptisme was not Vniversally practised in those times.

1. Touching Alipius and Adeodatus we have answered afore.Animadver. That of Alipius is very doubtfull whether he were of Religious Parents; the contrary being more probable, by some passages out [Page 187]of Augustine we have there quoted. And it is doubtfull of Adeo­datus whether he were baptized at 15. yeeres old as was allead­ged. 2. Touching Theodosius the Great (for that's the man I suppose Mr T. meanes) it is true that both Pezelius, and Socra­tes Scholasticus doe tell us that he was baptized at mans estate, but they doe not make out that which is deficient in Mr T. his assertion, namely whether his Parents, or either of them were Christians when he was an infant. It is true that they say he was formerly trayned up in Christianitie. But by the story it seemes to me, that Religion did not so cease upon his spirit, or that he did so declare himselfe against Arrianisme and for the Orthodox Religion and faith till he fell sick a little afore his bap­tisme. For the naked story in short is this. His Collegues Valen­tinian the second, his assistant in many batles, and Gratian (who was Partner with Theodosius in a victory against the Barbari­ans) being dead, Theodosius succeeded them in the Empire. By stock a Spaniard, his descent from Trajan; he had beene formerly trayned up in Christianitie. After the aforesaid battles, he fell ill, and lay sore sicke at Thessalonica, in which time he desired to be baptized. Sent for Anatolius alias Ascholius the Bishop of that Church; asked him whether it was lawfull for him to be baptized of an Hereticall Bishop? The Bishop an­swering that for his part he detested the opinion of Arius, that ‘he imbraced the faith delivered by the Apostles, and set forth in the Nicen Creede by the Council of Nice, he was present­ly baptized by him. Then wrote Theodosius to the people of Constantinople, that he was addicted to the Orthodox Reli­gion and exhorted them to constantly imbrace the Orthodox faith.’ Thus the story. Now what inferences Mr T. can justly make hence for a consult delay of Theodosius his baptisme, by his Chri­stian friends I know not. This hence onely appeares to me, that seeing we cannot learne neither how good his Parents were at his baptisme, though great, in his infancie (and who shall meddle with great mens children in point of Sacraments without their consent?); nor how long or how much his education in Christi­anity had beene in his youth (it being unlikely that forward­nesse in Religion would forward them to be elected Emperours in those generally troublesome and Hethenish times) nor what leasure he had seriously to thinke of Religion and worship in [Page 188]his young manhood, the Empire then being full of warres a­gainst the Gothes, Hunnes, and Alanes &c. That that was the onely fit time to baptize him when he was baptized. Now his sicknesse made his soule well. Now he had leasure to thinke of Religion for his owne soule; now he is hungry for bap­tisme, now he regarded of what faith Ministers were; now be­ing Emperour and baptized, he declares himself in writing what he was in Religion, and in opinion.

Therefore for Mr T. to infer from the Contingency of Theodo­sius his baptisme at ripe yeare, to a Necessity that the Churches then thought, so baptisme ought to be administred, is a conse­quence which I never found in my Logick. And if This Theo­dosius was about the yeere 401. after Christ as the Eccles. Chrono. at the end of Euseb. tells usOthers put him higher. then all those Godly learned An­cients before alleadged for infant baptisme, from Justin Martyr to Augustin had declared their judgements to the world for the same, as the Tenet and Practise of the Churches in all age of the New Testament. And therefore Theodosius, and the other few instances Mr T. hath given of adult baptisme at ripe yeeres, were rather beside, then according to the generall Tenet or Practise of the Churches anciently and downward: which doe no more infringe the generalily of the Tenet and Practise of Infant baptis­me, then the hills and vallyes doe the roundnesse of the world's which by the Moone we can see keepes its exact rotundity. The Moone light of antiquitie can shew us that the generalitie of Infant baptisme hath been all along so uniuersally held and practised, that it swallowes up a small handfull of instances of the other practise.

Mr T. his fourth particular of his Minor, Exercitat. Sect. 17. of his fifth argu­ment against infant Baptisme, is That together with it, went along the error of giving the Lords supper to Infants, as is ma­nifest out of the booke of Cyprian de lapsis, and others.

In our answer to this:

• 1. Let us consider the proof.
• 2. What connexion and inference it hath to make an Argument

1. For the proofe, And first for that Mr T. doth but intimate in the words, [and others.] It is true that in the eighth Sermon upon the Words of the Apostle [This a true saying and worthy of all acceptation, &c.] put among Augustines workes in the tenth Tome, are these Expres­sions, Infantes sunt, &c. That is, They are Infants, but they are Christs Members: they are Infants, but they receive his Sacraments: [Page 189]they are Infants, but they are made partakers of his table that they may have life in themselves. ButCensura pa­trum. Rob. Cooke, Cens. tom. 10. Erasmus, and they that put forth the Lovaine Edition,In that Edi­tion Augustine name is not praefixed. do doubt whether the 2.4. 6.8. Sermon with many more of them there on the said words of the Apostles be Augustines or no. Secondly for that proof, Mr T, expresseth the first part of it is here, out of Cyprian de lapsis, quoted by August. in Epist. 33. the second part is in his Examen, out of Augustine in his 1 book of merit, and remission of sin, chap. 20. on the words, Iohn 6.53. and Maldonat on Iohn 6. who confesseth that Innocentius the first, Bishop of Rome ‘held it necessary for Infants; and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 years in the Church, though it be now rejected by the R. Church in the Council of Trent.’ Thus Mr T. Now we answer to these things in the Generall thus:

• 1. That here is produced onely mat­ter of fact, but no rule, so much as pretended out of any Scripture, Councell, or any Father for it, by those that used it.
• 2. That this fact was for about 150 years, From Cyprian till Augustine, very rare; As before Cyprian,
  Helvie.
  from whom up to the last of the Apostles are neer 140 yeers, I finde no mention of it at all in the best anti­quity.

And for this reason it was rarely used, because the Ancients upon Scriptures swaying them, were all along so confident as we have heard that baptisme alone, was as Ordinance fully sufficient to as­sure them of the salvation of Infants, which caused the universality of practise of Infant-Baptisme, all along in those times. In parti­cular. 1. To Cyprian we say, if this place be not interlined and corrupted, with patches by others inserted, as those books that are altogether accounted Cyprians areSo Revet. Perkins, Cooke. Possevin. and if in this silly story of a phantisied miracle, unworthy of learned pious Cyprian, The story in a word is; That a mayden Infant being made by the Idol worshippers to suck in a little of a bit of bread sopped in wine, left by them that had there sacrificed; she being after brought by her mother to the communion, the Deacon forcing into the Infant some of the Sacramentall wine, she presently vomitted, &c. which is taken as a miracle to discover the sinne, before unknown, of her partaking of the Idol-sop. Popish Pamelius indeed huggs this story to prove miracles since the Apostles, and transubstantaition. But for Protestants, they maybe rather ashamed of it, then own it. this wine were given to the child not as aliment, but as a Sacrament, why was not the Sacramentall bread given to it too? And if it could not sucke downe a crumme of that bread, [Page 190]as it is said, they gave it the idol-sop, because it could not suck upon the flesh; how is it said to receive the Lords Supper? For it is said by the Apostle, The bread that we break is the Communion of the body of Christ. We leave this uncertain, and simple Testimony of Infant Commuuion, in Cyprians time. Let us come secondly to Augustine: letting passe his weaknesse in too credulous quoting that weake passage in Cyprian, his rash asserting that the child re­ceived the Lords Supper, and his in considerate application of it to warne persons of ripe yeeres of unworthy communicating; whereas more fitly he might have inferred, that it shewed what a sinfull humaine invention it was to force the wine of the Sa­crament into an Infant: I say, letting passe these things in his 23. Ep. Let us consider what is alleadged out of him, In his book of the merit and remission of sinnes, Chap. 20. upon occasion of his alledging Iohn 6. To which we say. 1. That Augustiue doth not speake of Infants receiving the Communion as the common Tenet of those times. 2. He brings in some disputing against him, that that place of Iohn 6.53. doth not belong to In­fants. 3. When Augustne weakly endeavours to pull that text to reach to Infants, from the verb plural, unlesse yes shall eat; and that it must belong to children too, or else to those only whom Christ there speakes, and not to us also in following ages &c. In the conclusion he sayth only this; That flesh which was given or the life of the world, was given for the life of, LITTLE ONES, and if they SHAL not eat the flesh of the sonne of man, nor SHAL they have life, speaking in the future tence, or time. As for Maldonat that Popish Calumniator, I think it nor worth while to turne to him, if I had him; or to believe him if I read him. If Innocentius the 1. Bishop of Rome so thought and sayd, its wonder there were no letters, or Epistles between him and his Coeve friend Augustine, concerning this point too; And that Boniface succeeding Innocent, and was also in Augustines time, did not mind Augustine of it, nor Augustine alleadge Innocent to Boniface in his 23. Ep. to Boniface; Augustine touching upon this very point and alleadging Cyprian for it, in that Epistle. How­soever if the 600. yeeres of that opinion and practise were those next before the Council of Trent, th [...]n the opinion and practise was rare and privat in Cyprian and Augustines time, if the 600. yeeres must begin at Cyprian, yee a or at Augustine, and his Coeve [Page 191] Innocentius; how is it averred that the Council of Trent first re­jected it? Sure it was a grosse thing in the opinion of all Ortho­dox Churches, that the Council of Trent must reforme. Thus of Mr T. his proofe that the error of Infant cummunicating, went along with Infant-baptisme. Now according to promise, a word of the connexion and inference to make it an argument,

• 1. We have proved Infant baptisme to be no error, therefore it cannot beget an error in the Administration of the Holy Supper.
• 2. The adjunct or companion cannot necessarily argue the badnesse of the subject or thing. The Sunne shineing, many men commit evil yet this doth not prove the badnesse of the Sunne-shine.
• 3. The Sa­craments are two things specifically different, distanced by ex­presse rules, that only selfe examiners may Communicate; its not said so of baptisme; therefore they that give the Communion to Infants erre for want of eyes, not for want of light, distinguish­ing between Sacraments.
• 4. Many errours for many hundreds of yeeres clave to most ordinances, as to Preaching, Praying, Sa­craments, Fasting, Thanksgivings, yet we leaving the error, doubt not of the Institutions, and Administrations of those ordinances according thereunto.
• 5. Mr T. thinks that Adult-baptisme might be severed from (to use his own words
  Exercitat. §. 17. p. 29. l. 13.
  The pernicious errors, and madd furies of FORMER Anabaptists: Therefore might in­fant baptisme be severed from some errors that have accompani­ed it.
• 6. If the errors accompanying Infant-baptisme have made it doubtfull to Mr T. So have the pernicious errors and madd furies of the Anabaptists in former ages which Mr T. hath confest made their baptisme doubtfull to us.

Mr T. adds in his 17.Exercitat. §. 17. Sect of his Exercitation towards the close of his 5. argument, That of old

• 1. Other inventions of men under the name of Apostolicall Tradition. Caused or at­tended In­fant-Bap­tisme, ra­ther then a­ny solid ar­gument frō Scripture.
• 2. A wrong likeing of Judaisme. Caused or at­tended In­fant-Bap­tisme, ra­ther then a­ny solid ar­gument frō Scripture.
• 3. The using of it as a main Argument against the Pelagian Heresie. Caused or at­tended In­fant-Bap­tisme, ra­ther then a­ny solid ar­gument frō Scripture.
• 4. The meer authority of the Councills under Cyprian, the Councill of Milevis, Augustine, and Jerome. Caused or at­tended In­fant-Bap­tisme, ra­ther then a­ny solid ar­gument frō Scripture.

To the

• 1. We shall answer in Mr T. his next Argument (in number the 6.) which is touching humane inven­tions.
• 2. We have answered already, indiscussing of the a­foresayd antiquities.
• 3. We say now; that we have produced sufficient proof afore out of approved antiquity; that the Tenet and practise of Infant baptisme, was com­mon in the Churches since the Apostles times, hundreds of years before Pelagianisme was known in the world. See before all our 13. Chap. and Chap. 14. from the beginning thereof, to the end of the quotation of Ambrose, p. 148.
• 4. We have answered afore. chap. 14.

Lastly, Mr T. addes these words as the close of his fifth Ar­gument, and Section of his Exercit.Exercita [...]. §. 17. So in this last age (saith he) some moderne men seeme to imbrace this tenet of Infant baptisme out of horror of minde, least they should goe headlong into the PERNICIOVS ERRORS of former Anabaptists, and their MADD FVRIES, or 2 least they should seem to desert the leading men of the Reformed Churches, or 3 move troubles in the Churches; rather then from perspicuous foundation in the Scriptures. Which they will think that I have not said as one that dreames, who shall reade what Robert Lord Brooke hath in the end of his Treatise concerning Episcopacie, Daniel Rogers in his treatise of Baptisme and others else-where.

We answer: to the 1 particular thus. That the modern men can­not be justly abhorred,Animadver. for their horror of mind, least they should by any Tenet fall headlong into pernicious errors and madd furies. And if Mr T. doth but approve his owne seventh Argument for a right rule viz. That which hath occasioned many errors, that is deservedly doubtfull whether it be right &c.] then it will follow uncontradicted by Mr T. That as he doubts of Infant Baptisme, because of errors that have followed it; so we doubt of adult [Page 193]baptisme according to the Tenet and Practise of the Anabaptists, because of the pernicious errors, and madd furies that have fol­lowed it.We shall give instances anon in the due place, in answer to Mr. T. his 6 7.8.9. Argument in our 13. chap. To the second particular we answer thus. That it is not so convenient suddenly to desert the leading men of refor­mation, then in their debates before they have declared them­selves, and we meane while not ingaged necessarily to practise a­gainst our consciences; and in such points, as will no wayes stand in the line of any concord so much as negatively. The Church way or Independency (as they nick name it) differs from the in­tended Presbytery (as we guesse) [...]n [...]ainly in point of Appeale, especially in the manner of it; which may breed no distraction in case particular Churches walke so wisely as not to neede ap­peales; as some discreet parishes did in the worset times of Epis­copall Courts. Rests in a song whereby to sing onely when the concords will beare it, and rest where not, till they Symphonise againe doe not marre, but grace the harmonie. But whether Anabaptisme, or Catapaedobaptisme, denying Baptisme to belie­vers infants, wherein the great part of a sad distracted king­dome is interested, will for the present so well fagge, I leave to Mr T. to make out, which if he can, it shall not be a sor­row to me. We are unwilling indeed, to admit those beleivers to the Communion of the Lords Supper, that will not some how intimate to us that they yeelde to a relation of Pastor and Flocke, betweene them and that Minister of whom they re­quire that Ordinance, and to walke with us submissively to all the Ordinances of Christ (till God provide better for them) that we may know how they live, as well as when they receive, and be willing also to receive Christian admonition, where they live amisse. But for baptizing of beleivers Infants, severall Churches of us doe hold, that we may Baptize them, though neither of those Parents be of our particular Churches. Baptisme, as we Conceive, being but an admission into the universall visible Church; As those Baptized, Matthew the 3. The Cen­turion Act. 10. The Goaler Act. 16; were Baptized, neither in a particular Christian Church, nor into such a particular Church. To the third particular we answer. That it cannot but be a con­siderable thing to godly and wise men how they move troubles in the Church. And therefore in capi [...]ulating as I may say with [Page 194]point of Argument for reformation they thinke it not seasona­ble to indeavoure for the inward Hold, till they can take the out-workes. Reformation from Adams fall, to the highest pitch in the old Testament, came on by degrees; so from Iohn Baptists time to the ende of the Apostles, in the New Testa­ment. And so in every Kingdome since from the first sitting downe of Religion there, to its grouth; or from the Lapse thereof, to its Restitution. We cannot come to the ende but by meanes. And it cannot but be dangerous in an unwildy King­dome to jumpe from the lesser to the greatest things of that we count Reformation at one leape. For my part, I should desire rather to suspend mine owne interest then to be a co [...]djutor to further a generall dangerous distraction.

For that clause [that infant-baptisme hath been held rather upon the said three particulars, then upon any Perspicuous ground of Scripture] we anser; we have held it upon sufficient grounds of Scripture (if our Animadversions may be counted worthy to be one witnesse). But if Mr T. meane by Perspicuous any thing more then sufficient, we answer we conceive we have as Perspicuous Scriptures for Infant-baptisme as Mr T. hath for The Lords day, and for womens partaking of the Lords Supper.

To Master T. his allegation of the Lord Brookes, and Daniel Rogers, that Mr T. did not dreame. We say that it is possible two more, may dreame as well as Mr. T. we say two more; for to his [&c.] And others else-where, we can distinctly answere nothing, where nothing is alleadged. But for the two particularly named, giving their bookes all due respect.Robert Lord Brookes of Episcopacy. Sect. 2. chap. 7 p. 96. of 2. edit. 1. The bare recitall of the Lord Brookes words are a full answer, which are these.

‘I will not, I cannot, take on me to defend That men usually call Anabaptisme: Yet I conceive that Sect is Two­fold: Some of them hold Free-will; Community of all things; deny Magistracy; and refuse to Baptize their Children. These truly are such Hereticks (or Atheists,) that I question whether any Divine should honour them so much as to dispute with them; much rather sure should Alexanders sword determine here, as of olde at the Gordian knot, where it acquired this Motto, Q [...]ae soi­vere [Page 195]non possum, dissecabo, What I cannot unty, I will cut a­sunder.’

‘There is another fort of them, who only deny Baptisme to their Children, till they come to yeeres of discretion, and then they baptize them; but in other things they agree with the Church of England.’

‘Truly, These men are much to be pitied; And I could heartily wish, That before they be stigmatiz'd with that opprobrious brand of Schismatick, the Truth might be clee­red to them. For I conceive, to those that hold we may goe no farther than Scripture, for Doctrine or Discipline, it may be very easie to erre in this Point now in hand; since the Scripture seemes not to have cleerly determined This particular.’

‘The Anaglogy which Baptisme now hath with Circum­cision in the old Law, is a fine Rhetoricall Argument, to il­lustrate a Point well proved before; but I somewhat doubt, whether it be proofe enough, for that which some would prove by it: since (beside the vast difference in the Ordi­nances,) the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a posi­tive Law, so expresse, that it leaves no place for scruple: but it is farre otherwise in Baptisme; Where all the designation of Persons fit to be partakers, for ought I know, is only, Such as beleeve. For this is the qualification that, with exactest search, I find the Scripture requires in persons to be baptized: And This it seemes to require in All such persons. Now, how Infants can be properly said to beleeve, I am not yet fully re­solved.’

‘Yet many things prevaile very much with me in this point.’

‘First, For ought I could ever learne, It was the constant cu­stome of the purest and most Primitive Church, to baptize Infants of beleeving Parents; For I could never find the be­ginning and first Rise of this practise: Whereas it is very easie to tracke Heresies to their first Rising up, and setting foot in the Church.’

‘Againe, I find all Churches (even the most strict) have ge­nerally beene of this judgement and practise: yea though [Page 196]there have beene in all ages some, that much affected novel­ty, and had parts enough to discusse and cleere what they thought good to preach; yet was this scarce ever questioned by men of Note, till within these Last Ages. And sure, the constant judgement of the Churches of Christ, is much to be honoured, and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture.’

‘Nor can I well cleere that of Saint Paul (1 Cor. 7.14.) Else were your Children Ʋncleane, but now are they Holy. I know some interpret it thus, If it be unlawfull for a beleever to live in wedlock with one that beleeveth not; Then have many of you lived a long time in unlawfull marriage; and so your very Children must be Illegitimate, and These also must be cast off (as Base borne:) But it is not so; for, Your Children are Holy; that is, Legitimate.’

‘I confesse, This seemes a very faire Interpretation; yet I much question, Whether This be all the Apostle meanes by that phrase Holy; especially when I reflect on the preceding words, The Vnbeleever is Sanctified by the beleever. Nor yet can I beleeve any Inherent Holinesse is here meant; but rather That Relative Church-Holinesse, which makes a man capable of admission to Holy Ordinances, and so to Baptisme.’

Thus farre the Lord Brookes, where he is against Master Tombes touching the meaning of 1 Cor. 7.14. And touching Infant Baptisme. But the question is whether Master Tombes be not more then a Catapaedobaptist, namely an Anabaptist, for Rebaptizing; who so readeth the last page of his exercitation, will not thinke that I meerely dreame. For there he saith [Nor is the assuming of Baptisme in ripe yeeres, by those who were washed in Infancy, a renoucing of Baptisme, as some in their grosse ignorance conc [...]it.]