Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 89

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 89

p. 760SECT. LXXXIX. The testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Greek Church concerning Infant Baptism are examined, and my exceptions made good against Mr Cragge, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Homes, Mr. Marshal.

THe alledging of pseudo. Dionisius the Areopagite, and Clements Apostolical Constitutions, is but to abuse the world with counterfeit names, discovered by many learned Pa…ists and Pro…estants to be such, and the like is to be said of Justin Martyrs forged testimony qu. 36. ad orthodoxos: which are not rejected because questioned, as Mr. Cr. seems to intimate, but because they are by many strong evidences proved not to have been the Authors, whose names they bear. As for the evidence to matter of fa…t they give, that infants were baptized in that age …n which they were written, I do readily grant i… ▪ a…d before too; yet think it no advantage …or the present pre…ended infant Baptism, which is clean otherwise, and upon other reasons: a… particularly, that the baptized infants obtained good things at the resurrection by Baptism, but the unbaptized obtain not good things. Nor is there a word in that to confirm the novel doctrine of the childrens right to Baptism, as being in Covenant with the parents. For neither are the parents there said to be believer…, but the bringers; nor by the parents faith are they said to have right to Baptism, but by the faith of the bringers to obtain good things at the resurrection: and therefore in vain doth Mr. Cr. thus endeavour to hide the deformity of that Authors doctrine, which is no better then that which commonly Protestant Divines condem as Popish. More honestly in this then Mr. Cr. doth Bellarmin tom. 3. l. 2. de effectu Sacram▪ c. 6. say, Ju…in. in his Apology to Antoninus, saith, We obtain remiss… of afore committed …ns in water, &c. And before he had said, that no man was brought to Ba…tism, unless he before believed. Like things hee hath in his dialogue with Triphon. And ch. 8. alwayes in the Church the custome wa…, that those who would be Christians should first be made catechized persons▪ and long enough instructed, and not baptized unless instru…ted, and firm, and stable in faith, citing to thi… end Justin in his Apology to Antoninus, as showing the manners of the Church.

As for Irenaeus his testimony, lib. 2. adv. bar. c. 39. it proves not infant Baptism. For though it be true that Mr. Mede in his Diatribe on Tit. 3.5. say, None, I trow will deny that when the Apostle speaks of saving us by washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost, hee speaks of Baptism yet it follows not that that the Apostle meant by regeneration, Baptism; nor is it likely, sith the word [regeneration] is no… to be read [by the washing which is regeneration] as if it were by apposition, but [of regeneration] as the Genitive possessive, and the meaning p. 761is by the washing which signifies regeneration, which is before the washing; yet if it were so, it proves not Irenaeus meant by [renascuntur are born again] are baptized, sith he saith not are by washing born again, as the Apostles phrase is. Nor though it be granted that in Justin Martyr and others of the ancients [to be regenerated] is [to bee baptized] doth it appear that Irenaeus meant it so in that place, unless it were proved it is so onelyonly meant by him and the ancients. Nor doth Irenaeus l. 1. c. 18. term Baptism regeneration as Dr. Homes p. 118. suggests, but saith thus to the denying of Baptism of that generation which is into God. But that indeed the word [renascuntur are born again] is not meant of Baptism, is proved from the words and the scope of them. For 1. the words are [per eum renascun…ur, by him, that is Christ, are born again] and it is clear from the scope of the speech about the fulness of his age as a perfect master, that [by him] notes his person according to his humane nature. Now if then [by him are born again] be as much as [by him are baptized] this should bee Irenoeus his assertion, that by Christ himself in his humane body infants and little ones, and boyes and young men, and elder men, are baptized unto God. But this speech is most manifestly false, for neither did Christ baptize any at all in his own person, the Evangelist John 4.1, 2. expresly affirming, that though the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples then John, yet Jesus himself did not baptize, but his Disciples did baptize, nor did the Disciples baptize any infant at all as may bee gathered from the whole N. T. 2. The word which Irenaeus expresseth, whereby persons were born again to God by Christ, is applied to the example of his age, as the words and sc…pe show. Omnem▪ tatem sanctificans …or illam quae ad i…fum erat similitudinem. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem & infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes, in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc i…sam habentes aetatem, simul & exemplum illis pictatis effectus & justiti & subjectionis. Juvenibu… juvenis exemplum ju…enibus siens & sanctificans domino. Sic & senior in senioribus, ut sit perfe…tus Magist… in omnibu… non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed secundum aet… tem sanctific…ns simul & seniores, exem…lum …sis quoque fiens. But hee was not in his age an example of every age by his …aptism, as if hee did by it sanctifie every age, for then he should have been baptized in every age but in respect of the holiness o… his humane nature which did rem…in in each age, and so exemplarily san…ifie each age to God, so as that no age but was capable of holiness by conformity to his example. 3 Irenaeus his words are omne… enim venit per semetipsum salvare, omnes inquam qui …er eum renasc…ntu… in Deum, infantes & parvulo…, & pueras & …uvenes & seniores, … if the meaning were that Christ came …o … all that w…re baptized by him, or by his appointment, then he came to save Simon Magus, and whoever are or have been baptized righ…ly, even Judas Iscari…t, if he were bap…ized. But in that sense the proposi…ion of Irenaeus were most p…lp…bly false, and therefore that sense i… no… to be attri…u…ed to his words. 4. Christ is by Irenaeus said to san…ifie as a perfect Master▪ not onelyonly according to the exposition of truth, but also as an example to them of piety, justice, and subjection; but this is to be… p. 762understood not in respect of his Baptism onelyonly, but his whole life, in which he was an example even an infant, for then he did willingly empty himself, took upon him the form of a servant▪ was made in the likeness of men, and being in fashion a man humbled himself to death, Phillip. 2.7, 8. By all which reasons I presume the Readers, who is willing to see truth, will perceive this passage of Irenaeus to be wrested by Paedobaptists against its meaning, to prove an use of Paedobaptism in his time. Which I have the more largely insisted on, because indeed it is the onelyonly testimony of credit which Paedobaptists have any colour from for infant baptism in …he 2d. ce…tury: In the 3d. century it is not denied, but that infant baptism and many more corruptions were; yet even then it was very rare, in case onelyonly of danger of death, …ut of that case disswaded, in that case allowed upon the conceit of giving grace by it, and saving the infant from perishing. But I shall allow Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists, to say the most they can for this corruption.

Origen is alledged next by Mr. Cr. in Rom. 6. l. 5. homil. 8th. on Levitic. and 18.th. on Luke. The Exceptions against these are 3.1. they are translations, Origens Greek in the Original is lost. The same may be said of St. Matthews Gospel, which he writ in the Hebrew or Syriack now lost, the Greek copy onelyonly extant. And of the LXX…. translations of the Old T. which our Saviour followed more exactly then the Hebrew Original, translations agreeing with the Original copy b…ing equally authentick.

Answ. 1. There is no certainty, nor probability that Matthew did write in Hebrew, sai…h the Annotator on Matth▪ in his argument of that Gospel the new Annotations called by some the Assemblies at Westminster. Pareus in his Proeme to his Commentary on Matthew, with the leave of antiquity, Eras… and other learned interpreters doubt not a little of that opinion that he wrote in Hebrew, and the reasons of doubting seem not to be light, which may be seen there, with answer to the objections produced out of antiquity. 2. Whether there were such a translation by LXX. Jews, as Josephus relates of Aristeas, l. 12. antiq. Judaic. c. 2. I do not so much question, as the particularities of the relation, but the authority of it is much qu…stioned, of which much may be seen in Chamier. paustr. cath. tom. 1. l. 13. and it is much doubted whether that we have be it, of which I am told learned Usher hath written, which I have not seen. But sure our Saviour who spake in Hebrew or Syriack followed it not, nor do I think it safe or right to say that the Evang…lists or other holy writers followed it more exactly then the Hebrew Original. But sure the translation of Ruffinus of Origens Homiles is nothing like to either of these, in which he confesseth he did not exactly follow the Original▪ and it is likely for this reason Voss. thes. Theol. de Paedobap. part 2. thesi. 8. said, But we shall the less care for Origen, because the things we cited are not extant in Greek. But Mr. Cr. adds.

But 2ly. it is said that the translation is censured by Erasmus and Perkins, as in something contracting▪ adding, or altering. What is added is ingeniously confessed by Ruffinus the translator himself; neither p. 763does acu…e Erasmus, nor judicious Perkins, nor any of the Ancients most critical, impeach him in the forequoted testimonies; therefore thi… exception is blank.

Answ. This exception is good notwithstanding this answer. For 1. Perkins doth not onelyonly censure Ruffinus his translation, as in something contracting, adding, or altering; but also puts Origens commentaries on the Epistle to the Romanes not faithfully translated by Ruffinus, among his counte…feit works. And Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus, saith, That a man cannot be certain whether he reads Ruffinus, or Origen. And because Dr. Homes saith I make no exception against the translation of the Homilie on Luke, he may take notice that Erasmus in his Annota…ions on Luke ….1. speaks much against the Paraphrase of Origen on Luke and in …is Annot. on Luke 1.3. Sic enim visus est sentir… quisqui… i… suit cujus extant i… Lucam commentarii Adamantii titulo, which sh…ws that Erasmus took not those Commentaries for Origens, or at least d…ubted thereof. And I shall add the words of Scul…etus, in his medulla Patrum, l. 6. c 2. Jam Ruffinu… plurium librorum Origenis interpre …a…t…m …surpavit lic…ntiam: ut ademerit, adjecerit, mut…rit, quae sibi viderentur adim…nda, adjicienda, mutanda: ut s…p… incertus sit lector, utrum Origenem legat an Ruffinum: cum Graeca Origenis opera non extent ho…e, … quibus Latina versio …orrigi possit & emend…ri. And I find cited Erasmus his preface on Hillary, a… charging Ruffinus with this practise of adding and ch…nging be …nd an interpreter in all his translations, as of Eusebius hi… History▪ but chiefly of Origens writings. Grot. annot. in Matth. 25.46. …uid O…igenes senserit ex ipsius scriptis difficile est dictu, adeo omnia a Ruffi…o sun… interpolata. Hieronymus Apol. adv. Ruff. l. 2. speaks thus to Ruffi… concerning some of his translations of Origen, Novit conscientia …ua … addiderris, quae subtra…eris, qu… in utranque partem, ut …ibi v…sum suerit immut…ris. Whereas therefore Mr. Ms. fr…en…, Defence part 1 p 15. tels me. You call the Author of them supposed O…igen: It had been your part before you had so branded them, fi…st to ha… made it manifest by some undeniable ev…dence or other that they were not O…gens: I tell him, that being but a respondent, it was enough that I sh…wed suc… evidences a… … did to prove the passages doubtfull, an uncertain witness being no g…od proof. And to Dr Homes his saying in his Animadv… on my Exerci… p 129. Truly a man can hardly with patience enoug… look upon Mr. … …is dealing in this: When we urge Origen, he is not Origen wi…h him; but if he do it, then Origen must be received ▪ I answer, if the Dr. had had … e…ough to have considered my words, he might have observed, that I onelyonly named Origen H…m on Rom. 6. but did neither assig… the … for the time in which thos… words were written, no… did … that they were to be received … his, but added two reasons to … this imagination, …s i… by alledging thos… words under the … homil. on Rom. 6. (by which onelyonly it is known) I did … his, whereof the one was th… cen…ur… of Erasmus, the … Austin, nor Hierom men…i… Origen as …vouching … which is enough to sh…w it to be likely, that the passag… … by Ruffinus, though Hierom p. 764and others mention not these in particular, sith neither doth he mention all the particulars of his dealings in this kind, but chargeth them upon his conscience. Nor is it true, that what is added is ingeniously confessed by Ruffinus the translator himself: For though the words cited by Mr. Ms. friend, Defence, p. 16. shew that Ruffinus acknowledged of what sort his addi…ions were to his translation of his Homilies on Leviticus, yet they shew not what in particular they were; nor is any thing produced to shew the words cited for infant Baptism were not one. Nor is there any good answer made to my allegation to prove that passage likely to be one, 1. from the bringing of them in (as it seemed to me when I read them) in a patcht manner, not as if they were woven at first with the whole cloth, that is the rest of the writing before and after, but as sewed to it by a botcher, without any handsome coherence; which neither Mr. Ms. friend, p. 16. nor Dr. Homes p. 130. deny, and therefore I count worth the observing by the judicious Reader, when he shall examine the places, as being of some moment to discern whether they were Origens words at first, or Ruffinus his assument. 2. Because they are the very words which are frequently used by the refuters of Pelagians in the 5th. century, who denied Original sin, whereas Origen is taxed as the very Father of Pelagianism, by Hieron. praesat. ad lib. 4. in Hierem. and elsewhere, as teaching foreign perfection or freedome from sin, contrary to the express words of those cited passages; and when August. tom. 7. l 1. adv. Julian. c. 1, 2. alledgeth ancients avouching Original sin, he never mentions Origen; and therefore these passages, being so express against Pelagians, and in the very words used by the refuters of them in Augustines time, are to be judged to be added either by Ruffinus, whose words to the same purpose on the 50th. Psalm are cited by Chamier, pa…str. cath. tom. 3. l. 1. c. 6. §. 9. and of whom the same Author, tom. 4. l. 7. c. 9. §. 30. saith, Sciunt omnes docti exiguam fuisse Ruffini in vertendis authoribus religionem, or by some other. Nor are these passages in Origen onelyonly hints against some piece of Pelagianism, which might be conceived by some few in his time, as Dr. Homes minceth the matter, p. … 30. but express arguing against the main point of Pelagianism, denying original corruption, and that in the chief arguments used by Augustine and others. Nor did Origen Pelagianize a little onelyonly, but is supposed to have first brought in Pelagianism into the Church, Hieron. adv. Ruffin. saith Dr. Owen▪ display of Arminianism, ch. 12. And though it's not …enied that Origen did deliver contraries, yet I think it's hard to find him so often, and so directly arguing against his own tenet. Nor do I conceive, however Dr. Homes, Mr. Blake, Mr. M. and others imagine contradictions in my words which are not so, that ever Dr. Homes hath found in my writings such clashings against my self. Nor do I make such an argument as M. Ms friend Defence, ….17. answers, …hat the passages make against the Pelagians, and therefore necessarily they were written after the Pelagian heresie was broached (which is a meer shifting fashion in that Author who ever he were, used before in answering my argument from Irenaeus words and scope, which he answers as if I made it from the scope and not the words) but thus, these passages are plainly and directly against the Pelagians p. 765chief point of impeccability, which Origen is charged to bee the Author of; therefore according to Rivets rule tractat. de patrum autoritate c. 14. it's not likely they were Origens, to which he answers not. I will add only the words of Vossius Hist. Pelag. l. 2. part. 1. th. 6. p. 153. Idem Origines T. 2. p. 471. nisi is potius Rufinus interpres (quis enim, quae vel Origenis, vel paraphrastae adeò liberi suerint, hodii discern…t) in cap. IX. (rectiùs VI.) ad Rom. ubi ait, ab sorde p…ccati m…ndus non est quisquam, etiamsi unius diei fuêrit vita ejus super terram. Sed fuse clareque imprimis …oc de peccato scribit lib. VIII. & XII. in Levit. nisi isti in Leviticum commentarii Cyrilli potiùs sint, quando etiam in hujus operibus inveniun…u…, ac, ut in Origenianis libri sexdecim, ita inter Cyrilliana sexdecim homiliae appellantur, which shews, that that learned writer for Paedobaptism, did distrust those very passages cited for infant Baptism to have been none of Origens.

Mr. C. a…ds. The third thing objected is, that he calls it a tradition; so does the Apostle things contained in Scripture, 2 Thes. 2.15. Epiphanius calls Baptism and other divine truths foreign traditions, and yet quotes Scripture for them. Bellarmin calls infant Baptism a tradition, and yet brings ten places of Scripture to prove it. Austin affirms lib. 10. c. 23. de Genes. that the custome of our mother the Church in baptising of little ones i… in no wise to be despised, nor to be thought superfluous, nor at all to be believed, unless it were an Apostolick tradition, and yet proves the necessity of it from Joh. 3.5. unless one be born again of water and the spirit, &c.

Answ. It was granted in my Examen that the greatest points of faith though written, were by the Ancients called Apostolical traditions, but in this point that the words ascribed to Origen meant an unwritten tradition, I alledged 1. that the phraie… pro hoc & ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit, and secundum Ecclesiae observantiam, are sufficient proof to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times. To this is nothing replied by Mr. Ms. friend ▪ Dr. Homes, or M. Cr. to shew that these phrases are applied to any other then unwritten traditions, when they are used of ri…es, for the use or institution of which they alledge no text of Scripture. 2. That there is no text of Scripture cited for the use or insti…ion of infant Baptism. To this it is replied, that Origen layes the ground on the Scriptures. But those Scriptures are brought for the proof of origi…al sin, and the necessit… of infant Baptism, which were reasons of the Churches observance, not proofs of the use and institution of it. And that the Scriptures do not give any proof of the use or …nstitution of infant Baptism, but onelyonly grounds of the reasonableness, and why the Church took it up, is shewed to have been the judgement of many learned Papist… and Protestants of later and elder time, in my Praecursor sect 20 which may bee easily observed, because they alledge nothing out of Scripture about …nsti…u…ion or practise of it, but of nece…ty to save th… infant; which being a mistake, it appears …he tradition wa… not from the Apostles. Besides, as Augustin alledged Joh. 3.5. for inf…nt Baptism, so he also alledged Joh 6▪ 53 for infant Communio… which hee and the Ancients observed a… an Apostolick tradition, … p. 766many Churches observe even to this day; yet we conclude it is but an unwritten tradition, and so judged by the Ancients: All the places of the Fathers which cite Scripture for infant Baptism, infant Communion, Easter, Lent…ast, and many other things which the Ancients observed, shewing rather the reason of their observation, then the institution, as Mr. Cawdrey speaks in another case, Sabb. rediv. part. 4. chap. 1. §. 24.

To the 20th. section of my Praecursor, Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator saith, The Ancients took infant Baptism, as you say, for an Apostolical tradition, but not unwritten. The warrant they supposed written: but not the history de facto.

Answ. The ancients must needs take infant Baptism for an unwritten tradition when they supposed the History neither de facto no… of the institution to be written, though they …ook the custome of the Church (as Austin tom. 3. l. 10. de Genes. ad litteram c 23 terms i…, having su…h reason from the necessity of it to save them perishing upon the mistake of Joh. 3.5. for their warrant. But how poor a mat…r was taken by the Church for a reason to co…tinue a custome, may …ppear even by those words of Austin in that place, which shew also it was taken onelyonly for a custome of the Church taken up by them, and not app…inted by th… Apostles. For having spoken as doubtfull and uncertain what to say about the question before agitated by him, concerning the creation of the souls of the children from the parents bec…us… of th… objection fro… … Baptism of little ones, he …hen adds; Yet the custome of ou… mother the Church in Baptising little one…, is not to be d…sp…sed nor by any mean… to be accounted superfluous, nor a… all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical tradition For that little age hath great weight of testimony, which first me…ited to shed bloud for Christ. Whereby it may appear, 1. That Austin …ook i… for a custome of the Church, without example or institution written. 2. That he took such a frivolou… p…ence as the death of the children of Bethlehem slain b… Herod, Matth. 2. to have great weight of testimony for the believing of infant bap…ism to have been an Apostolical tradition. It would be counted arrogance in me to censure the Fathers, yet when I find such silly reasons as Austin here and elsewhere, and Cyprian Epist. 59 ad Fid…m, g…ve a… warrant for infant Bap…ism, so slightly passed over by Mr. B. and ot…ers, a…d thei… testimonies still urged for the credit of infant Bap…ism▪ which do wi…h any that is willing to see the we…kness of them discredit it, I cannot but for the truths sake say, that as in many other things so in this of infa…t Baptism the Fathers speeches are so vain, as th…t there is more need to bewail the errour they have led pe…ple into, then to the continuance of th… deceiving of people by them, to alledge them for proofs, or to magnifie, justifie or excuse them.

Mr. B. adds. You might have spared all the 86. page, where you prove that Papists take it for an unwritten tradition. We know they are desirous of any pretence to set tradition above Scripture▪ Yet you know Bellarmin and others commonly prove it by Scripture. The words of Becan…s (not §. 24. as you say, but §. 12.) yeeld, the … p. 767rightly interpre…ed to prove infant Baptism, and that's all that I desire. I had thought that Chamiers answer to this might have satisfied you. If you have forgot it, peruse it again tom. 7. lib. 9. c. 10. §. 40, &c. and tom. 4. l. 5. c. 9. §. 32.

Answ. I could not well have spared any part of that page. Not onelyonly later Papists engaged in the modern controversies, but also elder and disingaged Papists and others, were alledged by me, of whom it is not meet to suspect that they did acknowledge that infant Baptism is an unwritten tradition, out of a de…re to set tradition above Scrip…u…e, but out of cleer evidence of the t…u…h of what they say. Nor do I think Mr. B. can shew one Author until Luthers day, who made infant Baptism any other then an unwritten tradition, although they produce many of them Scriptures for the necessity, reasonableness, and lawfulness of the Church to use it, to whose authority they ascribed too much in the appointing such rites, and interpreting …criptures to that end. I do not finde that the engaged Papists cited by me, did set tradition above Scripture, b…t that they make it equall I grant. I know Bellarmin tom. 3. l. 1. de sacram. bapt. c. 8. brings three arguments from Scrip…ure for infant Baptism, and c. 9. saith, deducitur evidenter ex Scripturis, u… di…imus, but how he means it hee … us thus in the same chapter; that though the argument of the Anabaptists from defect of Command or example have g…eat force against Lutherans, for as much as they use that principle every where, that the …ite which is not in Scripture having no command nor example there, is to be rejected, yet it is of no force against Catholicks. For alt…ough we find no command expresly, that we should baptize infants, yet that also is openly enough gathered out of Scriptures, as we have shewed above: and besides the tradition of the Apostles is of no less authority with us, then Scripture, for the Apostles spake with the same spirit with which they did write. But that this is an Apostolick tradition, wee thence know whence we know the Apostolick Scripture to be the Apostolick Scripture; to wit, from the testimonies of the ancient Church. The words of Becanus were cited rightly by me out of his manual of Controversies l. 1. c. 2. §. 24. (not §. 12. as Mr. B. corrects me without cause) and they plainly shew the meaning of those men to be, that the Scripture onelyonly proves infant Baptism by that sense of it, which is not manifest but by the tradition, and practise of the Church I have perused Chamier paustr. Cath. (not tom. 7. as Mr. B. directs, I know none such) but tom. 1. l. 9. c. 10. §. 40, &c. and tom. 4. l 5. c. 9. §. 32. But I am not thereby satisfied, that either the Ancients took infant Baptism for any other then an unwritten tradition or that it ought to be taken.

Mr. B. proceds. Mr. Rogers hath made you know he is of another judgement. Mr Bedford tels me he hath corrected his word… in a later edition. How could you allege Dr. Field without considering how you wrong'd your self? Is nothing written in Scripture but expresly? yea is not that Scripture proof, and plain proof, which shews plainly from Scripture the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of the practise? Dr Prideaux thought Episcopacy provable from Scripture: and therefore if hee thought that infant Baptism must bee proved the p. 768same way, he is sure against you. For Dr. Taylour, if you have read all his books, I hope you will no more reckon him amongst Protestants, having so much of the body of Popery in them. Mr. Youngs words (if they be his) are against you in the thing you cite them for. There are testimonia minùs aperta: and there are testimonia aperta pro fundamto & praemissis, quae sunt minùs aperta direct… pro conclusione. My audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof must bee b…tter repressed then thus, if you will satisfie men of reason and conscience.

Answ. I have made known in my Apology sect. 13. how Mr. Rogers shifts but answers not the allegation I made of his words. And if M. Bedford have corrected his words, I wish it have not been f…r the cause sake, against his conscience. If he and Mr. Rogers can so easily say and unsay, who can give credit to men that can thus blow hot and cold wi…h the same breath? I know no wrong to my self done, by alleging Dr. Field. Though things be written in Scripture which are not so expresly, yet is not that Scripture proof, nor plain proof for infant Baptism, any more then infant Communion, which shews plainly from Scripture, Pauls conclusion of original sin, Rom 5.12. and Christs Joh. 3.5. which Ancients took falsly for grou…ds, reasons and causes of the necessity o… infant Baptism, as they did Joh. 6.53. of infant Communion, yet took the use to bee a custome …f the Church, countenanced from Scripture without institution of Christ, or practise of the Apostles And that this was Dr. Fields meaning, is plain from his words; and this seems to have been the common opinion of the Prelates of the Church of England, by th… words by way of Preface used at the solemnity of Ba…tism, and in sundry places of the Common Prayer book, Catechism, art. 27. of the Church of England. And after this manner thought Dr. Prideaux infant Baptism and Episcopacy proveable by Scripture. I have not read all Dr. Taylors works, nor do I know but that hee is to bee reckoned among Protestants. Dr. Youngs words are much for me, 1. In that he produceth no precept but that of Circumcision for infant Baptism. 2. Th…t hee confesseth the practise Apostolical to be somewhat obscurer, and therefore addes the cust me of the Church from the times of the first ages, which is in effect all one as to resolve the proof of infant Baptism finally into the custome of the whole Church, especially when he saith; we cannot smite the Anabaptists with plain testimonies. Nor can Mr. Bs. distinction of more or less open testimonies help him, sith Dr. Young denies, that Paedobaptists can smite with open or plain …estimonies, the Anabaptists barking against infant Baptism. If Mr. Bs. audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof for infant Baptism be not yet repressed, nor men of reason and conscience satisfied, I must leave them to the Lord. Enough I think is said about Origens words. I go on.

Dr. Hammond in his Defence of infants Baptism, pag. 98. saith thus; About the same time (the 3d. Century) or without question soon after wrote the Author (under the name of Dionysius Areopagita) de Eccl. Hierarch. For as by Photius it appears, Theodorus Presbyter about the year 420. debated the question, whether that writer were Dionysius p. 769mentioned in the acts or no. And of this no doubt hath been made; but that he was a very ancient and learned Authour. He therefore in his 7th. ch. of Eccles. Hierarch. Edit. Morel. p. 233. proposeth the question, as that which may seem to prophane persons (i. e. heathens) ridiculous, why children which cannot yet understand divine things, are made partakers of the sacred birth from God, i. e. evidently of Baptism (concerning the baptizing of infants saith Maximu… his scholiast) adding to the same head also, that others in their stead p…onounce the abrenunciations and divine confessions. And his answer is, 1. That many things which are unknown by us why they are done, have yet causes worthy of God 2. That we affirm of this the same things which our divine Officers of the Church being instructed by divine tradition have brought down unto us, and again, our Divine guides (i. e. the Apostles saith Maximus) considering this, appointed that infants should thus be admitted according to the sacred manner, nothing can bee more clear then that the Apostolical tradition is by this ancient and elegant writer avouched for the baptizing of infants, as a sufficient account of that matter, against the reproaches and scoff… of prophane or heathen men, who deemed it unreasonable. And so there is a most convincing testimony for that time, wherein that Author wrote, which must needs be in the 4th. Century, before Theodorus Presbyters debating the question concerning him, but most probably more ancient, and so to be placed in this 3d. age.

Answ. 1. It is to be noted by the Reader, that Dr. Hammond doth not so much as pretend the antiqui…y of that Author to be afore the 3d. century, and consequently not that Dionysius the Ar…opagite mentioned Act 17 34. as some Papists would have it, but are by learned men both Papists and Protestants refuted, whereof may be seen Magdeb. centur. 1. l. 2. c. 10. Scultet. med. Patrum, l. 11. c▪ 9. Perkins prepar. to the demonstr of the probleme. 2. Though Dr. Hammond conceive, that that Author is to be placed in the 3d age by reason of some words of Photius, (which for want of books I cannot examine) yet Salmasius ad Col…ium saith p▪ 1…9. quamvis subdititius ille (Diony…us Areopagita) sit auctor nec antiquior quinto seculo. p. 441. quem certa fides est scripsisse circa finem quinti seculi. And that which Scultetus ubi supra observ…s, that in his book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he writes many things of Temples, of …ltars, of Holy places, of a Qui…e, of consecration of Monks, of the tonsure and shaving of heads, i… me thinks a good argument, that the Author was som… idle dreaming Monk no elder then the 5th. century, and is so far from being acc…unted a W…iter of esteem among Divines, that he is rather censured as one who by his curiosities hath corrupted Divinity. 3. Whether those who deemed infan… baptism unreasonable were infidels who derided it, or Christians who scrupled it, is no… c…eared by the Dr. Nor is it a…pare…t that by Divine guides are meant the Apostles 4. B…t if it were, that Author makes it no other then an unwritten tradition, if he did he would …ave alledged some Scripture for i…; and the words [our Divine Officers being instructed, not as Dr. Hammond translates it by Divine tradition, but unto or of the old tradition have brought down p. 770unto us] do shew, that he counted it a tradition unwritten and delivered from one Officer to another until that time. Now it is granted that in the end of the 3d. and following ages, infant baptism, and in like manner infant communion were counted traditions Apostolical to save infants from perishing, and such seems to have been the opinion of that Author. Pamelius annot. 89. on Cyprian de lapsis. Tractat hunc locum D. Augustinus Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Haud obscure autem hic quomodo & supr… indicatur vetus Ecclesiae consuetudo communionis parvulorum, qualem etiam indica…e videtur Dionysius Areopagita sub finem Eccles. Hierarch. & sua adhuc aetate D. Aug. Epist. 107. ad vitalem. All which being conside…ed, this testimony is so far from being a most convinci…g …estimo…y of the derivation of infant baptism from the Apostle…, …hat considering up…n what ground they observed it, and how much vanity was in the Ancients in their retaining many fond customes, and fathering them on the Apostles, and when common defending them by Scriptures perverted, it is a convincing testimony that infant baptism was no more fro… …he Apostles then infant communion, both meer corruptions taken upon mistakes and defended by abuse of Scripture.

Mr. M. Mr. Cr. Dr. Homes, Dr. Hammond alledge Gregory Nazianzen his 40th. Oration about baptism ▪ in which he adviseth the baptizing of infants, which saith Dr. Hammond, is a plain testimony of the Churches doctrine at that time, the 4th. century, about the year of Christ, 70. he flourished, and died in the year 389.

Against this sundry things are objected, 1. that the same Author saith (as I find his words in Chamier. paustr. cath. tom. 4 l. 5. c. 9. §. 66.) where he gives instance in his 40th. Oration of baptism, of those who decease without baptism, Neither can they receive it, either perhaps by reason of infancy, or some altogether involuntary chance, by which it is that even they, who would, obtain not that gift. From whence it is manifest, that in Gregory Nazianzens time infants did decease without baptism, and that they could not receive it by reason of infancy. Nor is this objection salved by making the reason of these childrens not receiving baptism, because that sometimes it might fall out that Christians might not have the opportunity of bringing their children to baptism, because they dwelt among infidels or Paynims, where they could not enjoy the benefit of the word and sacraments for themselves or their children; therefore they were necessitated to put off the baptising of their children, which seems to be Mr. Ms friends evasion in his Defence, p. 24. in that he applies this passage in Nazianzen as well to the hinderance of the baptism of children as of elder persons. For the words of Nazianzen shew, that as some deceased without baptism by reason of some foreign, unvoluntary accident, whether by the hand of God or men; so others he saith deceased foreign barely by reason of infancy, and that by reason of it foreign they were not in power or capacity to receive it. Which is a plain testimony, that however in c…se of apparent da…ger of death then infants mi…ht receive baptism according to his opinion, yet ordinarily they were not in the power or capacity to receive it, and so did sometimes die without it.

p. 7712. It is objected, and thereby this observation is confirmed, that when he comes in the same Oration to set down what he would have done about infants baptism he resolves 1. that they should be baptized if danger did urge it, that they might not miss of the common grace, intimating th…t otherwise they should. 2. He gives his judgement for others that they should wait longer. 3. The reason he giveth of this longer waiti…g is, that they may hear some mystical or spiritual thing, may be taught to answer somewhat, and if they understand not fully, perfectly, and exa…ly, yet they are instructed and informed. 4. That (not as Dr. Hammond to give colour to his conceit of sanctifying to be the same with baptizing, 1 Cor. 7.14. by this means they may be baptised souls and bodies; for if this were good reading, 1. they should baptize themselves, 1. they should bap…ize …heir souls which were ridiculous;) but, so as that they sanctifie both souls and bodies by or with the great mystery of initiation. Which shews he conceived 1. that by baptism benefit did come to infants though they perceived it not; 2 that it sanctifies their bodies; 3. that it is be…ter done, when children are taught to answer; 4. then they sanctifie soul… and bodies, 5. that danger of death was a forcible impulsive to move to the baptism of in…ants, 6. that without baptism infants should mis… o… the common ….

To … Dr Hammond thus, 1. It is clear that it no way prejudg…s …he doctrine and practise of the Church formerly set down, … him, that infant children, indefinitely considered might be b…ptized▪ and if dang…r appr…ac…ed, must, how young soever they were: which is as contrary to the An…ipaedobaptist, and so to Mr. T. as any thing.

Answ. 1. The phrase [the doctrine and practise of the Church] is according to the Pr…latical language▪ I think as much as the doctrine and practise of the Prelates, … to the Scripture language is non sense, the Church bei…g the number of persons taught, and on whom bap…izing …, not the person… teaching or practising, who are stil…d …he Elders of the … in S…ip…ure. 2. That the Elders of any Church … N…ianzen taug… that infant children, indefinitely considered, might be baptised, and if d…ger …pproached, must, how young soever they w…e, … not pretended of any besides the Co…ncel mention… in Cyp…ian, Epist. 5… …, whic… it is true determined, in opposition t… … his scr…ple, the lawfulness of baptizing any day, but not of any infants who were likely …o live without apparent shew of danger of death, but …a…her …he contrary is manifest from their reason, w…y they would h…ve them bapt…zed any day afore th… 8th. b…cause the son of man …am to save m…ns souls, as much as in us lies, if it may be, no soul is to be lo…, and therefore to be baptized any day afore the 8th. N…w this …, that … onelyonly of those infants who being in apparent danger of d…ath would be lost, if not baptized. N…w it is true …, and it is as contrary to the … of … position of the Papists, tha… ba…tism confers … that infants dying unbaptised pe…sh, and if … this doctrine and practise of the Church, yet p. 772it doth prejudice the doctrine and practise of Protestant Paedobaptists, who, contrary to Nazianzens mind, would not have infants baptized in that case onelyonly, or for his reason, but would have infants baptized out of the case of imminent and apparent danger of death, and not deferred, upon a pretence of a Covenant right and visible Churchmembership as their priviledge, not as necessary to avoid the danger of perishing.

2dly. (saith Dr. Hammond) that it is but his private opinion pretending not so much as to any part of the Church of that, or former ages to authorize it.

Answ. 1. That Tertullian did in like manner determine as Nazianzen did, that infants were not to be baptized but in case of imminent and apparent danger of death, will appear in the examining of his testimony among the Latine Doctors. 2. I know no reason why the counsel and opinion of these two should not as well be counted the doctrine and practise of the Church, and to be of equal authority as Cyprians, and his Councels, Augustines, and Hieroms.

3dly. (Saith Dr. Hammond) that the state of children being so weak and uncertain, that 'tis hard to affirm of any that they are not (for the first three years) in any danger, his councel for deferring will hardly be ever practical to any.

Answ. The counsel of Nazianzen to baptize in case of danger was not of infants that are in any danger▪ but of urgent or pressing danger, as the word foreign, press, urge, or impel, shews. And thus it is practical, as the use of private baptism in those places where it is used doth sufficiently shew.

Fourthly, saith he, that the deferring of which Nazianzen speaks is most probably to bee understood of those whose …arents are newly converted, and themselves doubt whether they shall be yet baptised or no, for to such he speaks in that place from p. 654. A.

Answ. The reasons being general, this restriction appears groundless, not is the Drs. conceit of any validity, that because four pages before …e speaks to them, therefore that counsel of his concerns their children onelyonly.

Lastly, saith he, that the deferring till three years old, if it were allowed, would no way satiisfie the Antipaedobaptists pretensions▪ and so still the former passages ought be of force with all, and no heed given to the whispers of Mr …. and others, as if that holy Father disswaded Baptism in any age unless in case of danger, when he clearly saith, foreign, Let him in the tenderest age be Baptised and consecrated to the spirit.

Answ 1. Why hee should call my words or writings whispers any more then his own, sith they are audible enough were it not that I speak to deaf men who will not hear, I do not deprehend, I imagine they are louder then the Doctour would have them. 2. Tha… men should not give heed to my words as well as the Doctours, if they seek the truth impartially, I know not, sith where truth is sought both sides are to bee heard. 3. It is true the deferring Baptism till three years old, will not p. 773satisfie us as sufficient to rectifie the abuse of infant baptism is granted, no nor till thirty, except the person become a disciple and believer in Christ: But it satisfies us in this, that Nazianzens judgement was, that little ones should not be baptized till they come to some understanding of the thing signified by baptism, unless in case of imminent and apparent dan…er of death, though we conceive he allowed too short a time to instruct the…. 4. If the word consecrated be meant of baptism, and from the nayles signifie tender age, yet it is not likely he meant this tender age of infancy, sith hee made persons uncapable of baptisme by reason of infancy, judged it better to have them first instructed; If he did, he would have it to onelyonly in case of danger of death imminent.

But saith Dr. Homes, p. 142. 1. If Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why infants should bee baptised, in case they are not likely to live to be of ripe years, it is so much the better for us.

…nsw. I suppose the Doctour doth not think with Nazianzen, that the danger of dea…h is a sufficient reason for the bapti…zing an infant, for that ariseth from the Popish conceits of regenoration by Baptism, ex opere operato, and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing. And therefore Nazianzens reason must bee the worse for him, sith it thwarteth his opi…ion of baptizing upon an imagined priviledge of Covenant holine…s, and his practise of doing i… ordinarily to infants of Churchmembers out of that case. And it would bee considered, that where the ground of a practise is disclaimed the alleging of the practise correspondent to that ground and no further, is impertinent for confirmation of the practise of the same thing, in a different manner, and upon a different ground; as the Protestant Divines tell the Papists, that their alleging the ancients commemorati…n of the dead, proves not the Popish prayi…g for the dead to be ancient, as Dr …sher at large in his answer to the Jesuits challenge, sith the Popish praying is upon the opinion of Purgatory, and for them that are there, the Ancients for the Apostles, Martyrs, c. who are past Purgatory, and for their resurrection; in like manner concerning the allegations of the Ancients Monkery, which either was necessary onelyonly by reason of the incessant persecutions of those times, or if voluntary, yet with labour of their hands, and so different from the Popish Mo…kery which is idle, besides Gods appointment, vol…n…r…, superstitious, upon an imagined perfection in that w…ich is indeed sinful. And so for confirmation by laying on of hand, anointing wi…h oyl▪ use of the signe of the cross, setting up lights and many more, it is fr…quent…y shewed that they countenance no the P…ish confirmation, extream unction, use of the signe of the cross, lighting candles at noon day in their …mples, &c. because they were in different m…nner, and for different reasons and purposes then they are now used by them. And indeed the discovery of the different reasons, manner, and end of rites used b… the Ancients, from that they are now used, is of greatest moment to shew the novelty of the Popish, Prelatical, Paedobaptists usages, who have not onelyonly quite departed from the Scripture but also from antiquity, even in those things which the Ancients practised indeed, but not as they do.

p. 774Secondly, saith Dr. Homes, he doth give another reason, beside that of partaking of common grace, namely, 1. foreign, For it is better that they should be sanctified without a feeling of it, then to depart without the seal. So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancy as well as at riper years. 2. foreign, A reason also of this to us is Circumcision, that was wont to be done on the 8th. day, &c.

Answ. 1 The first of these is no other then the partaking of common grace (for to partake of the common grace is all one as to be sanctified) onelyonly with a little enlargement. 2. The 2d. is indeed rather a preventing of an objection [that they could not be par…akers of the common grace without perceiving it] rather then a further reason of baptizing them. And the answer is from two examples, one of curcumcision which was given to infants without the use of reason, the other of the anoining or sprinkling the door posts, whi…h were things insensitive, bringing salvation to the first born, which is such a woodden reason as Dr. Homes thought fit to let pass in this place.

Thirdly, saith Dr. Homes, Wee answer that all three reasons stand in force, as well for all believers infants (God putting them under the promise, Gen. …7.) a for the infants that are in danger of death.

Answ. Wh…tever force there is in the reasons (which in my apprehension are frivolous) to prove Dr Homes his opinion or practise, yet sure in Nazianzens intent they are onelyonly for the colouring over of the practise of infant baptism, of any whether believers or unbelievers children; onelyonly in case of apparent danger of imminent death, and not at all for countenancing baptizing of believers infants onelyonly at all times as federally holy.

Fourthly, saith Dr. Homes, that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine reasons (to him evincing) for the baptism of infants in danger of death: but for the delaying of others not in danger of dea…h, he saith, foreign, I give my opinion …he calls it his opinion. And what is it? That foreign, such children should stay till three or four years old more, or less? And what is to be expected from children of that age? more then from infants toward baptism? For Nazianzen himself confesseth, that though they may hear and answer some spiritual things, yet they understand imperfectly. But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing? None. Doth he give any reason? Even in effect the same as for baptizing of infants in danger of death, to wit, that they may be sanctified in mind and body.

Answ. 1. Tis true Nazianzen gives one reason for baptizing infants in case of danger of death, which is the sanctifying them by it, not divers reasons the examples of Circumcision and anointing the door p…sts, being answers to an objection, as I said before. Now that reason is so far from being Divine, that it is from a meer superstitious conceit, as if the meer outward Baptism did sanctifie: Nor is it the same reason in effect for differing baptism three or four years with that which hee gives for infant baptism in case of danger of death. For though he supposeth in both Baptism sanctifies, yet he takes infant Baptism to sanctifie onelyonly the body, the other to sanctifie body and mind. He supposeth they may learn some spiritual thing, though imperfectly, and so the p. 775baptism may be a sign to them though obscure, and there may be some memory of what is done, though confused, which though it be not as it should be, yet it is better and more agreeable to Scripture then the infant Baptism, where there is no signification to the baptized, nor remembrance of it. 2. Be it granted that Nazianzen expresseth but his opinion, and that it betters not the thing much, and his reasons not so right as they should have been, there is in this passage this evident, that infant Baptism was no tthen common as now, nor upon such reasons as now, nor approved of as now it is, but out of the case of danger of death imminent, apparently disswaded, and consequently the present common infant baptism an innovation from what was in that age.

Dr. Hammond adds, That Chrysostome in his Homily to the Neophyti, hath these words, For this cause (i. e. because there be so many benefits of baptism there recited, ten in number) we baptise children though they have not sins, and that he flourished in the beginning of the fift Age.

Answ. Though finde in two Homilies, one in the fifth, the other in the sixth tome of Chrysostomes works of Eton print, some speeches unto the newly inlightned or planted, yet I finde not these words there, nor any where else in any of his homilies. Yet I deny not them to bee Chrysostomes finding them in Augustin tom. 7. l. 1. against Julian the Pelegian, ch. 2. But perhaps if the words before were viewed, it might be discerned whether the Baptism of little ones then used, were onelyonly in case of danger of death apparently imminent, or without that case. It is likely hee meant that infants or little children were baptized onelyonly in case of danger of death imminent, sith many of his Homilies express, even that where these words cited were, exhortations to the newly baptized, and the relation of his life testifies, that when hee was persecuted by the Empress, and was about to baptize on the solemn festival in which Baptism was used, the persons men and women that were to be baptized by him fled away naked, being ready to be baptized upon his apprehension, which shews they then baptized persons naked. And the occasion of the speech, as s…t down by Austin, shews it was done upon the conceit of giving them grace, which is manifest by the words foreign for this cause And the particle foreign, also, in the Greek, shews there was mention of baptizing others then little children. And in the same place Austin saith, …ohn Chrysostome held, believed, and taught this, not onelyonly that little children were not onelyonly to be baptized, but also to have the Eucharist or Lords Supper, for without his flesh and bloud they could not have life. As for the other place Dr. Hammond ci…es in Chrysostoms 40th. Homily on Genesis, that Baptism is lawfull in the first age, I yeeld that Chrysostome did in that age allow infant Baptism, but I think the Dr. cannot shew that he held it was to bee done out of the case of apparent danger of imminent death, or that the practise of baptizing them out of that case was ordinary It is most evident by many proofs, that both then and some ag…s after, the ordinary usual baptizing was of chatechized persons at the solemn feasts, when most in the Empire were by profession Christians.