A just vindication of the covenant and church-estate of children of church-members as also of their right unto bastisme : wherein such things as have been brought by divers to the contrary, especially by Ioh. Spilsbury, A.R. Ch. Blackwood, and H. Den are revised and answered : hereunto is annexed a refutation of a certain pamphlet styled The plain and wel-grounded treatise touching baptism / by Thomas Cobbet.

PART III.

CHAP. I. Sect. I. Generall consideration of the eight Propositions.

HAving seene before what defensive and offensive weapons the Armory of the Scripture affords us, for the just vindication of the controverted Title of the little ones of inchurched visible beleevers unto the Covenant and Baptisme, the initiatory seale thereof, the globe of contention is againe cast by sundry, and a challenge is made, that laying by a little those spirituall weapons of our warfare (which indeed are mighty through God to cast downe all the specious Logismes, reasonings of the sonnes of men against Christ in the doctrine of his free grace and Covenant and initiatory seale thereof) wee should try it out at other weapons, even humane testimonies and authorities. And besides other darings of us this way; the Author or Authors of that Pamphlet entitled The plaine and well grounded treatise concer∣ning Baptisme, give out great words this way, and even conclude the victory before the fight. For my owne part I must confesse my selfe a very puny, and too too unskilfull at such weapons; yet I shall (God willing) adventure to accept the challenge, and make a little tryall of their skill; not doubting, but when an essay shall bee made albeit by a learner, there will bee some able seconds to take up the cause when I have laid it downe.

But to leave Prefacing and fall to worke.

The substance of the booke is laid downe in these eight Pro∣positions.

1 That Christ commanded his Apostles and servants of the holy Ghost first of all to preach the Gospel and make Disciples, and afterwards to

baptize those that were instructed in the faith, in calling upon and con∣fessing the name of God. His proofs out of Scripture are, Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15, 16. Luke 24. 45. John 4. 1, 2. Acts 22. 16.

This proposition might passe for the most part as current, al∣lowing a latitude in the word Disciples: and understanding it of such as were baptized meerely in their owne right, and taking that phrase, calling upon the name of God, as not alwayes the pre∣sent act of the persons baptized at the instant of their baptisme, but rather of the Minister baptizing; nor doth the instance of Paul, Act. 22. 16. prove this latter. It being absurd even in adult persons to suppose it thus in that example of the Samaritan woman that they should in the open face of the Congregation when they were bap∣tized make their personall and particular prayers, Acts 8. 12. or that every one of those 3000. baptized that day, Acts 2. 41. made their severall prayers; for if it wer•• essentiall to the Ordinance to make such personall prayers; since there is no stint how long, or how much they should utter in calling upon Gods name, the Apo∣stles had need to have spoken severally to them, that you must not bee long, the time is short, and if they had taken that paines, yet many dayes would have beene needfull to such a worke: It was not possible to bee dispatched that very day. As for the other Scriptures they have been else-where considered.

The second Proposition that the Apostles and servants of the Holy Ghost have according to the Commandement of the Lord Jesus Christ, first of all taught, and then afterwards those that were instructed in the my∣steries of the Kingdome of God were baptized upon the confession of their faith. Proofes out of Scripture, 1 Cor. 1. 17. How this is a Proof I see not, for if hee alwayes preached before hee baptized, it might easily have been replyed, Yes Paul if God sent you to baptize any he sent you also to preach, for you are to preach alwayes to all per∣sons that you baptize, before you doe baptize them: why there∣fore doe you say you were not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, since with the one you do the other? The other proofs, 1 Cor. 3. 6. and 4. 15. are somewhat farre fetched and strained, but I will not stick there. Heb. 6. 1, 2. is as well applyed by Authors, Calvin, Beza, &c. as grounds of Paedobaptisme, those being the heads of Catechising, containing the summe of Christian Doctrin, scil. profession of faith and repentance, of the articles of which Doctrine an account was demanded of adult Pagans and Jewes at the time of their baptisme, and therefore called the Doctrine of

Baptismes (alluding in the plurall word to the many typicall washings in use of old among the Hebrewes or Jewes) but from baptized Infants the same was called, for when they were solemne∣ly admitted to full Church Communion and declared so to bee by the Elders, commending them therein to God by prayer. And hence the same Doctrine is called also by the name of the Doctrine of Imposition of hands. Amongst which articles of that Doctrin two are singled out as containing the rest, scil. the resurrection of the flesh and eternall judgement; See Calvin and Beza, in Locum. His next proofe, Heb. 10. 22. I let passe. In the next proofe Acts 2. 36, 38. 41. I observe how craftily the 39th. Vers. is left out unmen∣tioned, wherein the strength of argument on our part doth consist, Acts 8. 36, 37, 38. and 10. 47, 48. and 16. 31. to 34. But why is that example of Lydia here left out, and her houshold, but that it speakes too broadly, that albeit the Apostles sometimes required confession of some persons which they baptized, yet not alwayes of all sorts of persons, as that one example witnesseth? His other Scripture is that Acts 18. 8. but of all these consideration is elsewhere had. This Proposition with the limitations former∣ly mentioned may passe, supposing it not understood exclusively, that such as they baptized were such, therefore they baptized none other but such, which is a non sequitur.

3 Proposition: That after the Apostles time by the ancient fathers in the primitive Church, who observed and followed the Ordinance of Christ, and the example of the Apostle, the people were commonly first instructed in the mysteries of faith, and after that they were taught they were bapti∣zed upon confession of the same.

This Proposition, sano sensu, might passe also, understanding that that was the Ordinance of Christ, and practise of the Apostles so farre as concernes growne persons baptisme: but yet that was not all intended in the one, nor practised by the other. And the Pro∣position it selfe implyeth as much, saying commonly it was so, the people being not as now many are, in a manner wholly professing Christ, but rather wholly Pagan and Prophane and Idolatrous; but alwayes it was not so even then; for their little ones which were not brought to the faith were also baptized.

4 Proposition: That by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church, the children both of the faithfull and others, were commonly first instituted in the faith, and afterwards upon acknowledging and confessing of the same they were baptized.

This Proposition is full of equivocall termes, it may not there∣fore passe without some Animadversions: for it may so be interpre∣ted as to stand with truth, yet so also as to bee utterly false. [Pri∣mitive Church] may bee understood of the Church in the same im∣mediatly following the Apostles time, or as in some of his Au∣thors, for the Church that succeeded more then an 100. yeares, yea possibly 200. or 300. afterwards. Rupertus Tiuliensis saith it was the custome of the Church of old that they administred the Sacrament of regeneration onely at Easter and Pentecost, &c. which if it begun in Victors time, to whom that restraint of the time of baptisme, unlesse in case of necessitie, is attributed as the Author of it about the yeere 290. Albeit Rivet in his first Book Critici Sacri, cap. 8. citeth the Magdeburge historians centur. 1. cap. 8. as proving the Decretalls ascribed to Victor to be spurious; or if not then, but some time in the third Centurie, yet it sufficeth to shew in what Latitude of time Rupertus his expressions runne when hee speaketh of what was the use in the Church of old. And in the primitive Church, in this Latitude, it's probable there might bee sundry which upon corrupt grounds might deferre both their own and their childrens baptisme too, as appeares by the Orations of Gregory Nazianzen stirring up as to come more speedily themselves to bee baptized, so to offer their little ones at the most, if no dan∣ger bee towards, (in which case hee adviseth the same sooner) when three yeeres old, if so long deferred, yet then to offer them to bap∣tisme, which was before they could bee able to make such an ac∣knowledgement of the faith, or confession of their sinnes. But more of him afterwards. [Children of the faithfull] if hee intend such children as were knowing and able to understand truth taught them, so as to bee apprehensive of their sinnes, &c. It's true, they used when any were received into Church fellowship, which had such adult children at that time, those to instruct in that way before those children were baptized. But if understood of little ones not capable of such an issue and effect of such instruction, those they used also then to baptize before such instructions. And for this let the Authors owne testimonies which hee quoteth, Proposition 7. of Origen, Austin and Gregory the fourth witnesse. For wee now speake not to that, whether it were onely a Church custome and tradition, &c. wee shall speake to that afterwards. But suppose it were onely a Church custome and tradition, yet its proofe sufficient that it was so anciently in use as there is men∣tioned,

that even children were baptized before they were thus instructed, as the cited places declare, of which more here∣after.

5 Proposition: That according to the institution of the Lord Christ, and the Apostles and ancient Fathers right use, the Teachers required faith with Baptisme, and that hee that was baptized must himselfe acknowledge and confesse the same, and call upon the name of the Lord: for which Matth. 28. Marke 16. Acts 8. are againe urged, of which before; so Acts 19. 2, 3, 4, 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. not now to speake how perti∣nently this last place especially is brought or not. The propositi∣on if understood as adaequately expressing all that Christ ordai∣ned, or the Apostles practised, and the Fathers after them, which baptized regularly, as if none else were baptized but such as came in such a way, is denied as false.

6 Proposition: That Christ neither gave commandement for baptizing of children nor instituted the same, and that the Apostles never baptized any Infants: this Proposition in the termes of it is false, as before hath appeared when wee proved, that a consequentiall command of Scripture is Christs command, and that such a command there is for the baptisme of children. The other part also, that the Apo∣stles never baptized any Infants, is as rash and false.

7 Proposition is of the same stamp, scil. that the baptisme of Infants and sucklings is a ceremony and Ordinance▪ of man brought into the Church by Teachers since the Apostles time, and instituted and commanded by Coun∣cells, Popes and Emperours.

8 Proposition, labours of the same Frenzie, sc. that young children or Infants ought not to bee baptized, and that none ought to bee brought or driven, or compelled thereunto. Proved by Scripture, Matth. 28. 19. Mark. 16. 15. These three Propositions might have been all put into one, but that the Author or Authors would speake many things; so might the other five Propositions have been reduced to fewer heads.

The unsoundnesse of these Proprositions in the Authors sense I hope hath been cleared to humble and pliable minds in the for∣mer discourse.

CHAP. II. SECT. I.

WEe shall now trace these Authors in their quoted Au∣thorities.

Proposi. 1. Hierom upon Matth. 28. 19. is quoted Proposition 1. and 8.

The Lord, saith he, commanded his Apostles, that they should first instruct and teach all nations, and afterward should baptize those that were instructed in the mysteries of faith; for it cannot bee that the body should re∣ceive the Sacrament of baptisme, unlesse the soule have recei∣ved before the true faith.

This whole testimony is intended by the Author of growne ones, in what way adult Pagans are to bee baptized, and of their receiving of baptisme, so as to have the saving benefit of it. But to make it his mind to intend exclusion of Babes is to make him worke and practise things against the light of his owne judgement and conscience. The Author con∣fessing in the eight proposition, that his proofes are out of anci∣cient & later teachers, who have and do maintaine the use of bap∣tizing children, and Hierom is one hee quoteth. As for Hieroms judgement this way, see his first Tome, his 7th. Epistle, scil. ad Laetam, where having said before that the good and evill of little children is ascribed to the parents, hee addeth,

nisi forte existimes Christi∣anorum filios, &c. unlesse thou thinke that if the children of Chri∣stians receive not baptisme, the children onely are guilty of the sinne, and that the wickednesse is not also imputed to those that would not give the same to them; especially at that time when the children which were to receive baptisme, could not contradict the same; as on the other hand the salvation of the Infants is the Ancestors gaine.

Hee reckons that there is wick∣ednesse in it carelesly to neglect such an ordinance, that tendeth to their spirituall gaine in their childrens good thereby furthe∣red. Now if Hierom thought there were no Law for childrens bap∣tisme, why is there any transgression, yea so deepe charged upon the neglectors of it, that it is scelus in his account? So in his second Tom. 1. 3. Dialogorum adversus Pelagianos ad finem; hee proveth infants baptisme to bee for remission of sinnes, as well as for entrance into Gods kingdome; so that this Authors words are wrested against his owne intention.

Let us see whether the next be better dealt withall, scil. Athana∣sius in his third Sermon contra Arrianos:

Our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize, but first of all hee said, Teach, and then baptize, that true faith might come by teaching, and baptisme bee perfected by Faith.

If Athanasius had said thus in the Authors sense, yet the fallacy had still beene the same to conclude à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. But let us look upon that place and weigh the words of Athanasius, there speaking of the unprofitablenesse and vanitie of Baptisme by Arrians; hee proceedeth thus.

For (saith hee) the Arrians doe not give Baptisme in the Father and Sonne, but in the Creator and crea∣ture, in the maker and workmanship: As therefore a creature is a diverse thing from the Sonne, so is the Baptisme supposed to bee given by them diverse from true Baptisme. Albeit because they see the names of Father and Sonne in Scriptures, they doe faine to name them, for it is not hee that barely nameth the Lord which giveth lawfull Baptisme, but hee that expoundeth that name and holdeth the right faith. And therefore our Sa∣viour doth not command to baptize after any fashion

(the Au∣thors render the word quovis modo by slightly)

but first hee said Teach and then baptize (in the name of the Father, Sonne and Holy Ghost)

(this clause the treatise leaveth out) that by teaching a right faith might arise (the treatise saith true faith might come)

and with the faith of Baptisme the intire initiation might bee perfected;

by initiation hee meanes baptisme as the words before these shew. In these words.

The Arrians hazzard the losse of the integrity of that mystery. But I speake of Baptisme. For if perfect and full initiation bee given in the name of the Father and Sonne, and they hold not forth the true Father, &c. how should the Baptisme which they give bee true, &c.

So that that speech, with the faith of Baptisme the intire initiation might bee perfected, is that with the faith or doctrine of faith rightly held out, the Ordinance of Baptisme might bee perfect or valid, which hee calleth the right faith, as the words before mentioned shew: So that hee doth not here intend fidem quâ credit aliquis, sed fidem quam credit, hee meaneth it of the object, not the habit of faith; and of the qualifications of the persons baptizing, to make their act valid, not of the parties baptized. For none will say that an hypocrites Baptisme, because hee hath not true faith, is not true Baptisme: The essence of the Ordinance not depending

upon mans faith but Gods word. And that hee intends no other thing as it appeares by the premises, for if you take his next words following the same, it will bee evident. Truely, saith he, even other heresies, and those not a few, doe in seeming words pro∣nounce that rite of baptizing, but being not right in judgement, nor retaining the sound faith, they possesse and bestow an unpro∣fitable water, as destitute of the Deity of Religion, so that they which are sprinkled by them, are rather polluted through corrupt Religion, then redeemed. Here therefore is an ancient Authors words wrested to another sense then the scope of his discourse ten∣ded, and some words left out which served to declare his meaning, and other words so palpably mistranslated that the Reader is grossely abused thereby as well as the Author.

SECT. II.

THe next testimony is of Haimo upon this Text of Matthew.

In this place is set downe a rule how to baptize aright, scil. that teaching should goe before baptisme; for hee saith, Teach all nations, and then hee saith, and baptize them; for hee that is baptized must bee before instructed, that hee first learne to beleeve, that which in baptisme hee shall receive; for as faith without workes is dead, so workes when they are not of faith they are nothing worth.

This labours of the same fallacy as that of Jeroms testimony, à dicto secundum quid, ad simpliciter, what the Author spake in reference to Adulti, it's applied as his mind thereby to make baptisme of children besides or against rule; when yet the same Author upon the 14. of Romans, speaking about the case of their dipping of children, hee mentions Cyprian as practising dipping of children in baptisme but once:

but after (saith hee) hee being corrected of God, hee abounded in more sublime knowledge, dipping them thrice.

Hee looketh then at that way of baptizing Infants as a lesson which Cyprian learned of God. Hee then surely thought baptisme it selfe of Infants to bee taught of God, and no breach of a rule of God: Wee speake not this as allowing Haimo's judgment about Immersion, and much lesse that of trina Immersio, but to cleare the Author from that intention which the treatise would father upon him, or at least by producing the mans writings in one place, would make him against h•…•…s owne light to write things contradictory in

another: Thus is this Author and the Reader with him abu∣sed also.

SECT. III.

THe next Author cited in this Treatise is Erasmus, both upon Matth. 28. and Marke 16. to like purpose.

When you have taught them, if they beleeve, &c. and repent, &c. then let them be baptized, &c.

and Proposition 3.

those who in times past were to bee baptized were first of all instructed in the mysteries of the Christian faith, and were called Catachumeni, &c.

This later one would thinke might have expounded the former, that hee in∣tends it of adult Pagans, and not of others in Christian Chur∣ches, such as ours are whose foundations are already laid and established. And Proposition 6.

It's no where expressed in the Apostolicall writings that they baptized children.

Hee doth not say, it's not so much as probable nor is it to bee gathered by consequence that they did so: wherefore his testimony is no proofe that the Apostles never did baptize Infants, because it's ne∣ver mentioned expresly. It's never expresly said, that I remember, that the Apostles or Evangelists when they Baptized those in Acts 2. and 8. and 16. 18. that they called upon God for a bles∣sing upon the Ordinance, but will it follow that they did not sanctifie the Ordinance by Prayer? Proposition 7. hee is quoted as a proofe of that Proposition, Lib. 4. de ratione concion. saying

that they are not to bee condemned that doubt whether chil∣drens baptisme was ordained by the Apostles, and thinke that the same is to be received as the placita Scholasticorum Theologorum, which cannot bee proved by Scripture.

Here the Authors use their old art of substraction and addition. His words are thus.

It is probable that to baptize Infants was instituted by the Apostles, and yet they are not to bee condemned which doubt thereof; With the same moderation many tenents of Schoole Divines are to bee received, which cannot (evidently) be proved from the Scriptures.

The first speech of Erasmus is wholly left out, which is crosse both to that peremptory if not impudent con∣clusion expressed in the 6th. Proposition, and this set downe in the 7th. if even Erasmus his judgement bee adhered to, for if it bee probable that Paedobaptisme was of Apostolicall institution, then it is not so peremptorily and with such plerophory to bee asserted that it was never ordained of Christ, or practised by the Apostles,

but is an ordinance of man. And whereas it is rendred, and think that the same is to bee received inter placita Scholasticorum, &c. there is no such connexion or expression. But it is a distinct sentence. With the same moderation, &c. many Schoole tenents are to be re∣ceived, &c. scil. they are also not to bee condemned which doubt of some Schoole tenents which are not so expresse and cleare from Scripture. Hee doth not say that Baptisme of of Infants is to bee thought placitum Scholasticorum, but speakes of other instances of things probable. Nor doth hee speake of bare Schoole Notions which have no bottome at all in Scripture, and which cannot at all bee proved from the Scripture as the Treatise saith; which cannot bee proved, but which cannot evidenter probari per Scriptu∣ras. True it is, Henry Denne hee saith that Bellarmine taxeth Eras∣mus with that opinion of denying childrens Baptisme; but in Erasmus his preface to his Paraphrase on Matthew, hee rather con∣demneth the carelesnesse of Priests, in so much that many Chri∣stians are in respect of knowledge rather as Pagans; and at best are rather in titles, customes, and ceremonies Christians then indeed: And adviseth that children after they have been baptized, and come to riper yeeres, that they bee well instructed in what their sureties have promised for them, and called to account how they profit thereby, and whether they doe avouch and owne the promise made by their sureties, and if so, then at some time or other that they in the open Congregation expressing it, bee then with some solemnitie approved. And if they reject this motion, then to be debarred the Eucharist, untill they change their mind: So that hee seemeth not to disallow Paedobaptisme, but carelesnesse after∣wards. This I speake that none may bee rendred worse then they are, bee they Papists or others. Albeit I would not much weigh the expressions of Papists this way, to whom bare Church tradi∣tions are equivalent to Scripture commands, expresse or virtuall.

SECT. IIII.

THe next Author is Bullinger in his Decads expounding Matth. •…•… 28. Docete omnes Gentes, &c. make Disciples of all Nations, &c. What then doth Bullinger intend baptizing Infants as not here enjoyned? Nay in the place quoted in his Decades of Sermons, Tom. 5. Decad. 5. Serm. 8. hee brings this as an Argument for Pae∣dobaptisme, God hath commanded to baptize all Nations, and therefore Infants, for these are comprehended in the words all

Nations. Bullinger is againe cited as a Testimony for the proofe of the second Proposition in the same place speaking upon the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 1.

God hath not sent mee to baptize but to preach the Gospel. Hee is quoted to say. This must not so slightly be understood, as if hee were sent not to baptize at all, but that teaching should [goe before] baptisme.

For the Lord com∣manded his Apostles both to preach and to administer the Sacra∣ments. Bullingers words are,

Non quod negaret absolutè (which our present translators render; this must not so sleightly bee un∣derstood. Negaret is in their English not to bee understood, and absolutè is in their English, slightly. If they had transla∣ted it simply it would have hit it, but I thinke sleightly fits them indifferent well) se ad baptizandum non esse missum, sed quod doctri∣nam praeferret: utrumque enim, &c.

That clause is expounded, but that teaching should goe before baptisme, &c. Here I want my construing booke; but I will follow my translators; sed quod, but that, doctrina, teaching, praeferret should go before — Risum teneatis amici? But if the translators had learned common rules and read the place, they would have clearely discerned Bullingers meaning to bee farre wide from their purpose, scil. To prove rather the prioritie of the Gospel to baptisme in dignitie and excellency, then in order of dispensation. For besides that the common Gram∣mer construction of that passage, sed quod doctrinam praeferret, will beare no sense so well as that mentioned, his words immediatly preceding also cleare the same.

Evangelium majus est baptismo, the Gospel is more excellent then Baptisme, or greater then Bap∣tisme: For Paul said, the Lord sent mee not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not that hee denied it absolutely, &c. Sed quod doctrinam praeferret.

And it is yet more strange that this which Bullinger brings as his third Argument to prove Paedobaptisme to bee of God, the Authors of this Pamphlet bring as a testimony to their purpose against Baptisme; for Bullinger subjoynes to the words before:

That children are received in the Gospel doctrin, — they are not refused of God, who therefore unlesse he were besides himselfe would exclude them from the lesse? In Sacra∣ments are considered the thing signified and the signe, the former is the more excellent. Infants are not excluded from that, (scil. the Gospel, the promise) who will deny then the signe? for truely the Sacraments of God are rather to bee esteemed by the word (scil. the promise) then by the signe.

As for Bullingers ex∣pressions

out of Austin, contra Iulianū quoted in the 7th. Proposition they prove that the Carthaginian councell did indeed ratifie Bap∣tisme, but not that it came in first by that councell. Nay the testimony cited of Austin against the Donatists, lib. 4. cap. 23, 24. useth that as an argument, that it was of Divine authoritie, because not instituted by any councells. And Origens testimony there cited, Proposi. 7. proveth it to be in his time, which was 200. yeeres before that Carthage councell, in the time of Innocent the first: Yea Origen proveth it to bee at least a Church custome long before from the time of the Apostles. Bullingers testimony in his Decads as pro∣ving the 7th. Proposition, scil. that Paedobaptisme is an humane ordinance (when in that very Sermon of his there quoted in this Treatise, hee by many arguments from Scripture proveth it to be of divine authority) is also abused, and shamefully misconstrued and perverted, as is evident. The next is Beza who is also quoted Proposition 7. in his annotations upon Matth. 28. 19.

Baptize them in the name of the Father, that is, in calling upon the name of the Father, or rather the name of the Father, &c. being called upon;

for they are Beza's words, Invocato nomine Patris, &c. And these Translators should have done well to have rendred the Latine properly. But all is in the meaning of the words. The authors of the Treatise urge it for a proofe of the persons bap∣zed calling actually upon the name of God, when they are bapti∣zed according to Christs institution, & bring Beza for their proofe. Quaeritur therefore whether ever Beza intended that in his words. Surely no, for it's known well that Beza stoutly maintaineth Paedo∣baptisme as an ordinance of Christ. Now Infants when they are baptized cannot actually call upon the name of God; therefore if Beza say the former, that the rule of Christ requireth it of all that are to be baptized according to his mind, that they should call upon God at the time of their Baptisme; he must affirme the later against his owne light and conscience; which to doe with so much deli∣beration as hee that writeth things upon studie must doe, were a crime of a very high nature, and God forbid any should charge so worthy a light in the Church with that.

SECT. V.

BEza is againe cited for confirmation of the third Proposition in his Annotations upon Matth. 3. 6.

John taught those that were to bee baptized▪ (this clause is not in my Beza upon

the place) and admitted none to Baptisme, but those that gave testimony that they beleeved the forgivenesse of their sinnes. In my Beza's Notes it's rather thus, that John admitted not others to his Baptisme, then those which seriously professed that they did imbrace the doctrine of free remission of sinnes;

which how different from that of these translators let others judge. It follow∣eth in the booke,

Such confession was also required of the Cate∣chumens in the primitive Church before Baptisme, for in that the Sacraments are seales, it is requisite that doctrine or instru∣ction should goe before the use of those things by which the do∣ctrine it selfe is to bee sealed.

Those words before Baptisme, and that reason annexed, for in that the Sacraments, &c. is not in my booke, scil. Beza's Annotationes majores in N. Test. Printed Anno. 1594. But to returne to the testimony, Beza intended that John baptized no other of that species of persons Adult, then such as made that confession — but not simply the Baptisme of any other persons of another sort, scil. babes; hee that is so carefull that any should take advantage to deny that children are not rightly bapti∣zed, because not dived wholly under water, that hee the rather (as hee saith upon Matth. 3. 11.) doth note such things about the par∣ticle [In] omitted Luke 3. 16. surely hee intended not, by affirming such things in reference to Johns hearers thereby to exclude chil∣drens Baptisme. Hence that added that such confession was requi∣red of the Catechumens in the ancient Church. Now then what manner of persons they were which hee affirmeth made such con∣fession of old, such like persons for age he here intendeth. And no more doth he intend exclusion of Infants from Baptisme, by affir∣ming the necessitie of confession in Johns hearers unto Baptisme, then by affirming that the same was required of those Catechumens mentioned. Let us then see Beza's mind further therein, which wee may readily doe in the third place of Beza quoted in this Trea∣tise Proposition 4. where Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. But now your children are holy, he is thus cited as saying:

Out of this contra∣dictors of the truth are revealed. As first, all those that make Baptisme to be the first entrance to salvation: and secondly, those that permit all children to bee baptized, which was unheard of in the primitive times, whereas [every one] ought to bee in∣struct••d in the faith before hee were admitted to baptisme.

And this testimony is brought to prove the Proposition that in the pri∣mitive Church the children both of the faithfull and else (scil. and

of Pagans or Jewes) were commonly first instructed, &c. and then baptized; so that Beza's mind in that clause, whereas every one ought to bee instructed, &c. is made, and every child whether of the faithfull or Infidell should bee first instructed before hee be bap∣tized, and in that sense, his second errour he blames of such which permit all children to bee baptized, is as much as if hee should in∣tend it as an errour to permit any children at all whether of faith∣full or infidell persons to bee baptized before instructed: So that Beza is by this made a direct Andipedobaptist, as they terme it now for modesty sake. But you shall not have Beza thus on your side before wee heare him in his owne words, who having before spoken touching the cause, why wee admit the Saints children to baptisme, scil. because they are comprehended in the Covenant, &c. he addeth,

Now from hence are confuted not onely Catabaptists which doe reject Infants from baptisme as uncleane, but those which make baptisme the first entrance to salvation, and so ex∣clude all from salvation which are unbaptized, and also those which admit all Infants whatsoever to baptisme,

(scil. whether of visible Saints or Infidels as appeares by what hee said before, and by what followeth, which thing (scil. such promiscuous baptizing of all sorts hand over head)

was not heard of in the ancient Church. As this at least doth declare, in that all adult Infidells were first to bee Catechumens before they were baptized.

Beza refuteth three things from that clause mentioned and explai∣ned — now your children are holy, and one of them is this fourth Proposition of the Authors, and yet by the Authors he is brought to refute onely two things. First, hee refuteth Catabaptists denying baptisme to beleevers children. Secondly, he from the same ground refuteth them which maintaine the baptisme of all children what∣soever, scil. that are not children of visible Saints, for if they bee such children hee counteth it rather an errour to deny their bap∣tisme. Againe in citing the last part of Beza's words, the Authors craftily make it as an opposite sentence to that before. Thus se∣condly, those that permit all children to bee baptized, &c. where∣as every one, &c. as if it were a contrary speech to the former, per∣mitting (all) children, &c. whereas none (at all) were to bee bap∣tized of old, but such as were Catechumens: when Beza maketh this later a reason of the former, as before wee shewed. Besides the Authors shamefully change and mutilate the last words: where∣as every one ought, &c. intending every particular person, Infant or

Aged, when Beza's words are expresly — in that all adult Infi∣dells ought first to bee Catachumens before they were to bee bapti∣zed. Now who is there which doth not even feele this palpable guile and falseshood in the setters forth of this Treatise in this particular? But not to forget what wee noted touching Beza's other testimony on Matth. 3. this place cleareth Beza's intent. There speaking of adult persons it may bee affirmed such must bee as the Catechumens of old in point of confession before baptisme, and yet the same Author never intend by that assertion to ex∣clude children of such as doe make such confession of faith and re∣pentance from baptisme. Beza which holdeth this forth here, yet here also refuteth that as errour in Catabaptists to deny Paedobap∣tisme: So that still here is the old fallacie, à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter dictum.

SECT. VI.

THe next Author quoted Proposition 1. scil. Strigelius upon Acts the 8th.

(as saying that to bee baptized in the name of Jesus is to bee baptized in acknowledging and confessing the name of Jesus)

I have not, and therefore cannot examine the same: Albeit this sano sensu hinders not us; in that when parents offer their children to baptisme, the name of the Lord Je∣sus is confessed and acknowledged.

The next testimony is of Luther, Proposition 1. whereupon Gen. 48. hee is said to affirme —

before wee receive the Sacrament of Baptisme and the Lords Supper, wee must have faith;

and in another place as quoting Heb. 2. 4. Rom. 1. 17. Heb. 10. 38. Mark 16. 28. Act. 8. 36. and Rom. 10. 10. to prove that

faith is required to baptisme, and that without faith the Sacra∣ments profit not, but hurt rather the receivers:

and Propositi∣on 3. hee is quoted againe in his book of the Civill Magistrates as speaking like words, and saying,

wherefore wee hold our selves to the words of Christ, He that beleeves and is baptized: So that before or else even then present when baptisme is admini∣stred, there must needs bee faith, or else there is contempt of the Divine majesty, who offers present grace, when as there's none receive it.

And Proposition 5. Luther upon giving and recei∣ving the Sacrament, Tom. 3. is said to write,

that in times past it was thus, that the Sacrament was administred to none, ex∣cept it were to those which acknowledged and confessed their

faith and knew how to receive the same, &c.

and Proposition 7. in his booke of Anabaptisme, hee is said to acknowledge, that

it cannot bee proved by Scripture that childrens baptisme was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles, for a 1000. yeares since it came to bee in use in the Church, and was established by Pope Innocentius.

This place also doth A. R. quote in his second part of childish baptisme, pag. 8. And Proposition 8. Luther is againe quoted as speaking thus in his Postils.

Young children heare not, nor understand the Word of God, out of which faith commeth, and therefore if so be that commandment of Christ bee followed, children ought not to bee baptized.

Now as for these testimonies of Luther, I not having nor being able to procure neare hand the sight of all his Tomes, I shall not bee so able to discover the leger∣demaine which I verily suspect in citing his testimonies as well as those of some others. Yet Luthers meaning in the words menti∣oned Proposition 1. may well bee expounded by that mentioned Proposition 3. and so according to his judgement rather establish∣ing Paedobaptisme then weakning it; for hee holdeth that God at present, when they are baptized, worketh faith in them, and therefore the rather such are to bee baptized. Luther in his 4th. Tome expounding that Hos. 12. 3.

Hee tooke his brother by the heele in the wombe — scil. by a secret instinct and moving of the Spirit, as John also by the same moved in the wombe upon Christs approach, of which hee giveth this reason, because God is not onely the God of growne ones, but even of such babes. And what wonder is it, saith hee, that the Spirit is effi∣cacious in Infants in a way we understand not, as having also flesh and bones in the wombe as wee have, but yet not nourished as wee are? And therefore that tenent of Anabaptists is impi∣ous and odious, who therefore deny baptisme to Infants be∣cause they want sense and understanding, nor doe they know what is done about them. To us they understand not, by us they are judged to want sense and understanding, but it's not so to God whose worke they are: for God as hee nourisheth them otherwise then hee doth us, so doth hee otherwise move their hearts, &c.

Another answer of his see in his second Tome, lib. de captiv. Babyl. title of baptisme. Hee saith (having spoken before of faith as requisite to the application of the promise)

opponetur for∣san iis, &c. It may bee to the things before spoken, the bap∣tisme

of Infants will bee opposed, which receive the promise and yet cannot have the faith of baptisme, and therefore either faith is not required, or Infants baptisme is null. Here (saith hee) I say that which all say, that Infants are helped by the faith of others, even of them which offer them. For as the Word of God is forcible whilst uttered to change the heart of a wicked man, which is not lesse deafe and uncapable then any little one; so by the Prayer of the Church offering and belee∣ving, even a little one having faith infused is changed, cleansed, and renewed by him to whom all things are possible.

For con∣formation whereof hee brings that example, Marke 2. 3, 4, 5. And in his 7th. Tome in his Homily of baptisme, hee reckons that

erroneous interpretation of Marke 16. 16. is the ground of that dispute against Paedobaptisme; because if baptized, say some, when an Infant and not beleeving, then not rightly baptized, and so that baptisme is nothing

— to which saith Luther —

this is nothing else then if it should bee said, if thou beleevest not when thou partakest of the Word or Sacrament it is nothing. And so they onely that truely beleeve are truely baptized, and others baptized which doe not beleeve, they are againe to bee baptized when they doe beleeve,

(scil. albeit growne ones, when baptized if then hypocrites.) As for Luthers other two speeches mentioned Proposition 7. and 8. I somewhat wonder if hee should utter them as here expressed, that in that booke stiled Lutheri Anti∣lutherana opera fratris Joan. Apobolymaei alias Findeling Minoritae, they are not mentioned; the scope of the booke being to gather up all Luthers (seeming) contradictions. And hee instanceth in the other de captiv. Babyl. before mentioned; it's strange that hee misseth those if thus written, since it's evident both by that expression in Luthers greater Catechisme, Tom. 3. when hee saith,

After the same manner doe wee when wee give baptisme to little ones. Wee bring the child to the Minister of the Church with this mind and hope that verily it may beleeve. But wee doe not bap∣tize it for those things, but rather because God hath command••d us so to doe.

So in that famous story of the concord betweene Luther and the Divines which followed him, and the Divines of upper Germany at a meeting at Wittinberg, Anno 1536. according to a certaine forme of Articles of agreement together with the expli∣cation thereof annexed by Martin Bucer, and after the agreement subscribed, about the presence of the body of Christ in the Lords

Supper: the next Article to bee so composed and explained to all their content was that about baptisme. The Article was this:

touching baptisme of Infants, all without any doubting agree, that it's necessary that Infants should bee baptized, for since the promise of salvation doth also belong to Infants, and it pertai∣neth not to those which are without the Church, it is therefore necessary that it should bee applied by the Ministery, and to conjoyne them to the members of the Church.

The explica∣tion of the Article annexed.

This is to bee understood of a ne∣cessitie in respect of Ministery and by command of God, and not of necessitie in respect of salvation, &c.

unto which as to the rest subscribed Martinus Lutherus, Doctor Witebergensis, Johannes Bugenhagius Pomeranus, Doctor Philippus Melancton, Justus Menius Isenacensis, &c. And on the other side M. Martinus Bucerus Mini∣ster Ecclesiae Argentinensis, Wolsangus Musculus ecclesiae Augustanae Mi∣nister in verbo, and divers others. I have set downe this story the fuller as it's mentioned amongst Bucers workes in that I shall have frequent occasion to referre to it.

But to returne to Luther, hee is one that holdeth baptisme not simply necessary to salvation, as that without which one cannot bee saved, (as is further expressed in the explication of that Article) but as necessary unto Infants by vertue of divine precept. Surely if hee had no scruple in this point, as it's said all agreed herein without doubting, &c. he never imagined that which the Authors of this Treatise would make him to affirme, that baptisme of In∣fants came in foure or five hundred yeers after Christs time as an institution of Popes or councells.

I might have mentioned that passage of Luthers (to the former two testimonies touching faith required to baptisme) which hee hath in his Preface to his Commentary upon the Galatians.

Ana∣baptists (saith hee) teach that baptisme is nothing except the persons beleeve, out of which principle it will follow that all the workes of God are nothing, if the man bee nothing, for baptisme is the worke of God, &c.

But this is certaine that Lu∣ther taking the Doctrine of baptisme of Infants as unquestiona∣ble rather argueth thence to prove that Infants have faith (which was a tenet of his owne) then that faith is required in them to their baptisme. Thus Infants unlesse that they have faith it will bee said they are not to bee baptized, but all grant that Infants are to bee baptized, therefore Infants have faith.

CHAP. III. SECT. I.

BEda is the next Author cited Proposition 2. upon Acts 19. as speaking thus:

As those that came to the Apostles to bee baptized were instructed and taught of them, and when they were instructed and taught concerning the Sacrament of baptisme, then they received the holy admi∣nistration thereof.

I looked on the place, and there is no such thing there, and supposing it might bee misquoted, I looked him upon the 9. 16. 18. yea 2. and 8th. (as well as my time would per∣mit) and I could find no such testimony of Beda's, so that this is a forged testimony. And as for Beda's judgement in the case; in this second Tome lib. 4. fol. 50. expounding the place, Marke 16. qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur —

What, saith Beda, shall wee say of little ones which by reason of age are not able to beleeve? (for of growne ones there is no question.) In the Church there∣fore little ones doe beleeve by others: even as from others they have derived the sinnes which are remitted to them in bap∣tisme.

SECT. II.

AƲgustinus is the next quoted Author, and first Austin ad Sal∣cotinanum is cited Proposition 2. as speaking that

a man must repent before baptisme, &c.

As Peter saith to the Jewes Acts 2. &c. but as for the name of the Booke or Epist. I find not. The Authors or Printers I suppose mistake the name; I finde re∣ference made in the Decretalls set forth by Petrus Albignanus Tre∣cius (for as for those set forth by Gratian, I neither have them nor can meete with them) unto Austin ad Salectinanum, as using these expressions, Omnis qui jam suae voluntatis, &c.

Every one that is at his owne free dispose when hee commeth unto the Sacra∣ment of the faithfull, unlesse it repent him of his old life hee may not begin the new: from this penitence onely little ones when they are to bee baptized, they are freed, for they cannot yet make use of a free choyse of their owne, &c.

If there bee any other passage of that nature as is mentioned in this booke of Austins, yet by this his intention therein is cleared. Among Au∣stins Epistles I cannot light of any such under that name mentio∣ned there in his 108. Epist. Seleucianae, but that rather doth

strengthen then weaken the Ordinance of Paedobap∣tisme.

Austine is cited againe in confirmation of the 4th. Proposition in his Sermon ad Neophytos, that is, say these Authors Juniores or young men, but they misunderstand the word. It is neither of the single words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but its compounded of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and as for one whom they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is according to Suidas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, one that is newly com∣ming from Gentilisme (or Judaisme, saith Cornelius à Lapide) and having embraced the Christian Religion is by baptisme planted into the Church of God, albeit neither yet sufficiently established in the doctrine of the faith, nor so fully approved in life. The like description others give of such in reference to 1 Tim. 3. 6. but to come to the matter of the testimony which is as followeth

[before wee ducked or dipped their body in the sacred water, we asked, Be∣leev'st thou in God the Father Almighty? and they answered, I beleeve, &c. and we asked them, Beleeve yee in the holy Ghost? unto which every one of them answered, I beleeve: and thus have wee done according to the command of our Lord, Matth. 28. 19.]

and what of all this? because persons which were converted from Paganisme, or Judaisme, were asked such questions, there∣fore none other were baptized but such, and in such a way; non sequitur: or because this was commanded by Christ, therefore this was all hee commanded in Marke 28. 19. it followeth not. Au∣stin who was of another mind never imagined such a conclusion would ever bee drawne from his words. The author not naming the Sermon nor the season when preached, I will make bold to helpe out therein, that such Sermons used to bee preached at Ea∣ster, one of the solemne times then set for baptizing of persons; but that it may appeare that onely such were not then in the assem∣bly, albeit the growne persons were those to whom especially such speeches were directed; compare this with that of Austin in his 4. Serm. in octav. Paschae adneophytos, where hee saith,

To day are celebrated the octaves of Infants, their heads are uncovered in token of libertie, &c. Those children, Infants, little ones, suck∣lings, hanging on their mothers breasts, and ignorant of what grace is bestowed, as you may perceive, because they are called Infants, even they also also have their octaves to day.

And these old men, young men, striplings, all are also Infants. By this te∣stimony we may perceive a larger interpretation of the word Neo∣phytos,

scil. any one newly planted into the Church, whether In∣fant, youth or other, any one who was as new borne Sacramen∣tally in baptisme of what age soever. And that at the solemnitie of Easter and Pentecost: Of which Rupertus and Boemius speake, baptisme of Infants was not brought in for mortalities sake upon the change of the old use of baptisme at Easter, and Pentecost, but was in use while yet those limited times stood, and long before, this corrupt use of limiting the time of baptisme was in force, of which more anon. Yet also this I deny not but that corrupt ad∣dition to Paedobaptisme being in use in those times of asking que∣stions to the child by the sureties, &c. this answer might suffice that even Infants too were in that number of young plants men∣tioned, which did answer as is there said by their sureties.

Austin is againe quoted for proofe of the 7th. Proposition, de baptismo contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23. & de Genesi ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. now then let us examine what Austine saith there, and how pertinent a proofe it is of the proposition, hee calleth it there, saith the Treatise,

a Church custome

— and thence concludes by the witnesse

that Paededobaptisme is an ordinance of man brought into the Church by Teachers since the Apostles time, and insti∣tuted by councells, &c.

but let us heare Austin speake for him∣selfe at the first hand, and not take a report of his words at second hand, lest it prove a slander: thus he speaketh in the former place,

the which the whole Church holdeth as delivered to it, that even little Infants are baptized, which truely yet cannot be∣leeve with the heart unto righteousnesse, nor confesse with the mouth unto salvation as the Thiefe (he meanes the converted Thiefe) &c. and yet no Christian hath affirmed that they are baptized in vaine:

and immediatly (Chap. 24.) addeth —

And if any seeke divine authoritie in this matter (scil. of Infants baptisme) although that which the whole Church holdeth, neither was instituted by councells, but alwayes retained, wee assuredly beleeve that it was not delivered but by Apostolicall authoritie, yet wee may truely conjecture (opposing this to all false and uncertaine conjectures) of what authoritie or force the Sacrament of Infants baptisme is from circumcision, &c.

where first in the very place quoted hee saith not, that it was a tradition of the Church onely, or from the Church, but was delivered to the Church: and least any should imagine that this was delivered to the Church by any corrupt teachers since the Apostles times,

Austin in the next Chapter within five or six lines of that in the 23. Chapter mentioned, giveth his arguments to prove that it could not bee delivered to the Church, but by Apostolicall authoritie; first, in that it was never instituted by any councells; secondly, be∣cause it was ever held by the Churches, scil. since there was any Church planted by the Apostles: and I thinke his arguments are weightie, other things which were of such note (as this of Paedo∣baptisme was if innovations) either they may bee proved that they came in by such or such councells or authors, or it may be proved, that there was never any such thing in use before such or such a time, which in this case will be hard for any to undertake to make the same good by convincing testimonies or arguments.

But to returne to our Authors, they bring in this testimony to prove that baptisme of Infants was instituted by councells, what forgery is this? they make him their witnesse to prove it to bee an ordinance of man, the witnesse proveth that it's of divine autho∣ritie: What notable jugling is this? Will they never leave this trade? Let us examine the other place where Austin saith that it is a Church custome, if our Authors speake truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the place quoted, the words there are as followeth,

the custome of our mother the Church in bapti∣zing Infants is not to bee despised, nor by any meanes is the same to be thought superfluous.

Yery good then will they say, this place is full for us. Nay stay Sirs, be not too hasty to interrupt the witnesse, whilst hee is speaking; let him speake all hee hath here to say, scil. nor were it at all to bee beleeved, unlesse it were an Apostolicall tradition, &c.

So you heare Sirs, hee tells you; it's such a Church custome, as withall, it is an Apostolicall tradi∣tion;

and that in the other place quoted, is of Divine authority hee makes account, which is delivered to the Church by the Apo∣stles. As indeed it is, unlesse that any thinke that the Apostles in their Apostolicall ministry erred, and delivered that to the Church, as the mind, meaning and intent of Christ, which hee never meant. And Austin hath the very same words, as here in his third Epistle ad Yolusiam: Nay lest there should bee any stick in the words, traditum ab Apostolis, and Apostolicall tradition, hee peremptorily affirmeth, (speaking of the Churches authority in this case of Pae∣dobaptisme) lib. 1. de peccat. merit. & remiss. cap. 16 —

proculdubio per Dominum & Apostolos traditum, that without all question it was delivered by the Lord and his Apostles.

But our Authors here will not leave Austin thus, but they will make him speake for them ere they have done, therefore hee is quo∣ted againe in the 28th. Epistle to Jerom, to confirme their 7th. Pro∣position; Content, wee will heare any thing hee can say. What saith Austin there? Nay pag. 32. our Authors are silent, and one∣ly quote the place, not the words, and leave us to finde the sense out, as Nebuchanezzar did his dreame and them to interpret it. But let mee assure them Austin doth rather confirme the contrary, in that Epistle, then otherwise; clearing both the spirituall ends of Christian parents, in hastning with their children to Baptisme: and ratifying Cyprians judgement touching the case of Paedobap∣tisme, that hee therein did not frame some new decree, but held the most firme beleefe of the Church that way. And possibly the Authors by adding this testimony of Austin to that of Cyprians E∣pistle, and on this say, that Cyprian ordeined children should bee baptized, they bring this to confirme it, which doth indeed confirme it, that Cyprian held this, and ratified this — but not as the first Author of it, (which perhaps the Treatise would make the world beleeve) but rather as that which the Christian Church had ever firmely beleeved. According as Austin in his 10th. Ser∣mon of the words of the Apostle speaking of Paedobaptisme, saith,

this the Church (meaning the Christian Church) hath alwayes had, alwayes held, this it hath received from the faith (or do∣ctrine) of the ancients, this doth it keepe most constantly unto the end.

Yea but pag. 33. our authors ci••e some words of his in his 28th. Epistle to Jerom,

therefore doe men hasten so with their children to baptisme, because they beleeve they cannot otherwise be made alive in Christ, and to the like purpose in his Enchiridion, from the young to the old none are to bee denyed baptism, for salvation is not promised to the children but through baptisme, &c.

and to the same purpose Austin and the Bishops of the Milevitan councell, wrote, as condemning such as thinke In∣fants can bee saved, without Baptisme. All this if they intend it, of the necessitie of Baptisme in respect of Gods precept, in oppo∣sition to contempt and neglect: and of salvation promised in such sort, as with reference to this, as one ordinary helpe and seale thereof, leaving extraordinary wayes and secrets to the Lord; Charitie would thinke favourably of their words, especially since as much in effect is in this sense held forth, Ephes. 5. 25, 26, 27. But bee it that Austin superadded his owne Stubble and Straw,

yet that hinders not, but the bottome and foundation of that Ordinance was good and sure; you will not say because Papists hold baptisme to bee of necessitie to salvation, that therefore bap∣tisme of growne persons is no Ordinance. That other speech of Austins — that as those were circumcised which were borne of circumcised parents, even so should they bee baptized which are borne of parents that are baptized, is sound and good, and no proofe of that 7th. Proposition, that Paedobaptisme is an hu∣mane Ordinance. Thus wee see Austin hath sped no better then his neighbours.

SECT. III.

MElancton is the next witnesse, who is called in to give evi∣dence to confirme the 2d. 6th. and 7th. Proposition. I am sorry that these bookes cited are not at hand, so that I cannot so well discover the ill dealing, which I suspect; upon the 1 Cor. 11. 15. hee is said to affirme;

In time past those in the Church which had repented them were baptized, and it was in stead of an ab∣solution: wherefore repentance must not bee separated from baptisme.

For baptisme is a Sacramentall signe of repentance. It's evident that Melancton here speakes of the baptisme of growne ones; those in the Church which had repented were baptized — and so in like case of baptizing adult persons, repentance should not bee separated from baptisme. But to Melancton himselfe, it is a non sequitur, that therefore Infants ought not to bee baptized, because they cannot repent; witnesse the answer he maketh in his Common places unto that objection against Paedobaptisme. Loco de Baptismo Infantum. It is most true saith hee,

that in all adult per∣sons (Baptisme) faith and repentance are required, but in the case of Infants this sufficeth, that the holy Spirit is given them by baptisme, &c.

As for that definition of Baptisme, that it is a Sacramentall signe of repentance it is imperfect, nor yet will it follow thence, that none else should bee baptized, but such as actu∣ally repent; no more then in that circumcision was a signe of Heart circumcision, and therefore of repentance, Deut. 10. 16. Jer. 4. 4. Deut. 30. 6. that none but adult persons were fit to bee circumcised.

Melancton is againe quoted Proposition 6. for saying there is

no plaine commandment in Scripture that children should bee baptized.

And if hee did say thus, doth this prove, that there is

no command at all, because not plaine or expresse, scil. in so many words: you shall baptize children? there is a command to bee deduced from Scripture, by necessary consequence, in Melanctons judgement; witnesse the foure arguments which hee drawes from necessary consequence of Scripture to prove it, Loco de Baptismo Infantum: and witnesse his hand subscribed at Wittenberg, amongst others, to that Article with its explication touching Paedobap∣tisme, as necessary in respect of divine command, as before wee mentioned, Proposition 7. Melancton in his answer to the Anabap∣tists Articles is quoted, but no words mentioned, that hee should speake, unlesse the Authors cite him for mentioning the story of Cyprian and the other Bishops determinations about Paedobap∣tisme, which were impertinent, in as much as Origen is here quo∣ted for saying, that Paedobaptisme was a tradition of the Church. Now Origen was before Cyprian, and the Church whose tradition it's supposed Origen saith it was, was long before Origen, so that Cyprian did not first ordaine Infants Baptisme, the Authors them∣selves being Judges. I have not that booke of Melanctons, and I cannot divine what his words were, unlesse they were mentioned. And I wonder if they were for their purpose, they set them not downe. I conclude then of Melanctons testimonies, as of the rest, that they are wrested.

CHAP. IIII. SECT. I.

IƲstin Martyr (as the Authors of ignorance, or the Printer by oversight calls Justin Martyr) in his oration ad Antoninum Pium;

I will declare unto you, how wee offer up our selves to God, after wee are renewed though Christ — those amongst us, that are instructed in the faith, and beleeve that which wee teach them is true, being willing to live according to the same, wee doe admonish to pray for the forgivenesse of their sinnes, and we also fast and pray with them, & then they are brought by us to the water, and there as wee were newborne, are they also by newbirth renewed, and then in calling upon God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the holy Ghost, they are washed in water

— Mr. Blackwood addeth — that of Justin also,

That wee do bring the party so washed (not the beleever, as hee expresseth it) and joyned to the brethren, as they are called, where they are gathe∣red

together (to common prayers and supplications, is not ex∣pressed as Mr. Blackwood hath it, but thus) that wee may pray both for our selves and for the party newly enlightned, &c.

Now whereas the Treatise brings this to prove the third Proposition, that the people were commonly first instructed, and then baptized, &c. Mr Blackwood is more peremptory in that matter, making this testimony contrary, and so inconsistent with any other testimony in the questions ascribed to Justine, and concludeth hence, that in Justines time Paedobaptisme was not in the world. Let us there∣fore consider whether this apology and that which is recorded in it, bee so demonstrative a proof of such a conclusion.

It's said that whosoever were perswaded and beleeved, &c. they were brought to the water and washed

— that proveth that all such persons were received to Baptisme, but what? Ergo, none but such were baptized? non sequitur. It's said, Rom. 10. 13. Who∣soever shall call upon the name of Lord shall bee saved, therefore all such shall be saved: True, but not ergo none other shall bee saved. For Mr. Blackwood grants Infants may bee saved. One might better have concluded from Justins speech in that apology —

wee be∣leeve that God doth love those (onely) which imitate his vir∣tues

— moderation, love, righteousnesse, &c. that they beleeved that God loved no Infants, for they could not imitate — God in justice and love, &c. yet I suppose Mr. Blackwood would bee loth to thinke so of those beleevers in Justins time. And so when hee there saith:

But wee have learned that immortalitie (scil. of bles∣sednesse) is onely theirs who live honestly and holily before God;

therefore they had learned, that the kingdome of glory be∣longed to no Infants: For they could not live so: here Mr. B. will not thinke that exclusive particle [onely] concluding against babes, to whom hee holdeth the kingdome of glory doth belong, and why then is a particle farre lesse exclusive, so conclusive against In∣fants? When Justin in that Apology commeth to speake of the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper — hee saith,

unto which none is admitted, but hee that doth beleeve our Doctrine, ha∣ving been washed in the Laver of regeneration unto the remissi∣on of sinnes, &c.

but hee saith not so in the other — none but such as beleeve what wee teach to bee true, &c. are washed or bap∣tized, &c. Mr. B. might have considered that the occasion of this Apology was to take off aspersions cast upon growne Christians, as for their babes they were not eyed by the adversaries, as capa∣ble

subjects of such crimes charged on their Parents. Hence that speech in this Apology —

you when you heare mee expect a Kingdome, rashly suspect it of some humane kingdome, when wee speake it of the kingdome of God. So they endeavour to make us daily infamous by objecting impious crimes against us — and — heinous things are divulged of us through the peo∣ples tales of putting out light, and then lying promiscuously to∣gether, & of devouring mans flesh, &c. and that at our sacred my∣steries we promiscuously commit filthinesse, &c.

So that it were impertinent to mention their religious way of devoting and offe∣ring up their children to God, they were not accused, no apo∣logy is needed for them; but it's meet to apologize onely for the persons accused, and declare what manner of persons they are, and how they devote themselves to higher and holier uses, &c.

Let the reasons bee weighed which Justin here urged, why they baptized persons adult, and with him that urgeth those for rea∣sons, it enforceth more then probable grounds to convince, that Baptisme of their Infants was in use. For having spoken of that their being new borne, as they were, (that is Baptized) hee gives these two things as reasons: Dixit enim Christus, Nisi renati fueritis, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum; & addes — rationem ejus rei hanc accepi∣mus ab Apostolis, quoniam prima nativitas, nec scientibus, nec volentibus nobis ex complexu parentum, humoreque, genitali, &c. First, the necessitie of regeneration in and by Baptisme (as the ordinary way.) [For so hee understands Iohn 3. 5. whether rightly or no, I dispute not, but to him it was so and that sufficeth.] Secondly, the native pol∣lution and originall sinne (for that hee intends by nativitie] re∣ceived from their parents; which are reasons valid as well for baptisme of Infants as growne ones too, and with any, to whom they are reasons for Baptisme, and are the very reasons used by Origen, Cyprian, Ierom, Ambrose, Austin, and others, whose judge∣ment was for baptisme of Infants, as well as adult persons.

Yea but there is no mention made here of Infants baptisme, no nor was it suitable to the occasion of the Apology, as wee said be∣fore, and yet it followeth not, that it was not practised then, be∣cause not expressed. Mr. B. saith, hee sets downe here the practise of the Church, both for word, prayer and administration of the Sacraments, and that ex professo. Yet Mr. B. may perceive that there is no mention of any doctrinall instructions held out at the baptizing of persons, or at the administration of the Lords Sup∣per,

occasioned by the joyning of new members to them at other times. Afterwards indeed when hee commeth to speake of the manner of their carrying it on the Lords day, hee mentioneth something that way, but nothing in speaking of occasionall meetings for solemn closing with baptized persons at other times. Yet I thinke Mr. B. would bee loth to conclude the word was not taught, when the Sacraments were administred to any. If he omit a thing which is professo, hee was to mention, what wonder if he passe over in silence a matter of which hee had not then occasi∣on to speake? Tertullian de corona militis saith almost as much in substance as Iustin, and it is as well urged against Paedobaptisme, be∣cause hee saith, when wee come together to the water, wee doe promise there to renounce the Devill, &c. Yet it is evident Bap∣tisme of Infants was in use in his time; why else doth hee con∣demne it, and would not have their Susceptors runne hazzards by becomming sureties for them? So that this is but a fallacious way of concluding à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. Some∣thing more wee shall adde of Justin occasionally afterwards.

SECT. II.

RAbanus is the next witnesse to Propos. 3. which saith

the Catechisme which is the doctrine of faith, must goe be∣fore baptisme, &c.

hee was Anno 840. when none questions the constant use of Paedobaptisme, and so the intent is not touching what is to goe before their baptisme, but what was to precede the baptisme of Pagans or Jewes turned to the faith. Rabanus de institutione Clericorum hath that passage of the 4th. Carthage Coun∣cell;

Those which are to bee baptized are to give in their names, and are to bee long under abstinence of Wine and Flesh, &c. and yet in the same place saith, Whether Infants or young men come to the Sacrament of regeneration, they no sooner approach to the Font of life, but the uncleane spirit is driven away from them by the exorcising of the Priests, &c.

These are no contra∣ries but may very well stand together with Rabanus, that those that are to bee baptized bee so prepared thereto, scil. if adult, and yet Infants also not capable of such preparation may and are to bee baptized, wherefore this is still but racking of Authors to make them speake that which they never intended.

SECT. III.

BAsil is the next Author brought in, Contra Eunomium l. 3. say∣ing,

must the faithfull bee sealed with Baptisme?

Faith must praecede and goe before. Mr. Blackwood inlargeth the testi∣mony in words to like purpose.

For Baptisme is the seale of faith, faith the confession of the Deity: For first hee, (scil. that is made godly by grace of whom hee before spake) must first beleeve and after bee sealed with baptisme — and — baptisme is the forgive∣nesse of the debt of prisoners, the death of sinne, the regenera∣on of the soule, — How can this, saith Mr. Backwood, bee affirmed of Infants? And againe — I will roule in mire — walke deceitful∣ly — sweare and lie, and then when I am full with evills, I will cease and receive baptisme

— which shewes saith Mr. B. at what time persons were wont to bee baptized, not in their Infancy, but when they were men, if the faithfull — if one that is made godly▪ by grace bee to bee baptized — hee must first professe his faith: ergo, none other is to bee baptized, if brought to baptisme in any other way — non sequitur; yea but that doth plainly resist the tradition of wholesome baptisme — For baptisme is the seale of faith, &c. saith Basil. What doth resist the wholesome tradition of baptism? Paedobaptisme without actuall faith expressed? — Basil intended it not, but if one that is made godly by grace (being changeable by nature) sometimes by negligence fall from grace, &c. and so hold forth any other thing then is consonant to the doctrine of the Tri∣nitie confessed in Baptisme; This is resisting that tradition of Baptisme, he doth not intend by tradition of Baptisme a rule that onely actuall confessors of the Trinitie must bee baptized. Let him expound himselfe; for in his fifth booke against Eunomius pag. 119. speaking of that forme of baptizing in the name of the Father, Sonne and Holy Ghost, hee calleth that the tradition, scil. touching baptisme, if by his description hee intend the seale of faith, scil. the Covenant and doctrine of faith, it hurts us not, if of faith whereby wee beleeve, it is an imperfect description of baptisme. Baptisme, saith hee, is the forgivenesse of sinne, &c. if he meane it, that it is so really to all that are baptized, then Simon Magus and Ananias had not perished in their sinnes, if hee speake it, that it is so Sacramentally, that may bee affirmed of Infants Baptisme. As for Mr. B's exposition that Basils other speech, I will lie and sweare, and when full of evills &c. then receive Bap∣tisme,

sheweth the time when persons were wont to bee baptized; I wonder at his collection, doth hee thinke men should sinne to the full, till they are even weary, and then come to bee baptized? is that a fit time, when they have served the Devill to the utmost, and been his old sworne trustees, then to list themselves under Christs command? Verily if Mr. B. thinke so, Basil did not, for hee rather reproveth persons for deferring their Baptisme, as if a man might bemire himselfe in sinne as much as hee would, and then at last one washing in baptisme would make all clean, which hee thus sarcastically derideth.

Aretius had no such thought of Basils judgement in this case, who yet had reason to know Basils mind, better then Mr. B. or I. And hee in his Commentary on Luke 18. brings in Basil as using this argument amongst others — Infantes capaces sunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ergo etiam participes sunt ipsius Baptismi. — Basil then had other arguments for Paedobaptisme: but this was one, Infants are capable of salvation sealed in Baptisme, therefore are they also partakers of Baptisme.

SECT. IIII.

EƲsebius testimony lib. 6. hist. eccl. touching Origens and others being Catechists at Alexandria, might have been spared: none denying but that Adult Pagans, or the adult children of persons baptized, were to bee so catechised (thence the name of Catechumeni in Authors usually so taken.) But that hindred not, but that children also were baptized in Origens time, witnesse Ori∣gens words in his second Tom. Hom. 14. upon Luke: little ones (saith hee) are baptized unto remission of sinnes, &c. The Authors stories to confirme the third, fourth, and fifth Proposition might have been also spared, as not concluding what they intend, that in those times no Infants were, or were to bee baptized. Some were adult Pagans, which came in upon their owne right onely, and were amongst the number of such Catechumeni, whose baptisme were prevented by Martyrdome, as the woman the Treatise men∣tioneth, Proposition 3. and Evirenitana the Virgin, Proposition 5. and sundry others mentioned by Cyprian de baptismo haeret. quoted by Mr. B. in his Preface. Some adult Pagans, which after instructi∣on, actually came to receive baptisme of which the treatise menti∣ons examples, as Clodoveus king of France with his 3000. Soul∣diers, also those learned men, Virinus Marcellinus and Justinus in

the time of Decius Quirinus the Roman Captaine under Trajan Hermingildus, Anno 700. in the dayes of Tiberius the second, Tor∣pes in the dayes of Nero, Nemissius in the time of Pope Stephen "and of Valeria•…•… and Gallienus Emperours and Basilica in Gallie∣nus his time, Mauro, Honoratus, Ragatianus, Hilarius, Victorinus, Apronianus, Tobia King of Persia, Claudius the Roman, and his wife in Pope Gayus his time; they might have more instances too, but these are more then enough, unlesse pertinent, proving what is not denied, that adult Pag••ns were first catechised ere baptized. But what then? ergo none else but such baptized? Non sequitur. If we were now to deale with Indians in such sort, wee would take the like course, yet maintaine Pedobaptisme to bee an ordinance of Christ. Cyprian which mentions that of the Catechumeni, yet who more strong for Paedobaptisme then hee? Austin who l. 8. Confessionum writeth of Victorinus his open confession before his baptisme, yet who pleads more for Paedobaptisme then hee? some were children of Christian parents, which yet were not baptized, till growne, as Ierome, Ambrose, Austin, Gregory, Nazianzen, (added by Hen. Den) Constantine the Emperour, Theodosius the Emperour, Lu••gerus, Pancratius, Pontius, Nazarius, Tecla and Erasma Tusca, a certaine brother mentioned in Eusebius.

And what of all this? ergo, children of inchurched Parents ought to stay unto adult yeers, before they bee baptized, because these did so: Non sequitur. A facto ad jus non valet consequentia. Nay then they should stay, till neere their death, because Constantine, Theodosius and others did so; which to our Authors would bee a non sequitur. Yea, or at least wee must stay till 30. yeeres old, be∣cause Jerom, Austin and others did so, or what is the sequell here∣of? Is it this, ergo none other which came of Christian Parents were in those times baptized, till grown up to full yeers of dis∣cretion? — I wholly deny it, if the Authors had brought as many more instances,, unlesse they could say and prove it, and so it was with all other children of Christian Parents, their induction is not regular. It is evident that the baptisme of such persons was deferred through corruption in the persons, whom it concerned. Some out of groundlesse supposals of a necessitie to conforme to Christs baptisme, who was baptized at 30. yeers old. Whence it is that Gregory Nazianzen refuteth that ground of deferring bap∣tisme. Others thought it might bee some defilement, yea defacing to their childrens baptisme, as well as their owne, if they sinned

after baptisme, and therefore thought it good to bee deferred. O∣thers had a superstitious conceipt of an excellency of being bap∣tized in Jordans waters, above others which occasioned Constantius deferring his Baptisme, Euseb. lib. 4. de vita Constantini, Theodoret lib. 1. Hist. Eccles. c. 35. some parents were discouraged from bring∣ing their children to baptisme through the covetousnesse of the Ministers, requiring (as then the use was) so much for an offering from and for any persons which were baptized, which occasioned delayes in many. Whence that Canon of the Councell of Ell••∣bertinum cited in Trecius his Decretalls;

that every Bishop should looke to it, throughout the Churches, that those which bring their Infants to Baptisme, if they offer any thing freely of their owne accord it should bee received of them. But if otherwise through povertie they have nothing to offer, the Priest should not violently take any pawnes of them, because many of the poorer sort fearing the same did withhold their children from Baptisme.

SECT. V.

BEsides many other causes mentioned by Gregory Nazianzen in his 40th. Oration de baptismo, where hee blameth not onely the deferring of elder persons that are at their owne dispose, but the deferring of the baptisme of children by their Parents, and be∣cause Gregories testimony is made use of by the Treatise in confir∣mation of the fourth Proposition. Its meet it should bee cleared, whether hee bee more ours or yours. I deny not but hee giveth his advise out of case of danger of death, the childrens baptisme bee deferred, till they are three yeers old, this was his peculiar fancy in this particular, but yet this is not to speake for the Ana∣baptists tenent, which say a man must first bee of yeares of dis∣cretion, able to hold forth his knowledge in Articles of Religion, besides his faith in Christ, and repentance of his sinnes, &c. this a child of three yeeres old is not able to doe, wee say that unripe children before capable of professing their knowledge, faith and repentance are to bee baptized, and such a one is a child also of three yeers old. And I wonder our adversaries urge not a speech of his in that oration speaking of persons that cannot receive baptisme, hee reckons as some growne ones that cannot through some suddaine exigent albeit they desire it: so others which can∣not by reason of their Infancy, but hee intends that of such as

cannot come of themselves, unlesse by others helpe: and especially Infants, which cannot come meerely in their owne right. And he speakes of persons who if not baptized, they themselves are exemp∣ted, from guilt of neglect or contempt, albeit not of losse by it; as his words evidence speaking of them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which being unsealed or unbaptized are without sinne, although they suffer losse or hurt, but doe not act: it unlesse they are not without originall sinne, that is not his meaning, but they themselves sinne not therein personal∣ly in neglect or contempt of Gods Ordinance, (and therefore al∣beit he had inveyed so much against the sinne of those whose bap∣tisme was deferred, hee hereby cleareth them from that blame) but hee accounteth that even those babes are sufferers in this omission, and at a losse, that in others right, and by others helpe they are not brought to baptism, albeit by reason of Infancy they cannot of themselves receive baptisme▪ and that this is his meaning let his words declare; ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Hast thou an Infant? Let not wickednesse take occasion (scil. to cause a deferring of it's baptisme) let it bee sanctified from Infancy, and consecra∣ted to the spirit from its tenderest age, yea but by reason of the weakednesse of its age thou art affraid to have it sealed? how art thou a mother of a feeble mind, and of a very little faith?

where he toucheth upon another cause why Christian Pa∣rents sometimes deferred their childrens baptisme, scil. a distrust∣full feare of hazzarding their babes health if dipped, as amongst many the use then was in baptisme; so then hee chargeth the mat∣ter not upon the child but upon the parent in point of guilt if not baptized: and observe hee accounteth it a wickednesse, not thus to devote them from their tenderest yeeres, their first birth (ab ipsis un∣guiculis, as the word is) unto the Lord in baptisme, and that sinne taketh occasion to put it selfe forth very much in case of Infants, whence Parents are tempted to deferre their childrens baptisme, and imputeth it to the weakenesse of their faith) which if stronger might arme Christian parents against any seeming discourage∣ments, hee maketh the practise of Infants baptisme a matter of faith in Christian parents, if they had faith enough they would not deferre the same, and ibid. answering the query about Infants baptisme, that it were better they should bee sealed without know∣ledge

then die without baptisme, hee giveth his reason from cir∣cumcision, which was wont to bee administred the eighth day after the childs birth, and in the same Oration hee said,

that al∣beit other things had their definite seasons, yet all times were fit for washing or baptisme, because no time was free from haz∣zard of death, and that the time of our salvation was at all times to bee attended — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; eve∣ry season is a time for thy baptisme:

and speaking of preten∣ces to put off baptisme hee addeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; it reacheth all degrees of ages, all kinds of life, it armes one against assaults which may bee occasio∣ned by any of them, scil. by Satan: and ibid. speaking in answer to such as pretend Christs age when baptized;

hee was pure in and of himselfe, and needed not purging as thou dost, there was no danger to him in the delay of baptisme, but no little hazard impendeth over thee, if but from hence, that thou art borne onely in sinne, and being not immortall must die.

Hence his description of baptisme under divers notions, calling it a gift, be∣cause saith hee its given to them which have contributed nothing before hand thereto: grace, because its bestowed on such as are in∣debted: baptisme, because sinne is buried in the water, scil. Sacra∣mentally: and now let all judge to which side Gregory Nazianzen most propendeth; hee himselfe was baptized at above 30. yea but he approveth not of it as lawfull in any case to deferre it to above three yeeres, and in some cases, scil. of hazard of life, to be ad∣ministred before; surely if hee had thought baptisme of a very babe unlawfull as Anabaptists doe, hee could not bee ignorant, that upon no pretence of any hazards of life any sinne was to bee committed. Austin, Jerom, and Ambrose were baptized when grown up men, yea but when they better understood the point they disallow neglect of childrens Baptisme, as the parents sinne, as Je∣rom in his Epistle to Laeta, and Austin frequently, and so Ambrose all one for Paedobaptisme as an ordinance of God, and so as counting it sinne to neglect it.

SECT. VI.

BUt to returne to our stories, wee know what Origen, and Austin have said, what was the use of the Churches from the Apostles time as well as what was done in their time; wherefore if wee had no instances of children baptized that would suffice; But story

will furnish us with instances of children baptized within the com∣passe of time wherein this Treatise presenteth us with instances.

Polydore Virgil in his second book of the History of England spea∣king of King Lucius, saith,

that he Anno salutis 182. regni vero 13. being moved out of a love of Religion, dealt with Eleutherius Bishop of Rome by letters, that hee would admit him and his people by baptisme unto the number of Christians. Upon which Fugatius and Damianus (men of eminent pietie) were sent into Britaine, who baptized the King with his house, and his whole people, and therefore the Brittish children too,

un∣lesse no part of Lucius his people, which Johannes Balaeus more ful∣ly cleareth, in his booke of Brittish writers, Centuria prima cap. 27. where hee reciteth the occasion why Lucius sent Eluinus and Me∣duinus (two prime men) unto Eleutherius to bee this — And Lucius sent thither the more speedily, because hee heard that the name of Christians begun every where to be inlarged, and that many of the Nobilitie, (especially at Rome) together with their wives and children, had sworne unto that Christian faith (scil. were bapti∣zed;) for that was that hee writ about as before wee had it, that hee and his, might bee reckoned amongst the number of Christi∣ans; and baptisme is a solemne obligation of the party baptized unto the Christian faith.) Afterward when the Pagan Saxons had overrun Brittaine and Religion began to be worne out againe, Gre∣gory the first sent over Austin, Anno 596. where after he had preached amongst the heathen Saxons, hee baptized 1000. men, women and children in a River. History of Brittaine pag. 214. Inas also King of the West Saxons with his Counsell made Lawes touching the orderly living of Ministers and Infants being baptized within 30. dayes. Beza's hist. Dr. Ʋsher also in his booke of the Religion of the ancient Irish, cap. 5. saith that the Irish did baptize their In∣fants, without any consecrated Chrisme; and that corrupt use of Chrisme wee know was very ancient indeed. And before Clo∣dovius King of France was converted, whilst hee was yet Pagan, his gratious wife Cleotild daughter of the Duke of Burgoine, having a sonne by him, it was baptized by the same Remigius Bishop of Raines, (which afterward baptized him being converted as the Treatise saith) at which Pagan Clodovius was at first displeased. Afterward shee brought forth another sonne, which by the Kings consent was in like sort baptized; after which Pagan Clodovius being put to the worse by the Almaines, vowed, if hee got the

victory he would imbrace the Christian faith, to which his wife had so oft perswaded him, and proving conquerour did so, and was baptized by Remigius. Fabian, 1 par. of his History c. 97. the Centurie writers give other Instances Cent. 6. cap. 6. mentioning out of Gregorius Turocensis, the young sonne of Chilperick: also of Theodebert borne to King Childebert as baptized, as also Theodorick another child of his baptized, also of a young sonne to King Egilolph baptized; other instances might bee given out of Nau∣clerus, the authors of this Treatise mention Constantines baptisme, when so old; but why doe they not mention also his sonne Crispus too, which was baptized as well as hee by Sylvester Bishop of Rome saith Nicephorus hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 23. the authors mention Clodo∣neus his Baptisme but not his children, and Constantius, but not his sons baptisme, doe either discover their ignorance or guile.

SECT. VII.

THe next Authors testimony to the third Proposition is that of Polydor Virgil de Inventoribus rerum, li. 4. cap. 4.

It was the cu∣stome in old time to baptize those for the most part which were come to their full growth apparelling them after baptisme in white, which was done at Easter and Pentecost, &c.

yea but before the old time of baptizing grown persons at Easter, (which was cer∣taine hundred yeeres after Christ ere that custome began) children were baptized (as is confessed they were) in Origens time, and be∣fore, by a Church custome; for then it was the custome before this custome came up here mentioned to baptize children. And let us heare whether Pollidor Vilgil in the very quoted place will not say as much, for hee there expressing his judgement for Pae∣dobaptisme doth quote Cyprian as speaking of it as [from the be∣ginning]

that albeit Infants could not make confession of their faith by reason of age, yet others confession should bee instead thereof in baptisme;

now if that were à principio, even from the beginning of the Christian Church; Paedobaptisme was ancien∣ter then this old custome, and for this also Polydore there citeth Ambrose lib. 2. de vocatione gentium.

SECT. VIII.

BEatus Rhenanus upon Tertullian is next, who is said to write

that the old custome was that those that were come to their full growth at Easter, &c.

they leave out the word [ferè] almost,

or for that most part, &c. and the reasons hee gives why it was so, scil. because thousands of Pagans daily flocked then to the Chur∣ches, then the Infants being compared to those Pagan parents, and children which could conceive of what was taught them, yea and those adult Pagans thus flocking in by thousands daily, no wonder that it bee said that it was then the use for the most part that those who were baptized, were at their full growth, and ad∣ding the other causes of deferring baptisme, no wonder Shamier (who yet speaketh of Paedobaptisme) speakes of so few children of old baptized.

CHAP. V. SECT. I.

TErtullian lib. de baptismo cited also by Mr. Blackwood more amply, thus:

for every persons condition, disposition, and age, the delay of baptisme is more profitable, especially about little ones: for what need is there (if there bee need as some copies have it, which Mr. B. leaveth out) that sureties should bee hazzarded, who by their mortalitie may faile of their promises, and bee deceived with the going for∣ward of an evill towardlinesse?

but herein the treatise dealeth more plainly then Mr. B. who leaveth out that saying cited in Tertullian; Suffer little children to come to mee; upon which hee glosseth, as followeth in Mr. B. —

Let them come when they are young, when able to bee instructed, let them become Christi∣ans when they know Christ, &c.

Ibid. for no lesse cause are un∣married persons to bee delayed in whom the tentation is prepa∣red, &c. the Treatise urgeth this testimony to prove that de facto children before they were instructed were not baptized. Mr. B. seemes to urge that de jure they ought not: As for the first, it's ra∣ther a strong proofe that Paedobaptisme was in use in the Church; in Tertullians time: for supposing Tertullian against Paedobaptisme, his testimony is the more valid, enemies will not flatter us; if they were not baptized, why doth hee mention their susceptors or sureties — which ran hazzards by being their susceptors? Tertulli∣an was not so sottish to oppose an Imaginary abusive practise; if no such thing were in rerum natura in his time; why doth hee affright persons from being susceptors by the hazzards they runne in their childrens liablenesse to death, and to distempers, and by

the latter, their outbreakings into sinne to deceive their suscep∣tors expectations, if no such thing? it had been dangerous to start such a novellisme: if never before practised. And indeed Ori∣gen contemporary with Tertullian (according to Osi inder and Func∣cius account) hee saith in the place quoted in his 14th. Hom. on Luke that little ones were in his time baptized.

All the question is then de Jure, how farre the testimony is valid to prove that Infants should not bee baptized; some make ac∣count that Tertullian was not simply against baptisme of Infants, scil. if of beleevers, but of baptizing Infidell Infants, then offered to baptisme, as it might be supposed of unmarried persons, if In∣fidels, to delay Baptisme; others thinke hee intends to deny the absolute necessitie of Baptisme in case children are like to die, then to baptize them out of an opinion of such necessitie of it, albeit afterwards that hazzard of mortalitie being over, they might bee baptized, and it's probable enough out of their doubling of the word necesse (si tamen necesse fit) &c. and truely if Tertullian was against it in his judgement, it was one of the dotages of his age, as was Montanisme, denying second marriages, witnesse his booke de Monogamia: and hee forgot himselfe if that was his intention, to deny childrens right to baptisme; since that in his booke de anima cap. 21. speaking before that every soule hath an evill spirit in it, he addeth,

so that the nativitie of none almost is cleane (at least if borne of Pagans) for here it is that the Apostle saith, that one borne of either sex being sanctified, hee is holy as well by the prerogative of the seed as by the discipline of instruction, but (saith hee) else they were borne uncleane: but now not∣withstanding hee would have it to bee understood that the children of the faithfull are devoted to holinesse, and conse∣quently to salvation, that in respect of these pledges of hope, hee might patronise marriages which hee had judged to bee re∣tained, otherwise (scil. if that had not been his meaning) hee would have mentioned that definition of the Lord: unlesse any one bee borne againe of water and of the Spirit hee shall not en∣ter into the kingdome of God,

that is, shall not bee holy, and then addeth immediatly cap. 22. as his conclusion,

so that eve∣ry soule is so long reckoned to bee in Adam, till they be recoun∣ted to bee in Christ,

and so long unclean untill recounted scil. in Christ. And in his booke against Marcion lib. 4. p. 92. but behold how God loveth little children (sc. of the Church) in that he teach∣eth

that those which would bee for ever great, must bee such as they are,

and brings that as another argument of it: that God was so gratious to the Aegyptian Midwives for sparing of the Jewes children, so that hee speakes not this of all children but of those of the Church, as also that which hee saith de anima, hee speaketh it not of all sorts, but of the children of the faithfull, as is evi∣dent. And hence I will make bold after Master Blackwoods exam∣ple to make some observations. 1 That Tertullian accounted not all children alike in point of birth — cleannesse, but some cleane, others uncleane. 2 That hee accounted that holinesse of children mentioned 1 Cor. 7. to bee no civill holinesse of legitimacy, or crea∣ture holinesse of holinesse to use, but a holinesse of a higher nature: such as implyeth right, at least externall, of entring in Gods king∣dome: making this of being holy to be one with that, or to in∣clude it (scil. according to men) and to include as much as to bee accounted in Christ, cap. 22. the beginning. 3 That children, of beleevers come to bee holy in this sense mentioned, not by instruction of discipline meerely of which they are capable when they come to yeers: but by being borne of either parents sanctified or the faithfull, or persons laying hold on Gods covenant, &c. (for hee maketh being borne of either parents sanctified and chil∣dren of the faithfull, &c. one) they are holy as well by prerogative of seed (saith hee of which they are partakers as soone as they are borne) as by institution of discipline. 4 That he maketh this the force of the Apostles argument to perswade to retaine marria∣ges in question in regard of such pledges of hope, children thus holy springing from married persons whereof one at least is a be∣leever, &c. 5 That therefore Zwinglius was not the first author as some say of that interpretation, that by the sanctifying of either Sex by that other being faithfull, children come to bee holy with holinesse of priviledge, hence that of being holy by prerogative of seed, scil. quat. covenant seed. And from the other place it appeares that Tertullian judged the children of the Jewes to bee not in a bare carnall covenant, or beloved with a meere common respect of God as others, but in the judgement of his charitie hee accounts them beloved, with a speciall love of God: so as to be∣come patternes to such as are alwayes great in Gods favour as well as otherwise. Now how these things will stand with Tertullians denying them baptisme, I leave to all judicious and sober minds to determine: hee may forsake his owne principles in this as in

other things, hee did; but if hee hold to the same hee must bee ours and not yours.

But let us suppose Tertullians judgement against paedobaptisme: hee is not the first that gave erroneous counsell, and held erro∣neous tenents: though he bee the first that ever advised (so farre as I finde in authors) that infants baptisme should bee delayed, and his judgement may not carry it, but the grounds of his judgement if they are Scripture proofe; and first he acknowledgeth the argu∣ment, taken from Mat. 19. Suffer little children to come unto me, to enforce baptisme of these there intended: albeit hee expounds that of their comming to Christ by baptisme to bee under∣stood of their comming, when they are growne up, when they know Christ, when they aske it, when they understand the right of Baptisme, and can pray and fast. But Mr. B. (which cleaveth to Tertullian) and others of his minde, denye it to bee any ground of baptizing any. 2 Hee counselleth (as the trea∣tise hath it) that unmarried folke should have their baptisme also deferred, whilest they yet suffer tenttaions; the Treatise indeed saith, young unmarried virgins: but Tertullians word is, Innupti, unmarried persons, of what age soever, now how doe Anabaptists like Tertullians counsell herein? Suppose a person never marry, what, must he never bee baptized as never yet suffering this tenta∣tion? or suppose young persons of 20. or 30. yeares old, judged to be beleevers, but yet not married; they belong to Gods kingdom, but have not yet suffered such tentation, must their baptisme now be deferred upon this ground of Tertullian, because not married, or not yet going through such tentations? I trow not; then Tertul∣lians counsell about delay of baptisme is not good it seemeth.

3 Hee counsels delay of baptisme of any to Easter and Pentecost (albeit therein hee speaketh not so peremptorily as in the other) Was this good counsell to put baptisme to such set times of the yeare, when yet no time is set in the Scriptures, both John and Christs Disciples, and the Apostles baptized at any time of the year. I suppose this counsell will not downe with them.

4 Hee counsels delay of Infants baptisme (for it was but his counsell at the most as it was in the other) answering therein that argument, which even in his time was used for paedobaptisme (not first by Zuinglius) scil. Suffer little Children to come unto mee, and forbid them not, &c. Yea (saith Tertullian) let them come indeed, but dum Adolescant, &c. when they are growne up, &c. hee yeeldeth it to

bee a ground of their comming to Christ, and that by baptisme as one way of their comming to him; but not of their comming so soone, but rather when they themselves could aske it, &c. this is his glosse upon the place: but how absurd is this glosse, as if Christs intent in rebuking the Disciples for hindring those babes from comming to him, were thus? Yee do very evill to hinder those babes from comming now to me for my blessing (like them in like case) because they (and others like them) should rather come when they are more grown up, when they know mee, when they them∣selves (and not as now their parents onely) can aske and desire it at my hands, &c. But why then are these Disciples rebuked for seeking to put by their comming so young, and not themselves desiring to come? nay then verily the Disciples rather were in the right, which would have had them staid longer, and not Christ which urgeth it as an argument for comming at that time, and accordingly at that time fulfilleth the parents desire in blessing of the babes: but none herein surely will owne Tertullian. Another testimony of Tertullians is urged to confirme the fifth Proposition, scil. that de corona militis.

When wee come together to the water, and a little before wee doe promise there in the hand of the Minister, that wee will renounce the Devill and his pompe, and bee ducked three times, and say no more thereto then what the Lord com∣mands in the Gospel; and as we goe out of the water, where∣in wee are baptized, we eat milke and hony together, and refraine that whole weeke from washing and bathing.

So far in the Trea∣tise, but the Authors leave out what followeth, ibid.

wee make oblations for the dead, for our birth-dayes yearely, and a little after, wee crosse our selves at every step, and in every place, sitting downe, and rising up, &c.

All this proveth what the Adulti did, and what was required of them at their baptisme, but this dispro∣veth not, but that infants baptisme was in use, and that they did promise as much by others: for why else did Tertullian give his counsell (as is supposed) against the same? Yea, that (not∣withstanding Tertullians argument there) baptizing of infants with∣out requiring from them personall confession of faith, was a right use of the institution. Yea I wonder the Treatise bringeth this Testimony to prove the right use of baptisme according to Christ and his Apostles: what were those oblations for the dead by the persons baptized, and those superstitious crossings, forbearing of washings and speech, eating milke and honey, &c. were these ac∣cording

to the institution of Christ and example of the Apostles? Surely no.

SECT. II.

THe next testimony is taken from Counsells and Decretalls, ei∣ther ex concilio Gerundensi concerning the Catechumeni (or those that are instructed in the faith (saith this Treatise) It's ordai∣ned that they should all come at Easter and Pentecost. This is the proofe of the fourth Proposition, that the children of the faith∣full, &c. as if the Catechumens were onely the children of the faithfull, when all adult Pagans were such: and say that Adult children too of persons joyned to the Church, but formerly Pagans were amongst the Catechumens, yet not their babes, babes were baptized both before the superstitious [limiting] or order of limi∣ting the time of baptisme as wee proved, and whilst it was in force too as wee proved out of Austin, Sermon foure in Octavo paschae ad neophytos; yea the concilium Gerundense Can. 3. hath these words, de parvulis, &c. concerning little ones new borne, its ordained,

that if they bee weake (as is usuall) and that they desire not to suck;

that even the same day they are borne, they if they bee brought may be baptized; so that this is the old trick of conclu∣ding à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter, neither is any other con∣clusion to bee made from the next proof ex concilio Laodicensi,

The Disciples or Schollers in the faith, who are to bee baptized must before learne the faith, and then upon the Thursday the last weeke in Lent must acknowledge the same before the Priest or Bishop:

which is repeated in confirmation of the fifth Proposi∣tion, and the former answer is full to this objection, which was even now mentioned: so ex consilio Martini, and Nicolai Popes (which is againe urged, Proposition fifth) the Catechumeni must first learne the Creed, what is intended to adult Pagans by your counsell is prevented, to conclude against the children, babes and all, contrary to Martins intent who was Anno 646. long after the unquestionable use of Paedobaptisme, and Nicolaus was after him. No more was intended by that quotation in the Decretalls

ex Au∣gustino ad Fortunatum, when a Catechumen is baptized he makes confession, &c.

as appeares by Austin in the places formerly quoted. Concilium Bracharense is quoted, but not which, first or second, &c. nor what words; and so concilium Anterse in like fashion, but why are not the words mentioned, if for their purposes? but lest such

blind whisperers, and items beget suspition, it's likely the authors if they ever saw the Canons intend it of that Canon Concilii Bra∣charensis primi, that 20. dayes before baptisme let the Catechu∣men all and severall learne of the Priest,

Credo in Deum, &c.

to which the former answer sufficeth. Trecius in his Decretalls urgeth as much, ex secundo Concilio Bracharensi, yet the same councell also ratifieth Paedobaptism, ordering (Canone septimo)

that each Bishop should in all the Churches take care about the baptizing of In∣fants, brought to baptism, &c.

The like answer sufficeth to that quo∣tation of the fourth Carthage councel in confirmation of the fifth Proposition; those that are to be baptized are to give in their names, & after long abstinence from wine and flesh, and frequent examina∣tions, with laying on of hands, they are to be baptized. It is the 75th. Canon. Now that the Councell never intended, as if Infants baptisme were not valid, and warrantable which could not bee thus examined, see the 48th. Canon of the third Carthage Coun∣cell (which according to Isiodore in his summe of the Decretals, was the yeare before this) wherein the Councell doth ratifie, even the Baptisme of children by Donatists (for so the Canon is ex∣pounded in Caranza his summe of the Decretals, and in Albigna∣nus tertius his edition of the Decretalls) this sinne being rather in the parents (not that they offered them to baptisme, but) to offer them to be baptized by such Heretiques, & the fifth Carthage coun∣cell (which according to Isiodore, was two yeers after the 4th. coun∣cell; but according to Johannes Wolfius de rebus memorabilibus, centur. quarta, both the fourth and fifth Carthage councell was kept the same yeere, scil. Anno 399.) wherein there were 74. Bishops (as in the other there were 97. Bishops) Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, being President, in which councell Canon 6. they ratifie Paedobaptisme (as this treatise also mentioneth Proposition 7.) It's not then ima∣ginable, that the councell that the other day (if our Authors guesse right) was against Paedobaptisme, and yet presently bee so quite altered, as to establish it; yea but Mr. Blackwood, in his pre∣face [to storming the two Garrisons of Antichrist,] would seeme to make an argument against paedobaptisme, as then in use from the 14. Can. Concil. Nic. and Can. 4. and 6. Concil. Ancyran. in which Canons the Assemblies were divided into hearers, Catechu∣meni, and Offerers, or persons in full communion, till cut off by death, on censure, yet hee cannot tell hee saith, whether this di∣vision were in use before the first Nicene Counsell; probably its

thought, since the Apostles time; so that to conclude that accor∣ding to his exposition of the Offerers, children being not of that sort, nor of the Catechumeni, they must bee of the third sort, of the profane rabble of hearers; this is farre fetched, and hee suspe∣cteth the foundation of it, scil. that division, whether so ancient, as from the Apostles; so that hee can build nothing thereupon; nay by his leave, hee must thrust out Infants, little children not capable of being called Auditors, in the Language of the ancient (which hee cannot bee ignorant, understand it of adult persons) nor of being Catechumens, if not amongst the third sort of Offe∣rers, where are they then? Surely, no part of the Congregation, when yet in Joel 2. Assemble the Congregation, gather such as suck the breasts, &c. children then are upon Scripture grounds, as well as common reason, parts of the Church Assemblies: nay hath not Mr. B. made a rod for his owne back, since the Assem∣bly being divided onely into those three parts, and Scripture, and reason, making little ones part of the Assembly, and yet neither hearers, nor Catechumens (as reason will tell him) therefore they must needs bee of the third sort, scil. Offerers in those times, they were then in full communion, witnesse Cyprian (as some urge it to enseeble Cyprians testimony for Paedobaptisme) and Cyprian was above 70. yeeres before the first Nicene councell: yea, children were Offerers too in respect of that which was offered at their baptisme, witnesse the Canon of the Elebertine councell, as the little ones of old were said to bring an offering in their hand, when their parents onely did it for them, Deut. 16. but Mr. Blackwood urgeth the seventh Canon of the Councell at Constantinople, declaring how they Catechise them they are to baptize; hee telleth us not what Councell it was, but saith it was in Theodosius his time, so it might bee, and yet wee not know by what Character, which it was, divers of them being then called there, Wolfius puts Theodosius at Anno 383. and Anno 382. the third Constantinople Councell Anno 383. the fourth Anno 402. the fifth the same yeere that the Milevitan councell was; and Anno 403. the 6, 7, 8. now the 6th. councell of Constantinople provideth that none should have chrisme and bap∣tisme administred to them, unlesse it bee such as firmely hold forth the Lords Prayer, and the Creed, &c. excepting such, who by reason of age cannot speake, and provideth, Can. 7. that such as bee witnesses to Infants in Baptisme should bee sound in the faith. Councells use not to bee crosse to themselves, in so little

space as to order contrary things, that onely adult persons should bee baptized, and no Infants, as Mr. B. expounds them, and yet againe, not onely adult, but Infants shall bee baptized, that is not square dealings. And I wonder that Mr. B. foreseeing the ra∣tifying of the 46. Canon of that Laodicean Councell before men∣tioned by that at Trullo (which was the Emperours Palace, at Con∣stantinople, where the Councell used to sit) in Justinians time, Can. 78. a Councels that was for Paedobaptisme expresly, would enfeeble his argument from thence in that a Councell of such Fa∣thers judge that Canons establishing both this and that, scil. cate∣chising before baptisme, and baptisme before catechising, are not contraries, that hee which holdeth the one denyeth the other, but subordinate, which may both stand together, according as the persons to bee baptized are either adult or Infants. This Mr. B. foreseeing maketh him (its likely) frame such a poore excuse, as that its like, upon some abuse or neglect it was reestablished by that Councell of Trullo, but its like not, rather if it were any thing of the controversie. Yea, but some object the Covenant of Theodor Balsamon, and Zonaras upon the sixth Canon of that Grecian coun∣cell at Neocesarea Anno. 315. concerning a woman with child, that shee ought to bee illuminated (or baptized) when shee desireth it, because in that matter (scil. of baptisme) shee that brings forth hath nothing in common with the babe which is brought forth, which may bee shewed in confession, that it is proprium uniuscujusque institutum, ac propositum; which they are brought in as so expounding, or rather inferring thence, that an Infant might not bee baptized, because it hath not power to choose the confession of divine Baptisme. Zonaras I have not, but I looked upon that Patriarch of Antioch, Theodor Balsamon, who hath these words in his Scholia upon that Canon. Some (in the councell) said that women with child which came from the Infidels, to joyn with the Church ought not to bee baptized, but to stay till the babe they went with were brought forth, lest that when shee were baptized, it might seeme that the child in her wombe was bapti∣zed with her, as being altogether united to her; whence it will come to passe, that after the babe is borne, either it may bee not left unenlightned (or unbaptized) or if it bee baptized, it may bee thought that it is rebaptized. This hee maketh the occasion of the Law of that antient, not Latine, but Greeke councell; which was a good while before the first Nicene Coun∣cell.

And it is very remarkable what was the occasion, it was dou∣ble, as is evident. 1. That they might avoyd the mischiefe of leaving babes unbaptized. 2. That they might avoyd the other of rebaptizing; two grand hinges of Anabaptisme: these were such mischiefes (as it seemes) in their eyes, that they would not have expressions, let fall by them, that might any way occasion the same, so that both these in those times were rather inter borrenda then recipienda. But let us heare what Balsamon addeth further there, speaking of such Infants, that they could not make promise, &c. for how it is with the babe in the wombe none can enquire, nor be suretie for them (saith he) but Infants (scil. that are borne) doe affirme by those which are their susceptors, and are accounted to bee actually enlightned (or baptized) with divine illustration, or divine baptisme, they then accounted baptisme of Infants no An∣tichristian baptisme (as the Authors of this Treatise, and (as John Spilsbury, Mr. Blackwood, and Henry Denne doe) but divine Bap∣tisme, the Baptisme of the Lord, wherefore I conclude that this testimony is grosly abused by Hugo Grotius.

SECT. III.

THe next Author quoted, is Rupertus Tritiensis l. 4. de divinis Officiis c. 18. both for the confirmation of the 4th. and 7th. proposition, the same is urged by A. R. also to like purpose: but by this authors leave, that there bee no guile hid, I shall make bold to transcribe the very words of Rupertus Abbas Tritiensis, of which the Treatise mentioned some pieces, scil.

It was the custome of old in the holy Church, not to celebrate the Sacrament of regeneration at any other time (scil. then Easter and Pente∣cost, of which hee spake before) [unlesse in those, unto whom possibly danger might accrue by the comming of some infirmity or danger of death upon them] [this exception which is in his the very quaesitum; the Treatise, and A. R. leave wholly out; how candidly they deale herein, let all judge.] All the off-spring of the Church (almost) which throughout the whole yeare, it could beget anew by the preaching of the word, the solemni∣tie of Easter approaching, gave in their names this day, and throughout the following dayes, unto the very solemnitie it selfe of Easter: each one hearing the rule of faith, whence also such an one was called a Catechumen, [for a Catechumen faith Rupertus is by interpretation a hearer] both the suckling and

the growne person: at length at the full time, after the full of the moone in the solemnitie at the holy Font, repeating the symboll with full beleefe: It (scil. the off-spring of the Church) did die, and rise againe with Christ, but after Christianitie in∣creased, and that net of the Gospell was filled with Fish, be∣cause that it was dangerous to delay so great a multitude by reason of the casualtie of death, which in a multitude of men is manifold; especially in regard of a company of Infants of Christian Parents, much encreasing, whose tender life is very oft by a small occasion cut off; it seemed good to the holy Church: leave off baptisme being granted every where, yea, offe∣red, to prevent all dangers; and yet in a few to celebrate the solemnitie of baptisme, with the resurrection of the Lord, to which it is like, &c.

by this that hath been said, that which the Treatise, and A. R. intend to disprove is rather confirmed, and the guilefull wresting of the testimony discovered; for besides what hath been before shewed, that Infants baptisme was before this custome of baptisme at Easter and Pentecest came up, and like∣wise whilst it was held up, Infants being then, and there bapti∣zed, as well as at other times, as by Austins testimony, Serm. 4. ad Neoph. appeared, this testimony also tells us, 1 That baptisme of all sorts of persons, in case of weakenesse and danger, at other times was in use of old. 2 That sucklings as well as growne ones were accounted under the notion of the off-spring of the Church, begotten by the word, scil. in their parents, which being begotten thereby, in their right also their children were in churched with them. 3 Confession of faith with full beleefe by others in stead of sucklings, was counted as their confession; the lactati, as well as the grandescentes are said to make such confession of faith, which they could not doe, but by others. 4 That there were present at this solemnitie a multitude of Infants, as well as growne ones, which did Sacramentally die, and rise with Christ of old. 5 That they baptized not of old all sorts of children at such times, but onely the Infants of Christians, and that upon the grounds of mortalitie and other weakenesse, and hazzard, was there made a change as well in respect of the growne part of the multitude, as the Infants onely. 6 That the change that was made upon the grounds of mortalitie, and increase of the multitude, was not in respect of the subjects; that afterwards Infants should bee bap∣tized, whereas onely growne ones before were baptized (for both

sorts were before and after that custome came up, baptized as wee proved) but it was onely in respect of the place where, and season when, that whereas of old they used to come to some one great Citie, and that at these seasons of yeare onely; now passim every where, and at any other time they might bee baptized, onely some few that were borne a little before these solemne times, (as Rupertus in his other bookes mentioneth) were reserved to bee then baptized, to grace as it were the solemnitie. And this may fully answer that testimony which this Treatise Proposition 7. and A. R. also urge out of Joannes Beemius de moribus Gentium speaking to like purpose. So then Rupertus Tritiensis, and his companion are both as much abused herein, as other witnesses produced, or rather traduced.

SECT. IIII.

THe next witnesse is Cassander a stout adversary to them, yet fetched in by the Authors of this Treatise to prove the 4th. and 7th. Proposition, Cassander in l. de Infantium baptismo is said to say:

It is certaine, that some beleevers in times past have with holden baptisme from their children, untill they were growne, and could understand, and remember the mysteries of their faith, yea, also counselled not to administer baptisme,

as by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen appeareth. And Proposi∣tion 7. Cassander in his booke de Infantium baptismo saith, that

it came to bee used by the Fathers that lived 300. yeers after the Apostles,

as much saith A. R. in his Childish baptisme. But say Cassander spoke as Proposition 4. hee is said to doe; yet that pro∣veth not that children of the faithfull were commonly first in∣structed ere baptized, because some beleevers deferred baptisme, or Tertullian, and Gregory counselled it, much lesse that this was well done according to Christs mind, for wee have seene upon what unsound principles they did it: and as for the Councell of Tertullian and Gregory, it hath been before weighed of what force herein. As for the other speech of Cassander that Pedobaptisme came in use by the Fathers 300. yeeres after the Apostles time, it maketh mee stand and wonder at the impudent forehead of er∣rour, and yet I might wonder the lesse since it's but just with God that they which hold lies should also tell lies. I read Cassander with as much heed as I could, to finde out whether there might bee any colour of ground of such a speech of him, but could not

finde out any like it, unlesse that which hee saith bee this way wrested, scil.

that the Apostles in the beginning by the com∣mand and charge of the Lord, set up their worke, and did eve∣ry where constitute Churches, gathered of the Gentiles to the Communion of the Gospel; growne ones which consented to the Apostles doctrine after confession of the faith, were with∣out any distinction of times, or places knit unto the Church of Christ by the Sacrament of Baptisme administred by the Disciples of the Apostles. [But saith also in the next words] al∣though even at that time it is to be beleeved that Infants also, and especially sickly ones, were offered to bee consecrated by the baptisme of Christ:

but clearely to evince the falsehood of that speech before cited to confirme Proposition 7. the very title of this booke contradicteth the same. George Cassander of Infants baptisme.

The testimonies of the Ancient Ecclesiasticall writers, which flourished within the 300. yeeres from the times of the Apostles, that is, from the departure of John the Apostles being more then the hundreth yeere from the birth of Christ.

And according to this his worke that hee propoundeth, hee bringeth in very notable testimonies of the antients, both Latine and Greeke, that lived in that space for the proofe of Paedobap∣tisme, that any that had not s••ene authorities before might have been thence well furnished for this purpose, and after the testi∣monies produced Cassander closeth thus.

These are the testimo∣nies of ancient Fathers which wee suppose are sufficient for the deciding of this controversie of childrens baptisme, which hath been raised up by certaine wretched persons; for in as much as all these whose testimonies wee have produced in a continued series from the Apostles, were Orthodox teachers, and guiders of Churches of Christ at severall times and places, there is no question, but that this Tenent being held forth by them all se∣verally, as with one mouth, it was the very doctrine of the whole Church which the Church had received from the Apo∣stles, and transmitted the same to those in after times, and up∣on the speech of Austin, l. 4. contra Donat. c. 13, 14. addeth: To this Apostolicall doctrine of baptisme of Infants, all the Apo∣stolique Churches, planted by the Apostles throughout the whole world, they doe give testimony, &c.

Who seeth not now the grosnesse of this falshood in fathering that upon Cassander, the very contrary whereunto is his businesse there to evince?

SECT. V.

THe next testimony is of as grand an adversarie to Anabap∣tisme as any, and that is Zuinglius, who is quoted to con∣firme the 4th. and 6th. Proposition, hee is said to affirme that there is no plaine word in Scripture whereby childrens baptisme is commanded: his meaning is no more then thus; that it is not in so many words said, you shall baptize children, as, neither the first day of the weeke shall bee to you the Lords day, or Chri∣stian Sabbath, &c. but the principall place, (and for the other two quotations, they are to no purpose) is that mentioned in his booke of Articles, Act. 18. whose words, because the treatise is so often tripping, wee shall set downe verbatim, who there spea∣king of Confirmation saith, although I am not ignorant (as it may bee gathered out of the Ancients)

that of old time Infants were baptized (this is rendred otherwise in the Treatise) and yet not so common as now it is, but the children were al∣wayes instructed openly, and when their faith had made im∣pression upon their hearts, and they confessed with their mouthes, then they were admitted to baptisme;

this custome of teaching I wish were used, and recalled now [namely that baptisme being given to Infants, they may bee afterwards taught when they come to age as they are capable of instruction from the Word of God] this the Treatise leaveth out. Zwinglius his judg∣ment was, that the maine in the childs right to baptisme was the Parents Covenant estate, whence the child being federally holy, which else had been uncleane, had its maine title to baptisme, so that in case both parents were visibly Pagans, or Idolatrous, &c. they were not to bee baptized, when yet in his time many such were baptized. And thus I take it is that which hee intendeth, that since in Ancient times, albeit sometimes every little children of Infidels, (as may appeare) were baptized, yet not so common∣ly as now such like children are baptized promiscuously hand over head, (for which some as it appeares by Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. have pleaded, albeit hee counts it their errour, ibid.) and since in those times Catechising (as it appeareth) of children was too little in use; Zwinglius maketh that use of the Catechising of children of old, both of persons joyned to the Church (which were capable of instruction when first their parents joyned in Church estate) before their baptisme, which was one sort of

children so catechised, and of the exposititious children of Pa∣gans also, those children of their Pagan captive or slaves, which were another sort of children catechized before baptisme: Zwin∣glius wisheth that albeit it were not in his time used, as neither before baptisme to such like children, so neither after the baptisme, neither of such children, nor of others of visible beleevers, which ought in Infancy to bee baptized: yet now catechizing of chil∣dren might bee in more use. Assuredly Zwinglius was strong for this, that baptisme of Infants was no practise taken up after the Apostles, but by the Apostles: no bare old custome taken upon humane grounds: but his judgement was directly crosse to the Proposition, hee is brought as a witnesse to, that Christ did not institute Infants baptisme, &c. witnesse his many arguments from Scripture for it, and his judicious answers to the evasions of the adversaries, to that truth. And as much may bee said of Oecolampadius his companion, who is cited to confirme the 6th. Proposition; whereas in the first and second booke of the Epistles of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius they give grounds from Scripture to the contrary. See l. 1. Epist. Zwingl. ad dilectos fratres. I will now tell you from what grounds of Scripture I judge Infants to bee baptized, &c. and l. 2. in his Epist. Bercktold and Francis, Preachers at Berne, hee saith peremptorily; contra Scripturas ergo fecissent Apostoli si Infantibus negavissent baptismum, the Apostles therefore had done contrary to Scriptures, if they had denied bap∣tisme to Infants. See more of Oecolampadius his mind too herein in his Epist. to Zwinglius, and in that to the Preachers at Berne: here therefore are two more witnesses abused in this Treatise.

CHAP. VI.

HEre the Authors forget and mistake their owne wit∣nesses names, they are in such a hurry they bring in proofes that the Teachers according to the ancient Fathers right did so, and so making the Fathers, and those Teachers distinct, as persons of whom the testimony is brought, and as witnesses by whom, and yet in the proofes, the ancient Fathers themselves are the witnesses of what was done by those Teachers after them, as Hilary, Tertullian, Arnobius, Ambrose, &c. these might say what was in their time, but cannot say what

Teachers after them will doe or practise, unlesse the Authors can by a spell play the Witch of Endors trick to fetch up old Samuel in his likenesse to speake after he was dead.

SECT. I.

BUt let us heare what any of them say, if wee have not heard it before; As for Hilaries testimony of his owne baptisme, it's not materiall, wee mentioned him among the Authors instan∣ces of Adult persons baptized, Proposition 3. as for his interpre∣tation of baptizing in, or upon the name, that is, upon confession of the beginners, it's as easily rejected, as urged, unlesse his grounds were shewed or were Scripture proofe.

SECT. II.

THe next witnesse is Ambrose de spiritu Sancto. l. 2. in our Sa∣crament there are three questions propounded and three con∣fessions made, without which three questions no man can bee washed, if Mr. B's answer bee good to that part of Tertullian in the beginning of his booke de baptismo, mentioning, that a man without cost, or pompe, is let down into the water: Observe saith Mr. B. that hee speakes of a man, not of an Infant, so I might as well say here, hee speakes of a mans baptisme, not of an Infants, which then also was in use, but that I feare some body would sit upon my skirts presently, and aske mee whether an Infant be not sub genere isto subalterno hominis, whether an Infant bee not homo, and I ever thought before Mr. B. helped me with that distinction, that when the Scripture saith it's appointed to all men once to die, &c. Heb. 9. that Infants also were there counted men to die as well as others, not to mention other places of Scripture, or au∣thors for the use of the word that way; and I wonder Mr. B. when hee supposeth Rom. 5. 18. makes for his fancy of generall re∣demption of children, whether of Pagans or Christians, then In∣fants are men, on whom the free gift commeth, and yet here homo demissus in aquam in Tertullian must bee onely a growne man, not Infants, as if Infants now were not homo: but this answer must bee better grounded, or else I shall keepe my opinion, that as an Infant is homo; so Tertullians testimony there speaking indefinite∣ly of any baptized person, man or woman, Infants, youths, or ri∣per persons, &c. hee doth beare implicite testimony in that very place to Paedobaptisme, as in his time. But to returne to Ambrose,

I say that in Ambrose his time such confessions, and questions were, and Infants were baptized too, that corruption being then in use of adding to Infants baptisme interrogations to them that brought them to baptisme, which answered in their names, and made con∣fession in their stead. For others were baptized in Ambrose his time and before, then such as could personally answer or make confession, yea, and that it was Ambrose his judgement, that it was the mind of God that others should bee baptized, then could make such confessions, witnesse that among other places of Ambrose, which hee hath in his 5th. Tom. in his Homilies upon Luke.

Jordan was turned back, signifying the future mysteries of sal∣vation in baptisme, by which little ones in their Infancy are cleansed from the wickednesse of their natures: (namely in a Sacramentall way.)

SECT. III.

BUt it will bee here objected, that that custome of susceptors in Infants baptisme, and the interrogations, and questions that were put to them, or others in their stead, doth shew, that of old none but growne persons were baptized upon confession of faith, for that when Infants are baptized they must also make confession by others. I answer, if the very use of susceptors in baptisme were an argument of force against Infants baptisme of old, it might as well bee of force against the baptisme of adult persons too upon the same ground, as then in use; since they also had of old their susceptors: when Pagans desired to be baptized, they had those which instructed them before hand, and when they were baptized they presented them to baptisme, and undertooke for them also. Stories are plentifull in instances, that after that cor∣rupt custome of susceptors in baptisme came up, adult persons had susceptors as well as Infants. Epidophorus at Carthage of the Church of Fausty had the Deacon of the Church to bee his susceptor. Magdeb. hist. cent. 5. c. 6. Justinian the Emperour was surety for Gethes King of the Herulians, when baptized, and divers others the Centurists mention as do other Historian; nor doth it follow because such confessions, and answers were made by such as brought Infants to bee baptized, that therefore it argues onely adults used to bee of old baptized, rather it argues that of old it was the doctrine of the Church, that Infants were baptized prin∣cipally in others right, which offered them to baptisme, namely,

their godly parents, or such as tooke them as their owne adopted children, to bring them up in Gods feare. Hence even after the corrupt and abusive practise of susceptors came up; Stories are not wanting to tell us of Christian parents which were susceptors to their owne children: witnesse the Story mentioned by Fabian in his 5th. book c. 114. Andovera wife to Chilpericus having a little daughter born in her husbands absence did by the perswasions of the Bishop Fredegrand become witnesse to it her self at its baptisme. The Centurists mention the same Story out of Ganguinus. Hence also Austin in his 14th. Sermon upon the words of the Apostle, speaking of Infants Baptisme saith, if baptisme profit the bapti∣zed, I demand whom it benefiteth, the beleeving or the unbe∣leeving? but God forbid I should say that Infants are not belee∣ving, I have but now disputed it before. Hee beleeveth in ano∣ther which sinneth in another, scil. in the parents which alone con∣vey sinne to the Infant: It beleeveth then and it's baptisme is valid, and it's joyned to the faithfull formerly baptized. This the au∣thoritie of the Church our mother holdeth: This doth the sure Canon (or rule) of truth obtaine.

Thus far forth then it was looked at as a doctrine not onely which the Church had in it, but which the Scripture, the rule of truth contained in it: that in the businesse of Baptisme at least the faith of such as conveyed sinne to the child, even of the pa∣rents, was in stead of its owne personall faith, so farre as to make its baptisme valid and beneficiall to it.

SECT. IIII.

THe next witnesse is Arnobius upon the Psalmes, which Perkins putteth at the yeere 290. but because Perkins in Praepar. ad Demon. Probl. and Rivet in his Crit. sac. makes it a spacious booke as mentioning on Psal. 119. the Pelagian heresie which came up above sixscore yeeres after Arnobius his time, I shall not attempt to fight against a shadow. Albeit the place being of the way of Adults Baptisme concludeth nothing against what wee main∣taine.

Ludovicus Vives is the next who in his notes upon Austin de Ci∣vitate Dei l. 1. (cap. 26. saith the Treatise, but it's rather) cap. 27 as Hen. Den. more truely quoteth it, affirmeth that in times past

no man was brought to bee baptized but those that were come to their full growth,

who having learned what it concerned de∣sired

the same: But whether hee that lived but in Henry the eighths dayes, or Austin whom hee expounds which lived above twelve hundred yeares agoe, had better reason to know what was done of old, let any sober minde judge.

To the same purpose Walefrid Strabo who lived about the yeare 800. seemeth to speake, but Origen who was in the yeare 201. ac∣cording to Osiander, or 230. according to Perkins and Ʋsher, hee mentions Paedobaptisme as from the Apostles, as well as Austin doth. And so doth the Milevitan councell in the yeare 402. (ac∣cording to Wolfius) say as much, that the Catholique Church hath alwayes understood Infants to bee defiled with Adams sinne, and according to the rule of faith to bee on that ground (name∣ly amongst others, for it's knowne sundry other gounds were of old urged for Paedobaptisme, as that Matth. 19. 13, 14, 15. Suffer, &c. For of such, &c. urged in Tertullians time 200. yeares before, as appeares by his assaying to take off that ground in his booke De Baptismo before mentioned) baptized. See the 1. Tome of Councells.

SECT. V.

THe next witnesse is Bucer in his Annotat. upon the 4th. of John, set out Anno 28.

So much as in the Apostolicall writings are written of baptisme, is apparent that baptisme was administred to none by the Apostles, but to those of whom concerning their regeneration they made no doubt, &c.

I have looked that very booke (and a booke distinct from his greater booke on the Evangelists) and there is no such words; It's a meere forgery. Bucer is againe cited Proposion 6th. saying that Christ hath no where plainly commanded that children should bee baptized. If the speech had been just thus, yet it's evident his Intent was not that children ought not to bee baptized by vertue of Gods command, which is the direct conclusion subscribed to in the explication of it at Wittenberg by him and others, as be∣fore: but that the command was not in so many words expressed, but by necessary consequence to bee concluded. His booke inti∣tuled The groundworke and cause, I have not, though like testi∣monies have been answered before.

SECT. VI.

THe next is Ruffinus in his exposition upon the Symbol, that those at Rome and Aquila that were to bee baptized must

first acknowledge and confesse the 12. Articles of the Creed. Here Ruffinus is as one against Paedobaptisme. By others when Origens authoritie is urged upon Rom. 5. for Paedobaptisme, then it is spu∣rious and the words of Ruffinus. Now how should one behave himselfe amidst this contradiction of the antipartie? Well, wee shall ward off both Blowes as they come God willing. As for this testimony, as much is in the Treatise and the same place brought out of Austin in his 8th. Booke of Confessions, that albeit the Au∣thors conceale the name of the place where Victorinus was to have made confession of the faith, as the custome was; namely, at Rome. Yea but how then saith Austin lib. 4 cont. Donat. cap. 13. 14. that it was ever the use of the Churches, and that delivered from the Apostles to baptize Infants? Verily both are subordinates and not contraries. According to the subjects mentioned, if spea∣king of Adults, then the former is true; if of Infants, then the latter is as true. Albeit it's as true after the custome then in use in Ruffinus his time that Infants did make confession by their sure∣ties; as according to God they did and doe now confesse their faith (so farre as concerneth their baptisme) in their parents: even as every man (Deut. 16. 17.) giving as hee was able, their males which personally there appeared came not before the Lord empty, not any of them but gave, scil. in their parents offering for them.

CHAP. VII. SECT. I.

HIs proofes out of Popish writers, as Eckius mentioned in proofe of that and of the 7th. Proposition; Rossensis, Cocletus, Ennusius and Staphylus to which some adde Bellarmine, I doe not much regard, because they can play Legerdemaine, fast and loose with a trick that they have. If they dispute against Calvinists about the sufficiency of Scripture, or validitie of humane traditions, then Paedobaptisme is a tradition of the Church: If against Anabaptists, then Eckius in his En∣chiridion here cited▪ hath his foure Scripture arguments to prove it to bee of Scripturall authoritie and foundation. For Bellar∣mine, hee hath in his book of Baptisme cap. 8. 3 arguments from Scripture for it. And although, saith hee, wee doe not find it commanded expresly that wee should baptize Infants. Tamen id

colligitur satis aperte ex scripturis ut supra ostendimus — Yet it is to bee gathered plainly enough from Scriptures (saith Bellarmine) as wee have before shewed. Wherefore of such if I may say as hee bluntly once spake to his companion: If they can with the same breath blow hot and cold, let them even eate porridge with the devill if they will, I like not their falshood.

SECT. II.

OF Lutherans, Pomeranus is quoted whose booke of children un∣borne I cannot meet with, and so cannot trace my Authors here: And in such a case as they say, Travailers and Souldiers may lie by authoritie when none can contradict them. But yet what sayes Dr. Pomeranus? that for the space of 1200. yeares men erred concerning children, the which wee cannot (yet willingly would) baptize; what his intent is by these words of his cannot well bee gathered. If hee intend it of all sorts of children, that it is an errour to baptize all without regard to their parents, Church or covenant estate: yet was it an old errour: albeit not so old, so farre as I can finde. But if it should bee taken in reference to children visibly in the covenant, I wonder if hee should speake any such thing in that sense having so solemnely subscribed to the contrary in that famous meeting at Wittenberg formerly men∣tioned.

SECT. III.

CAlvin that grand opposer and stigmatizer of Anabaptists is quoted to confirme Proposition 6. and 8th. lib. 4. Instit. cap. 16.

Hee confesseth that it is no where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists, that any ones child was by the Apostles hands baptized.

Now Calvin having said Sect. 8. that there is none which seeth not that Paedobaptisme is not of humane devising which is established by such Scripture approbation, brings it in by way of objection, that it will bee said, it's no where expresly mentioned where the Apostles baptized children, which giving albeit not granting hee saith,

Bee it so, &c. yet because neither were they excluded as oft as mention is made of baptized families, who unlesse hee bee mad will thence reason that they were not baptized? they may as well reason on that ground that women were forbid to receive the Supper, when notwithstanding in the Apostles time they were thereunto admitted.

Yet our Authors are so madde to bring this very place to prove their 6th. Proposit.

that the Apostles never baptized any Infants. And upon Matthew, Calvin is said to say, Christ hath no where commanded to baptize Infants. But on what place in Matthew, Calvin saith so is not said; but this I can say that in the most likely places where that Argument of baptisme is handled, Calvin no where speaketh in these words here expressed as farre as I can finde.

Dathenus in his Colloquie is the next witnesse, confessing; It's no where plainely in such words written that Christian children shall in the New Testament bee baptized — and yet wee have no expresse commandement of it, scil. as before in so many words; You shall baptize children: and that there is no evident — or ex∣presse example (scil. in so many words recorded that the Apostles baptized (such or such) children) and what then? therefore Christ never instituted, the Apostles never practised Paedobaptism, according to the 6th. Proposition? Non sequitur. Here then are three more witnesses abused.

CHAP. VIII. SECT. I.

ORigen calleth childrens baptisme a ceremony and tradi∣tion of the Church, Hom. 8. in Levit. and in Rom. 6. lib. 5. What, doth Origen say so in both places? that is false. In the former hee saith baptisme is given to In∣fants according to the first observation of the Church. But if any boggle at that, in the other place quoted hee telleth you the groundworke of that observation of the Church: For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give baptisme even to Infants. If it were an Apostolicall tradition, then not a bare Church tradition: if the Church received it from the Apostles, then was not the Church the Author of it, but the Apostles rather. Yea but others perceiving the force of the Testi∣mony of so early an author in the matter of the practise of Paedo∣baptisme, casheere it as a spurious testimony of some other rather then of Origen. Some stumble at the word Tradition, when yet it's no other then what Basil speaking (as before quoted) of the forme of Baptisme calleth it a tradition; and in his 73. Epistle speaking of the Spirit the comforter as placed in equality with the Father and Sonne to bee a thing which they had received as deli∣vered to them. So Justin Martyr another author formerly cited

maketh the forme of that manner of worship mentioned in his second Apology to bee that which they had received from the Apostles. So Gregory Nazianzen another quoted Author here: in his first oration against Julian the Apostate, hee inveigheth against that abusive imitation of the Church traditions (the manner of administration of the ordinances) for Pagan uses. Clemens Alex∣andrinus a speciall Author quoted by Mr. B. yet hee counteth it a metamorphosing of a Christian to kick against the tradition of the Church, and warpe to opinions of humane heresies, lib. 7. Stromaton. Hee meanes not bare Popish superstitious Church cu∣stomes, but such as are opposite to meere humane conceits and devices, yet calleth them Church traditions. Yea but those cor∣rupt exploded Canons are yet called the Apostles Canons. They are so by Papists, not so by Protestants. Such, all those orthodox Divines may explode them; yet maintaine this as an Apostolicall tradition, which is genuine and divine — Yea but it may bee said that Erasmus noteth in his Praecognita unto the Booke of Le∣viticus that hee which readeth this worke (scil. the Homilies up∣on Levit.) and the Enarration upon the Epistle to the Romans, hee is uncertaine whether hee reade Origen or Ruffinus: And the peroration of the Translator annexed to the commentary of the Romans saith that hee added something defective (whereof yet hee had the fundamentalls from the Author) and abbreviated other things too largely expressed in the Commentaries upon the Ro∣mans, Leviticus, Genesis, Exodus, Joshua and Judges. Suppose these additions of things defective by Ruffinus; yet hee saith hee had the foundations of what hee added from Origen. So that Origen gave such foundations of Paedobaptisme, if Ruffinus added that as gave occasion to it; but why is not this particular mentioned as Origens rather then Ruffinus his notion? Because Origen was somewhat Pelagianisticall, and this place touching baptizing In∣fants in respect of originall sinne was too crosse to Pelagianisme. This is new to mee that Origen held that errour, albeit hee were not free of others: but I have read more said of Ruffinus that way, scil. that hee was the forerunner of Pelagius. If on that ground it was not Origens, much lesse was it Ruffinus his owne dictate. And Erasmus denieth not but all there mentioned must bee fathered upon either Origen or Ruffinus. But to put an end to this dispute, the Homilies on Luke are not questioned to bee Origens; neither doth Erasmus nor the Translator in the peroration mentioned

acknowledge either additions or detractions in setting forth of those Homilies on Luke. Yet there Origen affirmeth to the sub∣stantiall•• mentioned in that place of the Romans; for in his 2. Tom. Hom. lib. 14. on Luke hee saith; parvuli baptizantur, &c. and little children are baptized unto remission of sins; of what sins, or when did they sinne, or how can there bee any occasion of washing in little children, unlesse in that sense of which wee spake a little before? None is cleane from blemish, no though but a day old in the earth, and because the defilement of our Na∣tivitie is put away by baptisme; therefore even little children are baptized: Nor doe I finde in our Criticks, or the Authors quo∣ted by them, that these Homilies of Origens on the Romans are doubted of, to bee genuine: Albeit both Perkins and Rivet doe reject those on Leviticus, as spurious, and his Commentaries on the Romans as not faithfully translated by Ruffinus.

The next witnesse is called upon to come in, but miscalled and therefore may chuse whether hee will answer to his name. It is one Pope George the fourth who should call it a Tradition of the Fathers; and to shew it is no scape of the Printer hee is called out in the Roman Language, Georgius quartus Bonifacio; let children bee baptized according to the Tradition of the Fathers. Of Pope Gregory I have oft heard and read, but cannot light of one Pope George. But it's supposed the Authors meant Pope Gregory the fourth; albeit the Translators mistooke their Authors. This Pope flourished Ann. 842. and it's not much what hee had called it, in those corrupt times. Wee have heard of others which gave better Language that were his Seniors; and if you would beleeve but the Testimony of Gregory the first, who had more honesty in him then all the rest of that name, but wee have witnesses enough besides, and shall forbeare him.

SECT. II.

THe next Author called in is Cyprian, which is rather challen∣ged as an Author of Paedobaptisme, Anno 248. Epist. lib. 3. Ep. 8. for in the Margin it's said, Cyprian ordained children should be baptized: and yet also it is said in the Margin over against the men∣tion of the Carthaginian Councell, Baptisme Instituted; & again above: Baptisme ordained by Pope Innocentius, scil. the first, and yet over against Pope Innocent the third Baptisme ordained in stead of Circumcision, and yet over against the mention of the

second Bracarensian Councell it is said Anno 610. was childrens Baptisme ordained as a necessary thing; so that I am at a stand. I thought wee should have heard who instituted or ordained bap∣tisme of Infants since it is cast as a mystery of the man of sinne in the preface, and made a humane ordinance Proposit. 7. And it hath so many first fathers, and so many are challenged for beget∣ting this pretended Bastard, that with all the skill I have, I know not at whose doore to lay it. If that Cyprian were the father of it, then not Innocentius the first, or the Carthaginian or Milevitane Councell gathered in his time above 150. yeeres after; If the fifth or sixth Carthage Councell, then not the second Bracarensian Councell above 200. yeeres after that: If either of these, then not Innocent the third 600. yeares after the Bracharensian Councell. The like might bee said of the Constitutions of Justinian and Leo the Emperour, which hee mentions. But if the Treatise intend that these all or any of them did reestablish Paedobaptisme; al∣beit they were not the Authors of it: wee are agreed. But this proveth not that what they doe ratifie, or because any of them doe anathematize such as deny it as the Milevitane Councell did, that therefore it is an humane ordinance. The Milevitane Councell in the Anathema they pronounce, they mention that as another ground: Of such as deny that Infants derive any origi∣nall guilt of sinne which needeth expiation by baptisme, as well as denying that Infants baptisme is for remission of sinnes: Now none will say, originall guilt in Infants is a meere humane in∣vention and device without warrant from Scripture, because that Councell anathematizeth such as deny it. Or that because that Justinian ordaines that those that are come to their full growth should bee taught before they were baptized, as well as hee doth order Paedobaptisme to bee; that therefore the former is an hu∣mane ordinance. Surely if that such a ratification bee a formalis ratio to make the former an humane ordinance, it is as well such in the latter. Wee speake not now in reference to Scripture grounds of the one or of the other, but of the validity of argu∣ing from decrees of Councells or Emperours or Popes. And this mindeth mee of such like Testimony of witnesses examined a lit∣tle before. Cassander hee must say, Paedobaptisme came in 300. yeeres after Christ. Luther, that it came in 1000. yeeres before him, scil. above five hundred yeeres after Christ. Pomeranus 1200. yeeres before him (who was contemporary with Luther) and so

more then 300. yeers after Christ; and yet Cyprian at Ann•• 248. ordained it. Witnesse Austin, Epist. 28. to Hierome. Justus Me∣nius too I thinke commeth in for the same purpose, albeit he saith nothing in the Booke, (the same Justus Menius which with the rest subscribed to Paedobaptisme, as commanded of God, at the Wittenberg Concord before mentioned.) But where shall wee fa∣sten but conclude that in as much as the witnesses disagree, their Testimonies are not valid, but the one weakneth the other, since if one speake nothing but the truth, the other doth not? If the Authors intent bee that some of these Authors or Councells pro∣pounded some unwarrantable motives to ratifie Paedobaptisme: I goe not about to cleare any of the sonnes of men from corrup∣tion in what they attempt, nor in the motives which stirre them up oft times to things in themselves warrantable. But this will not reach their maine ayme, s••il. to prove that because of some corruptions in the manner and way or motives of ratifying this ordinance of God, it should bee no ordinance of God. Non sequi∣tur. But because Cyprians Epistle to Fidus where the 66. African Bishops did in a solemne Councell agree to the ratifying of Paedo∣baptisme; it is many wayes undermined thereby to invalidate our proofes from antiquitie for Paedobaptisme: I shall indeavour to cleare it from such aspersions. First, Mr. B. attempts to make the judgement of the Councell invalid because of the weaknesse of their grounds, and the Errors annexed. Weake grounds. 1 That Luke 19. 10. as if lost if not baptized, which was also an errour. 2 That God is a like father to all — and so all to bee baptized as well as any, which was an errour too. 3 That they had onely sinned in others. Errours also then held; that the holy Ghost was received by baptisme, that Infants were to have the Lords Supper in Epist. de Lapsis, they held signing with the Crosse, Un∣ction, that Originall sinne was done away by it; that onely bap∣tized persons escaped Damnation, &c. By all which hee would have it evident that no heed is to bee given to Cyprians time when there were such grosse errors about baptisme. To which I Answer, if that the times were so grosse and darke, then no wonder they might hold forth such weake arguments for the truths they held. If Mr. B. had well traced antiquitie, and should in his reading still keepe this principle by him, to reject all hee reades of as unsound in Authors or councells because of weake grounds they give; hee would soone reject the most of what many approved Authors

for soundnesse amongst the antients doe hold forth, and what ma∣ny councells have ratified. Hee that would weigh their wild ex∣positions of Scripture, and Allegories and Judaizing notions which oft times they bring, would as well question from thence either baptisme or the Lords Supper to bee any ordinances now at all to us, as the Sectaries doe. Let us blesse God for clearer times, but not despise any truth from any for the weaknesse of those earthen vessels which hold it out to us. You would thinke him too censorious it may bee which comming to heare some Coblers or Taylours in England to preach, who having good Texts and being happily honest in the maine, yet make very sim∣ple worke of it both in their wild expositions of Scriptures, and weak, yea erroneous grounds which they make use of to confirme the Text or doctrine truely gathered from it. As for their errours it doth not appeare from all Mr. B's quotations that all the 66. Bishops held them all, if Cyprian himselfe did. But what if Ter∣tullian adde prayer for the dead to the baptisme of adult persons, as in the place quoted De Corona Militis before appeared, yea un∣ction, crossing, &c. (as Crispin in his booke of the estate of the Church fathereth these upon him) yet will it follow that ergo baptizing of adult persons upon confession is no ordinance of God? no you will say because the Scripture warrants it; so say wee it warrants paedobaptisme. But wee are now without re∣ference to Scripture upon a Topick place of argument drawne from humane testimony. If the errours of the witnesse to the one makes his testimony invalid, then doe the errours of the other. Yea even those errours which Cyprian held about doing away sin by baptisme, unction and crossing in it, damnation being lost without it: the receiving of the spirit by baptisme, &c. they held them in the point of baptisme indefinitely, whether of growne persons or others: so that Baptisme of adult persons for those errours may bee denied as held out in Cyprians time in the maine, or any ordinance as well as Paedobaptisme. And Cyprians testimo∣ny is vaine in the one as well as the other, as also his Mr. Tertulli∣ans was. Yet Mr. B. urgeth in his preface Cypr. De Baptis. Haeret. for his purpose. If hee held that all sorts should bee baptized, so have our fathers held that all sorts should come to the Lords Sup∣per, when yet onely visible Saints should. Yet the Lords Supper is an ordinance to adult persons visibly in Covenant with God and his people, and not scandalous, and so is baptisme of Infants

of Parents in visible covenant with God, &c. notwithstanding the errour superadded, or that other of Infants comming to the Lords Table, &c. As men may superadde to Christ the foundati∣on, wood, hay and stubble of their owne, which will all bee con∣sumed, yet the foundation remaine pretious and supporting, 1 Cor. 3. So men may and have superadded to the ordinance of baptisme both of adult and Infants, and so to that of the Lords Supper and other ordinances much Stubble of their owne vaine spirits and mens inventions, yet that hinders not but that such things were in use in their Times, and rightly, in respect of the maine held out by them; and as sitting in Moses chaire wee may and ought to heare them, notwithstanding their owne errours an∣nexed.

But Mr. Blackwood hath another evasion, as if this Epistle of Cyprianus to Fidus bee upon some grounds to bee suspected to bee supposititious. As 1. In that Pamelius mentions not of what place Fidus was. Answ. No more doth hee mention there of what place Victor or Therapius was; yet Therapius of the three being a chiefe man and called to the Carthage Councell is mentioned by his place De Bulla. Hee was reckoned with men therefore in that Epistle whose place is described, and that sufficeth. He was known to them, albeit not to us. 2. In that there is such weaknesse in the arguments not likely to come from 66. Bishops. Answ. What wonder if their grounds were so weake (if so they bee) since Mr. Blackwood hath before told us what an evill time Cyprians was? and if they were so full of errours as hee said before about baptisme, is it wonder that they are so weake in their principles about it? I could answer this weake reason otherwise, but since Mr. B. giveth us that answer, let him take that; and I cannot but minde him of that Councell at Carthage a little after which assembled to esta∣blish rebaptizing of persons led aside into heresies, yet againe re∣turning to the orthodox Churches; but upon what weake gounds let even Mr. B. consider and judge, yet none therefore questions whether ever there were such a councell. 3 Mr. B. saith there is no mention made at what place this Synod met. Ans. As if sto∣ries mentioned no Synods and those genuine, but such as the ve∣ry place where the councell met is also mentioned, I shall there∣fore give amongst others one instance, out of Osiander in his Exit. hist. eccles. centur. 4. li. 3. c. 13. where hee citeth out of Hillary an orientall orthodox Synode, of Bishops gathered against that Ser∣miensian

and more then Semi-arrian Synod, whose Canons are there recorded of which they did agree; but as for the place or Citie where that Synod was held, that is not to be found. 4 Saith Mr. B. it appeares that it was fained because so contrary to the minde of Tertullian, which was in such request with Cyprian. Ans. If it were Tertullians mind which Mr. B. supposeth, yet Jerom who could speake as much as Mr. Blackwood mentioneth, and doth (as I remember in his booke of Ecclesiasticall writers) affirme from a very aged mans mouth living in his time who had beene in his younger dayes Cyprians Scribe how deare Tertullians workes were to him, yet Jerome did not thinke that therefore this Epistle was none of Cyprians: For hee himselfe (who yet in that booke menti∣oned leaveth out bookes then accounted spurious of severall au∣thors) quoteth this very Epistle in his 20. Tom. lib. 3. Dialog. con∣tra, Pelag. ad finem. And lest (saith hee) thou shouldst thinke mee in an hereticall sense to understand this (speaking before of the use of Paedobaptisme) that blessed Martyr Cyprian whom thou boastest thy selfe to imitate in expounding Scriptures, in the Epi∣stle hee wrote to the Bishop Fidus (Jerom calls Fidus a Bishop, he treatise stileth him but a Priest) concerning baptisme of Infants; hee maketh mention of this, &c. Paedobaptisme. 5 Saith Mr. B. it appeareth from Baronius that Cyprian was against Paedobap∣tisme, who saith if Cyprian had been so that that had been an apostolicall Tradition (speaking saith Mr. B. of Infants bap∣tisme) and not contrary to holy Scriptures by sound and sin∣cere opinion, without doubt hee had rested.

Ans. I shall let Mr. B. please himselfe a little in this fancy: suppose then Cardinall Baronius saith so, yet Mr. B. hath a∣mongst other exceptions here charged against Cyprian: that in Cyprians time Infants did partake of the Lords Supper, and will any follow that? Cyprian in his Epistle de lapsis, speaking of the wickednesse of those w^ch sacrificed at the heathen Altars, he aggra∣vates their sinne that their Infants they carried in their armes or led in their hands, lost that which they had gotten in the begin∣ning of their birth: when the day of judgement comes they will say wee have done nothing: neither did we leaving the meate and the cup of the Lord, hasten willingly to profane defilements, &c. Thus farre Mr. B. out of Cyprian. Then it seemes in Cyprians time Infants were partakers of the Lords Supper as well as of baptism, that birth wherein they had first got that which at the heathen

Altars they lost, scil. that good they got by it, which Sacramen∣tally was their birth, that is, new birth, for they rather added to what they got in their naturall birth, scil. sinne, then lost at these sacrifices. If in this Epistle Infants baptisme bee thus intimated, why saith Mr. B. a little before (as a ground of his challenge of his Epistle to Fidus) that he findes it mentioned but once; he found what was in this Epistle de Lapsis too, why else mentioneth hee the same? and if both were the errours of Cyprian, and the rest then Cyprians judgement was for it surely albeit it is supposed hee erred in it; and why then is Baronius brought in to prove it was not Cyprians judgement, when Mr. B. hath assayed to prove it that it was his errour? was that the errour of Cyprians judge∣ment the which he never held? but yet let us heare what Baronius can say to it. Now I confesse Baronius hath this passage verbatim which Mr. B. quoteth; onely he hath not Mr. B's Parenthesis (that it was spoken of Infants Baptisme) the Page is a little mistaken, it is not Page 398. but Page 415. but Mr. B. is quite out in this ap∣plication of that passage, which is mentioned in reference onely to the controversie about the baptisme of heretiques which hee wresteth grossely as if intended of the matter of baptisme of In∣fants; and if Mr. B. had but read Baronius a few lines before, hee would never thus have in print falsified an authors Testimony. Baronius discoursing about Traditions brings in Pope Stephen using that weapon in the case of baptisme of heretiques against Cyprian, who erred therein, scil. that it being by tradition received that the Baptisme of heretiques might in case bee valid, nothing should bee acted contrary to that tradition; as it was by Cyprian and the other Bishops with him (nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est) aga∣tur, scil. (saith Baronius quoting Stephens words) and after sub∣joyneth. If Cyprian had been sure (that) scil. that doctrine menti∣oned about the validitie of Heretiques baptisme) had been an A∣postolicall tradition (as Stephen urgeth it to bee) and not con∣trary to holy Scriptures, according to sound and sincere opini∣on, without doubt (saith Baronius) hee had rested in it, and for this end hee quoteth Cyprians 74. Epistle ad Pompeium contra Epist. Steph. as opening the case intended, where Cyprian himselfe wri∣teth that fragment of Stephens Epistle nihil innovetur, &c. as urged against him in the businesse of the baptisme of Heretiques, and Eu∣seb. lib. 7. eccles. cap. 2. and 3. speakes of the case betwixt Stephen and Cyprian out of Letters of Dionysius Alexandrinus about it; citing

it as the great question then moved, scil. whether such as returned from any heresie should bee purged by baptisme. In that the cu∣stome was to receive such onely by prayer and imposition of hands. And addes cap. 3. that Cyprian hee held that such as retur∣ned from errour were no other way to bee purged then by bap∣tisme: But Stephen mentioned that nothing in this case should be innovated besides that old tradition, scil. of receiving such againe onely by prayer and imposition of hands, where Mr. B. compa∣ring the place in Baronius with this in Eusebius, may fully satisfie himselfe in his printed errours. But to come yet closer, verily Stephen Bishop of Rome that was so inraged against Cyprian, for that he brought in that innovation of rebaptizing persons that were baptized by heretiques: that hee writ hee would have no Church communion with such as did rebaptise all sorts of here∣tiques (as you may perceive by the Epistle of Dionysius to Xistus Ste∣phens successour, Euseb. l. 7. c. 3, 4, 5.) hee would have expressed as much violence against Cyprian and his Bishops with him for that which they determined in the case of Paedobaptisme if that had beene accounted an innovation in those times, or contrary to Apo∣stolicall tradition as hee thought the other was: or that as the treatise would assay to prove from Ruffinus upon the Symboll, that the custome at Rome was to baptize such as made confession of the articles of the Symbol; and so not Infants; no assuredly it was otherwise in Rome, then they baptized Infants as well as others, else Cyprian had heard of it to purpose from this Roman bishop, and besides the story of Lucius and Elcutherius long be∣fore Stephens time sheweth, what was the practise at Rome: surely how ever some snapper at Origens Testimony (who was about 20. yeeres before this) for saying Infants baptisme was delivered to the Church from the Apostles, yet if it had beene thought other∣wise in Cyprians time, within a while after; other Bishops would have withdrawne the right hand of fellowship for innovating contrary or besides Apostolicall Tradition.

But to returne to Mr. B. if hee scruple Cyprians Epistle to Fidus, hee may I thinke satisfie himselfe if hee consider Jeroms testimony, for it in the forequoted place. Also that testimony for it from the fifth Councell of Carthage, viz. Chap. 6. citeth this Epistle of Cyprian ad Fidum; so doth Austin often not onely in his 28th. Epistle to Jerome, but Sermon the 14. upon the words of the A∣postle, so in his first booke de pecc. merit. & remiss. and in his third

booke also c. 5. hee citeth that Epistle against Pelagius; verily if there had been any such question imagined in those dayes of the spuriousnesse of that Epistle, Pelagius and his followers would soon have blunted that weapon as oft as sharpned against them. But some will say here is just the proverb fulfilled, Aske my fellow whe∣ther I am a theefe. Austin was as rotten and corrupt in his prin∣ciples about Paedobaptisme as was Cyprian. Cyprian looked at them as incurring eternall judgement that were not baptized, so did hee oft urging Iohn 3. 5. 6. 53. hee thought all were to bee baptized whether of beleevers or otherwise, so did Austin; hee thought Infants had faith and that because of originall sinne con∣veyed, therefore to bee baptized according to that testimony of Origens, Propter hoc, &c. For this (even because of originall sinne) they must be baptized, &c.

To this I answer as before, admit Austin held out that upon Cor∣rupt grounds, so did he hold the administration of Baptisme to adult persons upon grounds of necessitie thereof to salvation and purging away sin, yea & the Lords Supper too as so necessary to growne persons (John 6. 53.) also, yet none will make these or∣dinances therefore nullities or no ordinances; truth is no lesse truth, because a weake scholler taketh unsafe mediums to confirme or prove the same.

Yet I adde two things, 1. That the authors urged by Antipaedo∣baptists use like language and argument. Justine calleth it new birth, and saith wee bring them to the water and they are New∣borne as wee are, that is baptized, (and per hoc lavacrum remissionem peccatorum praeteritorum adipiscamur, fiamus filii scientiae) and that wee become the sonnes of knowledge and obtaine remission of sinnes past by baptisme, &c. Clemens Alexandrinus calls it a washing whereby wee wipe away our sinnes, grace whereby the punishments due to our sinnes are forgiven paedag. l. 1. Gregory Na∣zianzen calls it baptisme, because sinne is buried in the water: so he calls it the key of heaven, the casting away of the flesh, the loo∣sing of our bonds, the taking away of slavery, &c. in his 40. orat. de baptismo: So Basil, yea these authors use like grounds for baptisme. Justine useth that from the necessitie of it from John 3. 5. and this hee speaking of baptisme addes.

Rationem ejus rei hanc accepimus ab Apostolis: Quoniam prima nativitas, &c. Wee have received from the Apostles, this as a reason of this thing; because that our first nativity (scil. native corruption) commeth

upon us neither knowing nor willing it, from the fellowship of our parents and from their seed, &c.

Justine and those with him lived not in the Apostles times, yet he received this he saith from them that is delivered by them to others after them, and from those others to them. And what reason is that delivered thus as a ground of baptisme? even that native estate of children in their parents. What is this but in effect what the author of those ho∣milies on the Romans urgeth, speaking of Davids being conceived in sinne, &c.

Propter hoc & ecclesia traditionem ab apostolis accepit parvulis baptismum dare, &c.

and the same is used by Origen, hom. 14. on Luke by Cyprian Epistle ad Fidum, by Austin, Jerom, Ambrose. The same used by Gregory orat. de baptismo, thou (scil. art to hast to baptisme) as being in danger if not more but from hence: being borne onely in corruption or in sinne. The same urgeth the Milevitan Councell. Tertullian de baptismo urgeth John 3. 5. for baptisme also. So as Austin and others urge it upon the ground of danger to unbaptized persons; so doth Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 40. not to stay to Christs yeares because of danger of mortality. Yea better Infants bee sealed without sense thereof, then die with∣out the seale. And hee also as well as Austin makes the case of In∣fants dying without baptisme to bee punished with paena damni albeit not with paena sensus, ibid. Basil in his exhortation to hast to baptisme useth the same argument taken from the danger of death without baptisme; yet in them any naevi in this way are overloo∣ked, and their testimonies not therefore invalid. 2 I say that al∣beit that Austin and others for Paedobaptisme used some unsafe grounds, yet others they used were to us solid, as that from cir∣cumcision, l. 4. cont. Donat. c. 23, 24. and Epist. 108. Seleucianae l. 2. de peccat. merit. & remiss. c. 25. that of their parents faith, whence notwithstanding want of faith in themselves, it became a bene∣ficial ordinance, Serm. 14. upon verb. Apostoli: that of their interest in the Covenant which Christ came to fulfill in the flesh; hence that in the Epistle of the Carthaginian Councell (in Austins time) unto Innocent the first; Nos quia credimus parvulos in peccato nasci, &c. prae∣terea quia credimus filium dei pure ex illibata virgine natum ad implen∣das confirmandasque dei (promissiones) quae Infantes non excludant a sa∣lute, sed in faedere includunt, deo eos baptizandos esse contendimus. This that I have here recited may serve further to evince the guile of the treatise, quoting this Epistle Proposition 7. adding the words (much rather) thus [but much rather includeth Infants]

which is manifest injury; likewise it appeares by Tertullians answer, in way of glosse upon Matth. 19. 13, 14. Let them come to mee, &c. that that was of old held forth as a ground of Paedo∣baptisme. In a word, the command, mind, and institution of Christ and his Apostles was also held out of old by Austin and others as the ground thereof; which they meane when they say, the Church received it from the Apostles, Homil. in Rom. 5. & Austin contr. Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23, 24. Milevitan Councel, Can. 2. and Austin de Genesi ad literam, lib. 10. cap. 23. saith,

else it were not to bee credited or received if it were not an Apostolicall tradition.

So hee saith againe in his third Epistle ad Volus.

Therefore then they baptized persons because to them it was an Apostolicall Tradition. That is it which was without all doubt delivered by the Lord and by his Apostles;

As Austin further openeth himselfe, lib de pec. merit. & remiss. cap. 26. Charitie then I think should over looke other their more unsound tenents, or arguments, touching Paedobaptisme. But to return to Cyprians Epistle and adde one word more for Mr. B. and others satisfaction. Let him looke upon Erasmus his owne edition of Cyprian, Anno 1541. and hee shall see that Erasmus who was very Eagle eyed to espy spurious writings, or passages of the Ancients, and there excepteth against many things going under Cyprians name, yet no word of his against Cyprians 59. Epist. ad Fidum: No more doth Mr. Perkins in his Problemes, nor Rivet in his sa∣cred Critick; nor any critick which they quote, except against it. And here I might end these Annotations upon the 7th. Propo∣sition in this Treatise.

SECT. IIII.

BUt I meet with an old Threadbare objection to the same purpose, as if Paedobaptisme was first ordained by Higinus Bishop of Rome who lived about the yeare 1444. but all I can find in Authors is a certaine decree (ascribed to him at least) that In∣fants comming to Baptisme need not have but one god-father or god-mother, as they call them. And so much witnesseth Fascicu∣lus Temporum, and Nauclerus, vol. 1. Generat. 6. besides what I find quoted out of Gratian: but none say that he first ordai∣ned, that children should bee baptized. A like Decretall is ascri∣bed to Ʋrban Bishop of Rome, touching Childrens confirmation, about the yeere 227. Nauclerus, but not of their Baptisme, yet if

they made any such Canons it rather confirmes what wee say then weakneth our cause, scil. That Infants baptisme was in those times of use in Rome, and elsewhere: why else any orders about their Susceptors or their Confirmations?

CHAP. IX.

THe Treatise hath but one lie more to shake out of its Budget, and it's a merry one (if I may so call it) if the Reader spare a little more patience hee shall heare it. It is concerning Dyonisius in his Ecclesiasticâ rarchiâ, they would say Hierarchia, who they say confirmeth their 8th. Proposition thus.

It is ridiculous (or as the Author for expli∣cation sake addeth to bee esteemed as a jest) that the bath of regeneration should bee communicated to young children, which neither can understand nor can heare to learne the my∣steries of God.

I doe not here dispute whether this were Dyonisius the Areopagite under whose name the booke goeth, it is most like∣ly it was some other Grecian Dionysius, whether Dionysius Alexan∣drinus (Origens scholler, as some probably thinke) or some later Dionysius in the fourth or fifth Century, (as Dr. Ʋsher thinketh in his catalogue of Ecclesiastick writers) yet a Greek Author hee was and ancient: As for his words recited, they are most vilely wrested. And that which the Author of that Church Hierarchy in the 7th. Chapter ad finem brings in as an objection of another rea∣soning according to corrupt nature, the Authors of this Trea∣tise bring in as his mind; his words are these:

But that children not yet able to understand divine Mysteries should bee made per∣takers of divine generation, &c. it seemeth as thou sayest to the profane, to be worthy of blasphemous laughter, and so on:

hee doth not say it deserveth laughter, but seemeth so to doe: And that not to the godly, but to the profane. And this hee said not as his owne, but as anothers objection (as thou sayst.) And if the Authors ever had seene that booke and but read on; the Author of the Booke would presently have cleared himselfe from their er∣rour: For a little after hee addeth.

But yet of this matter, scil. Paedobaptisme just before propounded, wee also say that those our Divines and Holy Prefectors brought to us from divine and ancient Tradition. For they say that which indeed is,

that Infants according to the Law or Word of God are brought to the sacred habit (scil. to put on Christ in Baptisme) to bee purged from all errour and uncleane life, &c.

Who seeth not by this and by all the former falsehoods and lies which the Au∣thors of this Treatise have vented, that they are some Mountebank deceivers, and probably some Jesuited cheaters which would send this pack of knavery abroad to deceive the simple and unlearned Reader? And it may bee seeke to make the sad breach wider be∣twixt the professors in England by strengthning the hand of the weaker partie, the Anabaptists; so that what the authors or tran∣slators of a booke of some unknowne Author or Authors say of their Preface, scil. A mystery discovered, they meane of the man of sinne; but they have made it good rather to bee a mystery of the body of sinne, and a mystery of iniquitie discovered in them∣selves, and breaking out from them to open view, which before lay hid. And let the Treatise hereafter Ironically onely be called, The plaine and well grounded Treatise concerning Baptisme.

CHAP. X. SECT. I.

I Might now have breathed a little and rested my selfe, but that Mr. B. boldly challengeth any man to prove Infants Baptisme out of Justin Martyr, Ireneus, Origen, Clemens, Alexandrinus, or Tertullian, and after professeth hee regar∣deth no authoritie after the first 300. yeeres. And others also call for Greeke authors and Testimony out of the Greeke Churches for it. I am of small reading, I confesse, yet shall endeavour if it bee satisfaction onely that is herein sought, to present some few things this way unto the consideration of godly, sober and lear∣ned mindes, and then draw to a conclusion of the whole dis∣course; onely premising that in speaking from any of these Au∣thors; whether touching the jus or fact of Paedobaptisme; it sufficeth if either expressely or by consequence the same bee held forth by them: for this in Scripture course is allowed; when we are to prove any thing that ought to bee done or was done, either way of proofe, literall or collaterall and consequentiall sufficeth. To begin with Justin Martyr, hee in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, having spoken in way of vilifying circumcision in reference

to Jewish Idolizing of trusting in, and urging of it upon the Gen∣tiles, hee hath these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

and you indeed which are cir∣cumcised in the flesh, need our circumcision, (that is baptisme.) But we having this, have no need of that, namely as having ours (scil. Baptisme) in its stead, and addes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. wee in that wee were sinners (opposing the Gentiles to the Jewes) have by reason of the mercy of God been received, and so it is but equall to all, that all should equally receive it,

scil. Circum∣cision or Baptisme spoken of, hee maketh our Baptisme to bee in stead of their outward circumcision, and this to bee received by the Gentiles, in that sinners by reason of mercy, and this to be equall to all to bee received by them equally, meaning either all Gentiles simply: and that I think he intends not; or at least all, scil. all sorts of Gentiles, high, low, rich, poore, bond, free, male, female, babes, youths and elder ones.

Ireneus supposing the place quoted lib. 2. adversus haeres. Valenti∣niani similium cap. 39. Magister ergo existens Magistri babebat aetatem, &c.

Christ being a Master had the age of a Master, neither rejecting nor surpassing man, nor dissolving in himselfe his owne law of mankind, but sanctifying every age, by the like in himselfe, for hee came to save all, scil. (all sorts) by himselfe; all I say which are new borne unto God by him, Infants and little ones, lads and youths, and elder ones, &c.

Ireneus his judgement is, that Christ is a Master to all sorts of men, to those of all ages, Infants, youth, or elder persons, and by force of Relata then in his judge∣ment, Infants as well as adults are his Schollers or Disciples, that species of mankind, Infants as well as growne ones, albeit not all individuall Infants whatsoever, come under relation to Christ as a Master; therefore in his judgement, that sort of persons being actually Disciples (not meerely capable of it) the priviledge of Disciples, scil. Baptisme, is their due. 2. Hee judgeth that species of mankind Infants as well as others to bee actually partakers of sanctification by Christ of the new birth, &c. the thing sealed in Baptisme: therefore supposing his judgement, thus in the one; it is regular for him to judge, that that sort of mankind are to bee visibly Baptized as well as that other sort of growne ones.

Origen is next and wee have already proved supposing any ground of jealousie against that quoted place in the Romans, yet that of Luke, is of unquestionable credit touching both his judge∣ment

and practise of Paedobaptisme. Clemens Alexandrinus is next, where in his fourth booke of his Stromat. alluding to that of Job, returne, saith hee, not naked of possessions, that is common, but of sinne, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. for this is it which is said,

Unlesse being conver∣ted, ye become as little children; cleane indeed in body, but holy in soule, by abstayning from wicked workes; shewing (saith Clemens) that hee would have us such like, as hee hath begot out of the Matrix or wombe of the water, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

for generation meeting with or receiving of, or closing with generation, scil. in baptisme, will make us immor∣tall by progresse, viz. in good, &c. I deny not but Clemens allu∣ding to this place of little ones hath sometimes other applicati∣ons of it not crosse but subordinate to this, but I see not how it can otherwise bee understood, but that hee maketh a very child here the patterne as cleane in body and holy in soule (scil. Sacra∣mentally in Baptisme) according to that description in washing bodies with pure water, and heart sprinkling from an ill consci∣ence, scil. guilt of sinne, Heb. 10. 8. A periphrasis of Baptisme, un∣lesse any say, Infants are Innocents, cleane from sinne originall, and expounding whom hee meanes which here hee sets as the patterne to growne ones; hee saith, such like as are begotten in or by Baptisme (as Gensianus Hervetus on the place noteth) comparing Baptisme to the wombe out of which an Infant is borne; and so here new borne, and so the little one is the pattern to such as will bee saved: not as an Infant meerely, but as such a little one that is pure in body and soule, which here hee further explicateth, that is, such an one as is begotten againe in Baptisme. Hee speaketh not this of adult ones: they are the per∣sons that must bee such like; they cannot bee both the Patternes and the persons resembling them too, the little ones thus holy and thus new borne are the patterne which as soone as borne in a man are new borne Sacramentally in baptisme. Their generation and that their new ganeration doe as it were joyne and hang and hand together.

Concerning Tertullian if his judgement bee in some case for deferring Baptisme, yet his glosse upon that ground upon Matth. 19. (which according to him requires baptizing of the Persons so invited) is absurd, and his other expressions de Anima mentioned seeme crosse thereto, but for the practise of Paedobaptisme in his time beside•• what Origen about his time testifieth to evince it, his

own words mentioned before in the beginning of his book de Bap∣tismo, and his arguing against the practise of hasting Infants to bap∣tisme doth prove it to bee then in use.

Cyprian was within this 300. yeers, and therefore his testimo∣ny may not be slightly put by as before wee shewed, his 59. Epi∣stle ad Fidum so opposed in our cause is yet authoritative with some opposites to prove the typicalnesse of the eighth day. A∣mongst the Greeke authors called for that which is recorded to have beene urged in the councell by one of the members of that councell of Neocesarea before mentioned, touching the occasion of that Law of baptizing the woman with child come from Paga∣nisme to the faith, is of much weight, other Greek councells, as the 6th. councell of Constantinople, and Trullo, &c. are of moment also.

As for Ignatius his testimony, I doe not remember when I read it somewhile since, that hee speakes of baptisme of adult or Infants purposely; and if hee had, so many of the Epistles fathered upon him, being spurious, and the rest that may bee his, being so mix∣ed and corrupted, much heed would not bee given to his testi∣mony.

Eusebius it's knowne omitted many things of note, as where and when Justin was baptized: and the story of that famous wri∣ter Theognostus, of whom and his workes Athanasius makes menti∣on de Synod. Nic. decr. contra Arrianos, quoted by Baronius in his first Tome.

Athanasius (himself if that Question be his which some have scru∣pled) his testimony quest. 125. is full for it; for in that we thrice dip the child in water and lift it up againe it signifieth the death of Christ and his rising the third day againe, &c. the sentence be∣fore being the similitude stands thus: as Christ died and rose the third day, so wee in baptisme die and rise againe, for in that, &c. as before.

But that is undeniably his owne upon Luke 10. All things are given to mee, &c. pag. 197. hee makes baptisme to succeed cir∣cumcision, urging that proofe, Col. 2. 12. wherefore, saith he,

when that was come unto which the figure did denote, that note and figure ceaseth and resteth, for circumcision was the note (or fi∣gure) the laver of regeneration (or baptisme) is the very thing which was signified,

this is no other then the Doctrine wee hold forth: and whence by Analogy wee deduce the doctrine of Paedo∣baptism. The same also teacheth Epiphanius.

Epiphanius contra haereses, contra Epicuraeos,

there was circumcisi∣on of the flesh which served unto the time of the great circumci∣sion, scil. Baptisme, which circumciseth us from our sins, and sea∣leth us into the name of God:

and contra Corinth.

Circumcisi∣on lasted as a servant for a time untill the greater Circumcision, namely, the laver of regeneration came in stead,

and Tom. 2. l. 1.

Christ came and fulfilled circumcision, having given a perfect circumcision among his mysteries, not in one member onely but of the whole body, being sealed and circumcised from sinnes, and not saving one part of his people,

that is, men onely, but the whole people of Christians (scil. men, women and children) hee compleateth circumcision by all their circumcising from sinne in baptisme. Yea, but why then did not Epiphanius use that argu∣ment of Paedobaptism against the Collirydians as well as that taken from their interests in Gods Kingdome, &c. The answer is ready; it's likely that all those heretiques might as well as some others deny Paedobaptisme in a sense, if not wholly, and what then the argument from Paedobaptisme had been invalid; besides it's not necessary that a man in disproving errour or proving truth should use all the arguments hee hath by him; or that it bee con∣cluded hee hath no more arguments that way because hee useth them not.

What Basil said this way as I finde him quoted by Aretius on Luke 18. I have mentioned formerly, I have not time to search him and read him exactly.

What Gregory Nazianzen hath this way for us, yea if strictly ex∣pounded: how hee is ours we have seene before.

John Chrysostome which Mr. Blackwood makes his owne in his 21. Homil. to the people of Antioch, (which if not spurious as sundry of them are, see Perkins and Rivet) yet not understood exclusive. And it's much that Mr. B. that saith, pag. 31. hee regards not any authoritie after the first 300. yeares, will yet quote the Nicene Councell 325. the Laodicean Councell 308. the Constantinople Coun∣cell about 400. Basil 380. and Chrysostome 405. yeers after Christ, as of much use on his part in way of authoritie, yet saith hee will not regard any authorities (which the other party at least bring) above the limit of time. But to returne to Chrysostome, who in his 40. Homil. upon Genesis saith,

But our circumcision or grace I say of Baptisme hath cure without griefe, and brings innumerably good things to us, &c. and it hath no limited

time set as there was: but it is lawfull to receive this circumci∣sion made without hands either in our first, or middle, or last age,

and so in his homily ad Neophytos, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for this cause wee also bap∣tize little ones which have no sinne (meaning of their owne, have not committed actuall sinnes) that to them righteousnesse, holi∣nesse, adoption, inheritance and fraternitie of Christ may be com∣municated, that they may all become his members and an habita∣tion of his Spirit.

Theodoret in his Epitome of divine decrees and Cap. of baptism.

for baptism is not like a razour, as the frantique Messalians say, taking away (onely) sinnes that are past: for that God giveth in superabundantly; for if this only were the effect of baptisme, why doe we baptize infants which have not yet relished sin? for the Sacrament doth not promise onely those things but grea∣ter, for it is the pledge of future good things, and a type of future resurrection, and it is the communication of the Lords death and participation of his resurrection, the garment of sal∣vation and gladnesse. For as many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ, and as many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death, that as Christ was raised from the dead, so wee should walke in newnesse of life, and adding, haec nos de sanctissimo baptismo sentire docuit Apostolus, and the Apo∣stle hath taught us thus to hold concerning baptisme;

and makes those speeches, Gal. 3. and Rom. 6. to bee verified in Infants baptizing as well as others; and that they are baptized in respect of future good rather then present, and that the Apostle taught them so to thinke hereof. Nor is that Dionysius Graecus, who ever hee were, (albeit not the Areopagite, yea albeit having sundry mixtures in his booke) to bee wholly slighted or neglected.

SECT. II.

As for the Easterne and Greeke Churches, Cassanders testimony is very round and full, (albeit their discipline may well bee gathe∣red by their teachers and councells doctrine) speaking of testimo∣ny of Paedobaptisme he saith,

but especiall and chiefe testimo∣ny and weight of authoritie to this baptisme of Infants, is fur∣ther added, from the universall and constant custome, which unto this day in the Churches which are extant in the world, and there are many such without the limits of the Roman

Church is retained, for the Churches which are yet remaining in Greece, Asia, Syria, Aegypt, and India, and the Russians and Muscovites which follow the Greeke orders; lastly, the Aethio∣pians under the government of Prester John; I say all these Christians professing nations, although differing in some opinions, and rites, yet in the custome of baptizing In∣fants, they all of old agreed among themselves, some stating the 8. and the Aethiopians the 40. day for baptizing them, un∣lesse in the case of danger or those of the female Sex. The Russi∣ans, and Armenians baptize Infants as they doe Adults, un∣lesse that when they baptize Infants, there are witnesses; and the Indian Christians doe so likewise, for which hee quotes Jo∣sephus Judas in his Aethiopian navigations, and Franciscus Alva∣res, and it's not credible that such Churches so averse from the Latines, would yet buckle to their customes of consecrating the unleavened bread, or eating thngs strangled, or blood, that they did borrow this of Paedobaptisme (so much abhord for∣merly by them) from the Westerne Churches;

and Paget in his Christianography citeth a speech of the Bishop of Bitonto in the Councell of Trent, acknowledging of the Greeke Church thus:

ea igitur Graecia mater est, that the Greeke Church is that mo∣ther to whom the Latin owneth whatever it hath; see the acts of the Councell of Trent, pag. 18.

and hee mentions the forme of the Russians baptisme,

the Priest when hee dippeth the child useth these words in the name of the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost, and as oft as the God-fathers are asked whether they renounce the Devill, so oft they spit on the ground, Guag∣niny relig. Muscovit.

In the Greeke Church the Priest having said certaine prayers, taking the child in his armes, putteth him three times into the water saying: The servant of God N N. is baptized in the name of the Father, the Sonne and Holy Ghost.

Jerom the Patriarch pag. 103. and the same doth Thomas Aquinas observe in his third part, Quest. 6. Artic. 8. Quest. 67. Artic. 6. and Quest. 66. A•…•…tic. the 5th. And the same doth Dominic. a Sot. in quest. 1. Art. 8. te∣stifie, and let mee adde two things more; First, that the doctrine of Paedobaptisme was never ex professo opposed by any Orthodox Churches, or Christians in all the times of old, as farre as I can finde; of Tertullians mind wee have spoken before, and Gregory Nazianzen; how farre they went Auxentius the Arrian Bishop of

Millain, as Bullinger in his Decads hath it, did so, and so indeed did the Samosatenian Heretiques. The Donatists they baptized In∣fants, witnesse the 48. Canon of the third Carthaginian Coun∣cell in reference to Siritius and Simplicianus. So did other African Councels in Austins time ordaine that children baptized by Dona∣tists should not bee rebaptized; the Pelagians themselves denied it not wholly. Austin in his 14. Sermon de verbis Apostoli. baptizand•…•… esse parvulos nemo dubitet, &c. none need to doubt of baptisme since even those here doubt not, which in part doe contradict (scil. the Pelagians:) there are cases, and times wherein some one of the servants of God saw much more then many, and most did; as Athanasius, and some few more in the point of the Divinitie of Christ in that Arrian age, and Paphnutius the Confessor in the point of Ministers marriage to which the Fathers of the Nicene Councell had like to have gone contrary, and yet before and af∣ter these times, whole Churches and Councels held out as much as these Saints did.

SECT. IIII.

Object. NO such example in the opposers of Paedobaptisme; Yes, (you will say) Berengarius about a 1050. and afterwards Peter de Brucis, and the Albingenses and so the Walden∣ses, (for they had such diverse names according to places and countries in which they were scattered, &c.) they denied it, and some of them appealed to the Scriptures, and to the Greeke Church for warrant.

Answ. I deny not but that the Popish writers (as their manner is) use to brand the servants of God with some odious tenents, for which all would hate them, when that they never held the same; but that old accuser of the Brethren casteth on by his in∣struments that dirt, wash it off who can. Plateolus, Abbas Clu∣viacensis and others traded this way, concerning Berengarius and his followers. Dr. Ʋsher de successione & statu Ecclesiarum Christia∣narum, Cap. 7. pa. 207. quoteth Tbuanus accusing him and them thereof, but evinceth the contrary both in that: In all the Sum∣mons of Berengarius before the Synod wee never read hee was charged with Anabaptisme, and that hee rather denyed baptisme to profit Infants to salvation, ex opere operato, for which hee quo∣teth Alanus in his first booke against the Heretiques of his times; as saying: that baptisme had no efficacy either in Infant or grown persons, &c. and in p. 195. citeth Serarius in Triharesio — as

saying, qui hodie sunt Calvinisti, olim dicti fuerunt Berengariani, & qui hodie Protestantes dicuntur, Johanni Wendelstino (praefat. in Cod. Canonum,) novi sunt Waldenses. They then acknowledge their and our doctrine to bee the same, and therefore no Antipaedobaptists, and Gretzer prolegom. in Script. edit. contra Waldenses cap. 1. citeth this as one of their Articles of confession, credimus etiam qu••d non salvatur quis nisi qui baptizatur, viz. ordinarily, and parvulos salva∣ri per baptismum, and wee beleeve that little children are saved by baptisme, and so in the same cap. 8. doth Dr. Ʋsher cleare Peter de Brucis, and his followers from all such aspersions. They were accused too for rejecting the Old-Testament, and Evangelists, yet by Gretzer and others they are cleared as those that translated; and taught the same; and Reiner the Inquisitour said, they were so well acquainted with the old and new Testament, as that they could say much thereof by heart: the history of the Waldenses men∣tioneth this accusation of them, as if denying Paedobaptisme, but citeth a booke of the Waldenses intituled the spirituall Alma∣nack, fol. 45. to the contrary, ordering that though no time or day bee set, yet the charitie, and edification of the Church must serve for a rule therein, and therefore they to whom the children were nearest allied brought their Infants to bee baptized as their parents, or any other whom God had made charitable in that kind. True it is saith the Author of that story (scil. John Paul Peruin. of Lyons, l. 1. c. 4.) they being forced by the Popish Priest to bring their children, would delay their baptisme out of detesta∣tion of the superstitious addition: and their owne Ministers (cald Barbes) being very often (and sometimes very long) upon the Churches service, they would deferre their childrens baptisme to their returne; which delayes of theirs being observed by the Popish Priests they thence raised that report, and charged them with that imposture: they appealed to the Greeke Church, not as denying Paedobaptisme, for they held and practised it as before was shewed, but as to a Church that was not so corrupt in di∣spensing it, as not using Chrisme, crossing and exorcising; as the Latin Church did in baptizing any: See Flaccus Illiricus Catalo∣go testium veritatis, pag. 434. Waldenses semper baptizarunt Infantes, &c. the Waldenses ever used to baptize their Infants: nor doe they now hold against it; they spake not against baptisme of Infants simply, but as not administred by those of Rome in the vulgar tongue; nor doth Aeveas Sylvius in his Bohemian Story of the

Waldensian tenents, although hee bee an exact sifter into the suppo∣sed errours of the Waldenses, charge them with Antipaedobaptisme.

SECT. IIII.

BUt to returne to that first consideration, let it bee weighed ••hat as Austin long agoe said of it, Nullus Christianorum, &c. No Christians (orthodox and godly) had ever denyed Paedobap∣tisme, l. 4. Con. Donat. c. 13. Secondly, adde also this, that if it had been any way justly suspicious, why did not the Messalians whol∣ly deny it, and the Pelagians also? what need had they to use that shift of Infants to bee baptized to the kingdome of God, but not to the remission of sinnes? this argument Austin useth Serm. 14. de verb. Apost. Yea but they were affraid of the authoritie of the Church being great therein, that is strange that Heretiques that regarded not so directly to goe against, in their opinions, as well expresse letter of Scripture, as the doctrine of the Church in fun∣damentall matters, should yet bee affraid of the Church in a mat∣ter circa fundamentalia, and not so expresse in so many words as Paedobaptisme was, who will imagine such an unlikelihood? A have done with this dispute for present, onely I could advise that Mr. Blackwood, and others would bee more sparing of such printed blaspheming of the name and tabernacle of the Lord, as to stile this (which to all the Saints (in a manner) of old, and to the most that now live is of precious esteeme and use) an Antichristian Garrison, and the doctrine of the man of sinne, or of Antichrist. Mr. Blackwood I am sure doth know what is the judgement of all Orthodox Divines touching Antichrist, and who, or what it is that is so; and where hee hath his seat, and when hee had his rise. And cannot bee ignorant wholly that Paedobaptisme was of universall esteeme, and use (in a manner) long before those prophesyings and pointings out of Antichrist by many of the ancients; the Greeke Church which had not what doctrine and worship they had, and held from the Latin Church, but the La∣tine Church had it rather from them (as in the Councell of Trent was before acknowledged) and which was averse from Romish cu∣stomes; yet they held Paedobaptisme, as before was proved. It is dangerous speaking a word against the Sonne, (much more wri∣ting) albeit not so irrecoverably as to speake against the Holy Ghost; hee had need bee on good, sure and cleare grounds (if it were supposable hee could bee so) that assayes to charge God foo∣lishly

with the reasons of his covenantings, or dispensations, and so palpably as to deny that God made a Covenant of Grace with Abraham, Gen. 17. and such like inaudita. It's dangerous preten∣ding an imaginary Garrison, and in fighting against that as a supposed Garrison of Antichrist, whereon a man hazards the name and doth the worke of one which will bee found a fighter against God: wee know who would not bring a rayling accusa∣tion against the Devill, and how dare any so boldly revile such a received and ratified truth, as that of Gods exhibition, and dis∣pensation of his grace in a preventing way to those whose seed af∣ter them in Scripture Language are counted blessed. The Saints of old were very tender of speaking any thing in such a sort as tended to the condemnation of the just.

CHAP. XI.

Ʋse 1.

TO winde up all in a word of Use to all; 1. in way of in∣struction. 1. See the riches of Gods grace which thus is en∣larged to all the sorts of the sons of men younger and elder; if God would amplifie grace hee sets it out as extended to his people, as in the case of an helplesse and despicable babe, Esay 49. 14, 15. Hos. 10. 1. 3. especially Ezek. 16. 6, 7, 8. and what hath Satan here to object, Psal. 8. 1. 2. when even that sort of persons are made presi∣dents not onely of electing but calling (in way of Covenant and promise) grace? Rom. 9. 7, 8, 9, 10. To all hee is rich, and free, hence all enterers into the kingdome, must here take patterne, Luke. 18. 17. how plentifull is that sap that fills such twigs, that liquor that fills all sort of vessells of greater and lesser capacitie? how strong is that pin on whom all are hung?

2. See what honour God puts on his Saints thus to intaile the visible ordinary administration of his grace on them, and theirs, 2 Sam. 23. 4, 5.

3. See how cruell unbeleevers are to themselves and theirs in excluding themselves and theirs of the ordinary meanes of their welfare even covenant grace administred.

4. See their desperate ingratitude that being children of such hopes, despise, and sell their birthright with Esau; these doe vex their father most, Deut. 32. 19, 20.

5. See the danger and detestablenesse of Anabaptisticall tenents,

giving God and Christ (in part) the lie, vayling the glory of his preventing grace of Covenant, Numb. 11. 18. (giving such a Co∣venant call before we knew, or sought it, Esay 65. 1, 2.) framing a Covenant of God with beleeving parents which hee never made, scil. a Covenant not respecting their children; denying the ordi∣nary dispensation of the fruit of Christs death to the Infant part of his Church, Ephes. 5. 25, 26. making the Churches opposite to Christ in their administrations to those of his, in their charitie to that of his; as if hee were looser in his charitie to owne such babes as of his kingdome which his Church will not, may not doe; condemning the judgement and practise of former Chur∣ches, Jewes and Gentiles, Act. 2. 38. 39. Rom. 5. 14, 15. and 11. 16, 17, 18, 19. Ephes. 2. 11, 12, 13. 1 Cor. 7. 14. and 10. 1, 2. as preached all over Mark. 16. 15 Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. and Deut. 29. 29. with 30. 6. 10. 12, 13, 14. compared, see Austin l. 4. contr. Don. cap. 23, 24. undermining the validitie of all which God hath done by vertue of his Covenant to babes, or to any of the Saints occasio∣ning from the initiatory seale thereof, Ephes. 5. 26. evacuating all that Red-Sea-like triumphant Incouragement thence unto Gods baptized Israel against their spirituall Aegyptian enemies pursuit of them; and that Cloud-like Influence of their baptisme in scorching temptations — and Arke-like succour thereof in drow∣ning times. David did not more effectually make use of his cir∣cumcision which hee long before received (even when an Infant) against that insulting Philistim — (whence that 1 Sam. 17. — this uncircumcised Philistim is come, &c.) then many of Gods faith∣full ones have of that preventing grace of God sealed to them in baptisme when very babes, in their spirituall conflicts. But all such spirituall workings either in parents or in the Churches of the Saints (where children have beene offered to baptisme) which have beene occasioned by the administration of Baptisme to In∣fants, are made here by delusions; God not using in such sort so generally, commonly and constantly to breath in Antichristian inventions. Yea all their prayers are thereby made so many pro∣fanations of Gods name and taking the same in vaine as oft as powred out upon occasion of baptizing of Infants, whence that prophane trick of some, to turne their back upon the Churches at such time, as if all their persons, and prayers, and fellowship were uncleane, whence the stiling of it Antichristian, &c. what is this but to blaspheme the name and tabernacle and Saints of God,

Rev. 13. And how doth such doctrine undermine all the Churches of the Saints which differ from them? witnesse their new foun∣dings of their Churches in renouncing their former baptisme as antichristian and receiving another baptisme; yea how doe such cast stumbling blocks unto the comming of the Jewes by undermi∣ning of Abrahams Covenant in the latitude of it and the binding force of the old Testament, which they stick to, as if all were in∣valid unlesse come over againe in the new Testament, which they reject, and when ever dealt withall doubtlesse old Testament prin∣ciples will bee the choyce instrumentall wayes and meanes of get∣ting within them.

Ʋse 2.

Second Use of direction, 1 To Church Officers; to looke after the Churches children being children of such hopes. 2 To gracious parents; 1 Admire much at the bounty of God who is not content to ingage his grace to you, but to yours with you; you and yours are all Traytors, yet his royall word is for your and their acceptance. If that called for a Behold! Psal. 128. 3, 4, 5. and if that caused in him such holy wondring, 2 Sam. 7. 18, 19, 20. may not this also doe the like, 2 Renue your faith in Gods Covenant in the latitude of it upon occasion of the bap∣tisme of others, or your owne children in speciall sort. 3 Ac∣quaint your children with, & urge Gods mind of grace upon them as they are capable of Instruction, Psal. 78. 4, 4, 5, 6, 7. 4 To chil∣dren of pious parents; looke you doe not by abuse or contempt forfeit and reject your owne mercy, as they did, Matth. 8. 11. 12. And such as now feel & finde the force of Gods ingaged grace, for ever do you adore and admire his preventing mercy and truth.

Ʋse 3.

Third Use of comfort to beleeving parents; 1 If God overflow thus in grace to yours, will hee not extend grace to your selves? Conclude it, that hee will assuredly, against all gainesayings of Sa∣tan and unbeleefe. 2 Bee incouraged to set faith on worke for your children, as they did, Psal. 102. last; yea albeit at present vile enough; since the force of Gods covenant is such, as it can fetch them in, even when farre removed by sinne from the Lord, wit∣nesse that Ezek. 16 60. 61, 62, &c. 3 You need not feare then touching divine protection of, and provisions for them sutably and seasonably, Psal. 25. 12. Prov. 20. 7. 4 When you are to die and leave them fatherlesse and friendlesse otherwise, yet here is a Covnant Father and friend to whom you may comfortably leave them, Gen. 48. 15, 16.

Notes

• Gerhardi loc. com. loc. de baptismo.
• See Bullin∣gers Com∣mentary on 1 Cor. 17.
• Bucers ope∣ra Anglica∣na.
• Infants & sucklings were bapti∣zed as well as elder ones even before that change of the limitatiō of Baptism to Easter, and —
• The first witnesse saith flatly it was not instituted by Coun∣cells.
• Mr. B. in his Preface u∣seth the same argu∣ment.
• Anno 170. according to Balaeus, others say, Anno 173.
• Beda hist. l. 3. c. 7.
• Rupertus Tritiensis.
• Cassander.
• Zwinglius.
• Hilary.
• Ambrose.
• Arnobius.
• L••do Vives.
• Strabo.
• Melivitan.
• Bucer.
• Ruffinus.
• Greg. 4th.
• Lib. de Bap. ad finem.
• Of Iustin.
• Of Irenius.
• Of Clemens Alexandri∣nus.
• Anno 330.
• Of Athana∣sius.
• Anno 396.
• Of Epipha∣nius.
• Anno 369.
• Anno 380.
• Anno 405.
• Of Chryso∣stome.
• Anno 430.
• Of Theodo¦ret.
• Cassander de baptis. Inf. Of the Ea∣sterne and Greek Chur∣ches.