Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part · Chapter 7

Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated · Part · Chapter 7

p. 1CHAP. VII.

The Authors Quotations out of the Magdeburgenſian Hiſtory corrected and rectified, wherein is farther ſhewn his Praevarication, in relating ſome things partially, others falſly, and for the moſt part contrary to the intention of the Writers.

HE begins thus; The Magdeburgenſes in their Excellent Hiſtory, do tell us, that as to the Buſineſs of Baptiſm in the firſt Century, they find only the Adult or Aged whether Jews or Gentiles that were Baptized, and give inſtances in the 2d, 8th, 10th, 16th, 19th, Chapters of the Acts, and have no Examples of Infants being Baptized. Cent. 1 Lib. 2. Pag. 496.

1 firſt In examining this Century,Ʋt Chriſtus Infantes ad ſe ven…re juſſit, ita nec Apoſtoli eos excluſerunt a Baptiſmo & quidem dum Baptiſmus circumciſioni aequiparat Paulus, Coloſ. 2. aperte indicat, etiam Infantes per Baptiſmum Eccleſiae Dei eſſe inſerendos ſicut in veteri Teſtamento Infantes circumcidi oportebat, ut in Dei faedere eſſent. Cent. 1 L. 2. C. 4. P. 354. Baptizatos eſſe aedultos, tum Judaeos tum Gentes, Exemplae probant. Infantibus Baptizatis Exempla quidem annotata non leguntur, ſed Origenes, & Cyprianus, & alii Patres autores ſunt Apoſtolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos eſſe, Cen. 1. L. 2. C. 9. P. 496.Col 2 I find Lib. 2. Chap. 4. Pag. 354. that touching Baptiſm they ſay, that as Chriſt commanded Infants to come unto him, ſo the Apoſtles afterward did not exclude them from Baptiſm: and truly ſince Baptiſm is compared by Paul p. 2to Circumciſion, Col. 2. it plainly ſhews that Infants are to be admitted to the Church by Baptiſm, as in the Old Teſtament they were by Circumciſion.

2 In Century the firſt Lib. 2. Cap. 6. Pag. 496. which is the place the Author refers unto, they do not ſay, that the Apoſtles Baptized only the Adult or Aged, but only this; We have Examples of Adult perſons both Jews and Gentiles that were Baptized-Farther they ſay concerning Infants, we have no particular notice given us, or Examples that they were Baptized; yet preſently add, that Origen and Cyprian and others of the Fathers that lived near the Apoſtles, do affirm that even in the Apoſtles times Infants were Baptized. But let it be ſuppoſed that they did not Baptize any Infant, yet it follows not that it is unlawful for us to Baptize them, becauſe they did not; for (as Dr. Taylor ſays, whom the Author ſo much admires,) a Negative Argument as to matter of fact cannot conclude; and therefore ſuppoſing that it be not intimated that the Apoſtles did Baptize Infants, it follows not that they might not, or that the Church may not. The words and deeds of Chriſt are infinite; and the Acts of the Apoſtles we may ſuppoſe the ſame in their proportion: And therefore p. 3what they did not is no rule to us, unleſs they did it not becauſe they were forbidden.

3. Moreover the Magdeburgenſes ſpeaking of the ſubject of Baptiſm, anſwer an Objection which might be made againſt Infant-Baptiſm, Cent. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 154. Whereas it is ſaid they were Baptized in Jordan confeſſing their Sins, Mat. 3. and Iohn Preached the Baptiſm of Repentance, Mark. 1. and Luk. 3. therefore only they that repent are to be Baptized (which is the ſum of all our adverſaries can ſay;) To this Objection they thus reply; ſuch Confeſſion was neceſſary from thoſe Adult Perſons (being as before the firſt Subjects of the Ordinances.) And then they come to ſtate the Queſtion; An ſint Infantes quo que Baptizandi, are Infants alſo to be Baptized? Which they hold affirmatively, giving ſeveral Arguments for it, one of which is grounded upon Matt. 19 viz. They to whom the Promiſe of the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong, to them belongs the Ceremony or Seal of the Promiſe. And then they roundly tell us, that although the Apoſtles (before they were rectius edocti, better learned) would have kept Infants from Chriſts Benediction; yet being ſo ſeverely rebuked by Chriſt, and guided or directed by his Spirit, they did (ſay they ſine dubio) without all doubt Baptize them: informing us again, that the Fathers who lived near to the Apoſtles, do witneſs that the Practice of Infant-Baptiſm was derived from the Apoſtles, and tranſmitted to Poſterity. Cent 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 153.

4. The Author fathers that upon the Century-Writers, which they ſpeak not. They (ſaith he) p. 4tell us, that the Cuſtom of Dipping the whole Body in Water was changed into Sprinkling a little Water in the face, whereas there is not the leaſt hint of this matter in this Century, nor the following; but they tell us that the word [foreign] ſignifies abluo, luo, i.e. to Waſh, and that the Chriſtian Baptiſm was taken a judaica lotione, from the Jewiſh Baptiſm, of which the Apoſtle ſpeaks Heb. 9, 10. foreign i.e. Divers Baptiſms, it is rendred Waſhings, and theſe Baptiſms we know, were not Dippings. Moſes in the Ceremonial Law did not preſcribe different kind of Dippings, though he did ſeveral kind of Waſhings, or Baptiſms as it is in the Original.

CENT. II.

HE ſaith, the Magdeburgenſes tell us, that they find nothing in this Century different from the former, that is in reference to Baptiſm: And that they make mention of Juſtin Martyr's words, in his Apology to Antoninus Pius the Emperour, which are repeated as we have it tranſlated by Mr. Baxter in his Saints Reſt. The import of which is only to ſhew what order they took with Pagans, upon their converſion to the Chriſtian Faith, before they were admitted to the Sacraments. And although this be wide of the matter, and inſignificant to the Queſtion under debate, which is about Baptizing the Infants of Believers, yet this will ſerve well enough to blind an ignorant Reader. And as it this were ſome great matter, he glories in it, and concludes p. 5with a jeer. They (ſaith he) that ſhall conſider the manner that Chriſtians, (he ſhould have ſaid Heathens) were admitted into the Churches in thoſe dayes can hardly, I preſume pick out any good, warranties for Infant Church-Memberſhip or Baptiſm, out of the ſame; to which there needs no more to ſay, than this even juſt as much as he can pick out from thence againſt it. Nor do I ſee any reaſon he hath to pick a quarrel with our Practice, from any thing in that Fathers Apologie, who, (as Mr. Baxter notes) giveth ſuch hints, by which his Judgment and the Practice of the Church in thoſe days may be diſcerned to be for it, though we cannot expect that he ſhould ſpeak expreſly to the point, both becauſe he is brief, and treateth on other Theams, to which this did not belong, and becauſe the Church then living among Heathens, had ſo much to do in converting and Baptizing the Aged, that they had little occaſion to treat about Children; eſpecially it being a point not controverted, but taken for granted by the Chriſtians, who knew God's dealing with the Jewiſh Church, that Children were Members with the Converted Parents; eſpecially when the very Gentiles Children were members before Chriſt: With more to this purpoſe. Plain Scripture-proof, Pag. 155.

p. 6CENT. III.

IN this Century (ſaith the Author) they tell us the Rites of Baptiſm in the Aſiatick Churches continue the ſame as before, but concerning the African Churches they give ſome account of great Corruption, creeping into the Church, as to Subject, Time, Manner and Ceremonies. Cent. 3. Cap. 6. Pag. 123, 124, 125.

They do indeed charge this Age with corruption as to the Time and Manner of adminiſtring Baptiſm; but not a word in derogation of Infants being the Subject of it; and 'tis ſtrange they ſhould have reckoned that a corrupt innovation, which they had a little before ſo well maintained for a Truth. They tell us indeed that Tertullian in this Age, oppoſed himſelf to ſome that Aſſerted Infant-Baptiſm, affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects: But how weakly he doth it may be ſeen afterward, when we come to examine the witneſſes, of which Tertullian is the Van; and as Eſtius and Junius conceive with others, the ſaid Father intends only thoſe Infants [quorum Parentes] whoſe Parents were Infidels, or if he meant the Children of Chriſtians, he ſpeaks nothing abſolutely againſt their Baptizing: For his Words are [Cunctatio utilior] it is more profitable to defer their Baptiſm, as it was alſo beſt in his opinion for young men that were [Innupti] unmarried,Quin & innuptie Baptiſmum procraſtinandum art eſſe, quia eis praeparata eſt tentatio. Magde burg. Cent. 3. ſo to do; and it was his advice p. 7to young Widows to forbear Baptiſm, until the luſt of concupiſcence was quite extinguiſhed. Is not this good Doctrine think you? yet this is the man (as the Author ſaith) who oppoſed Infant-Baptiſm, affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects; yet it ſeems not all they neither: for he adviſed all unmarried perſons to delay Baptiſm, not ſparing young-Maids, and that upon a very corrupt ground. What ſport would my Antagoniſt have made with this man, and how much would he have diſparaged him had we brought him in for a witneſs on our ſide. One would think the more temptation any ſtate is Subject to, the more doth it ſtand in need of helps, eſpecially ſuch as lay engagements on us to holineſs, and may be a means to convey it. But Tertullian was very corrupt and ſuperſtitious, and turned Montaniſt, when he wrote his Book of Baptiſm; and ſhews himſelf to be ſomewhat neer the judgment of the Clinici, who, as Dr. Hammond notes, would not be Baptized till their Death-Beds; and the reaſon was, becauſe being to be Baptized but once, and attributing ſo extreamly much to that Ceremony, and hoping ſo little for pardon of ſin from any other inſtrument, they durſt not be Baptized too early, leſt they ſhould ſin again, and have no remedy. And the deferring Baptiſm till thirty or fourty years old, was a ſpice of this fancy; but then they that did ſo, were the moſt impatient of any to miſs Baptiſm, when they thought they were near their laſt and would let no Chriſtian Infant die without that Viand; and ſo doing what they did upon a ſcore p. 8ſo contrary to the Anabaptiſts, it is ſtrange … ſhould be producible in favour of them, as he tells Dr. Taylor.

But to return to the Magdeburgenſes, who do indeed inform us, that in this Age the Doctrine of Baptiſm began to be defiled with Ceremonies, without any reflection upon Infant-Baptiſm, and 'tis very well known that Tertullian himſelf was the man that introduced that filthy greaſy one, of anointing the Baptized, which he borrowed from the Montaniſts. They alſo tell us that in this Age [Baptiſmus Infantibus datur] Infants were Baptized, and cite Origen in his 8th. Homily upon Leviticus affirming that Baptiſm is to be given to Infants, [ſecundum Eccleſiae Obſervantiam] according to the cuſtom of the Church; adding alſo another paſſage of his upon the 14th of Luke, to the ſame purpoſe. Cent. 3. Cap. 4. Pag. 57.

Moreover they give us the Teſtimony of Cyprian in his 4th Book, Cyprianus L. 4. Epiſt. 7. Recte diſputat, Baptiſmum valere ſive aqua perfundantur, ſive toti immergantur qui Baptizantur.and 7th Epiſtle, and approve his arguing, that Baptiſm is valid, whether it be by Immerſion or Sprinkling, for theſe two Reaſons:

Firſt, Becauſe they ſignify one and the ſame thing: idem ſit aſperſio quod Lavacrum. Sprinkling holding forth the Myſtery, as well as Dipping according to that in Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle you with Water.

Secondly, Becauſe they that were ſprinkled in their Beds, (as ſick Perſons were in thoſe days) ought not to be rebaptized: It ſeems by the way Sprinkling is of ancient date. They tell us farther p. 9that Cyprian in his 3d Book, 8th. Epiſtle, hath this Argument for Infant-Baptiſm, viz Infantes Circumcidebantur, ergo Baptizandi, Infants were Circumciſed, therefore they may be Baptized. Cent. 3. Cap. 4. P. 57. Which paſſage may ſhame the Author and his party, who uſually object that Tradition is the main Argument, which we take up in defect of others, to juſtify our Practice, and that this is all the ancient Fathers ſay for it, in want of Scripture-ground.

Laſtly, The Magdeburgenſes wonder at Tertullian's Simplicity, for he held (ſay they) Miram Opinionem, Se ntit Tertullianus mirâ Opinione. &c.a ſtrange Opinion, that Children ſhould not ſuddenly be Baptized; and then ſet down his reaſons in oppoſition to thoſe words, Math. 19.Veniant dum Adoleſcunt veniant dum diſcunt, dum quo veniunt, docentur. Fiant Chriſtiani cum Chriſtum noſſe potuerint. Quid feſtinat innocens aetas ad remiſſionem peccatorum. &c. Suffer little Children to come to me, and forbid them not. viz. Let them come (ſaith Tertullian) when they grow elder, when they learn, when they are taught, when they come; according to which Dotage the Diſciples did wiſely in forbidding Children to come, and Chriſt did weakly in rebuking them for ſo doing, and inviting them to come. What follows is fetcht from Mr. Baxter concerning Origen and Cyprian, that in the Primitive times none were Baptized without expreſs covenanting, &c. is ſtill meant of Aliens, ſo is that of Origen's being a Teacher of the Diſciples at Alexandria, and others that ſucceeded him in that p. 10work: ſo that to bring inſtances of this Nature is but trifling, and not to the queſtion before us; yet we cannot but obſerve the Author's humor, who, when we quote any thing for Infants Baptiſm out of the works of thoſe Fathers, he brands it for ſpurious, but when he pleaſeth to make uſe of any of their ſayings, which he would have interpreted againſt the ſame, then they are authentique, and muſt paſs for current.

CENT. IV.

HIS diſcourſe upon this Century is veryinjurious to the Magdeburgenſes, who have not a word of very many things which he fathers on them; as

Firſt, That it was the univerſal Practice of this Age, to Baptize the Adult upon Profeſſion of Faith; as if Infants had been excluded, for ſo we are to underſtand him, or elſe he ſpeaks nothing: wherefore I deſire the Reader to obſerve what the Century-Writers ſpeak concerning the matter, and I ſhall give him a juſt account thereof.

We have before ſhewn (ſay they) out of Cyprian and Origen, Infantum Baptiſmum in Eccleſiis Africanis in uſu fuiſſe ſupra ex Cypriano & Origene demonſtratum eſt, hoc vero ſeculo eundem duraſſe ex Athanaſii queſtione 124. Conſtat.that Baptizing of Children was in uſe in the African Churches, and that the ſame continued in this Age is evident from the 124th Queſtion of Athanaſius. Beſides Nazianzen (ſpeaking of the Churches of Aſia) ſaith, that Infants ought to be Baptized p. 11in caſe of danger of death,De Aſianis Eccleſiis Nazianzenus loquens Infantes Baptizandes eſſe ait. and the ſaid Father alſo grounds it upon Circumciſion; but if they were not in eminent danger of death, he adviſed they ſhould delay Baptiſm for three years or there-about, till they could be taught ſome of the Myſteries of Religion. We muſt look upon this (ſay the Magdeburgenſes) as his peculiar Opinion. Nazian. Orat. 3. in S. Lavacrum. Cent. 4. Cap. 6. Pag. 417. And verily Nazianzen's delay for three years, that they may be taught Myſteries, is a weak conceit; for what can a Child be capable of at that Age? or if he be taught to ſay ſomething, it is like that of a Parrot without underſtanding. But the ſame Gregory Nazianzen in his 40th Oration is for Baptizing Children,foreign. not only in caſe of danger but abſolutely. Haſt thou a Young-Child, — let it be Baptized from an Infant, let it be early Conſecrated by, or to the Spirit.

Secondly, He puts a groſs abuſe upon the Magdeburgenſes, in repreſenting them to affirm that all the Eaſtern Churches did only Baptize the Adult, or Aged. We may judge what credit to give him by theſe following inſtances.

Firſt, he perverts the ſaying of Athanaſius, as if it were directed againſt Infant-Baptiſm, when meant only of Infidels, who according to Chriſts Commiſſion muſt firſt be taught, then Baptized. p. 12Athanaſius was for Infant-Baptiſm and it was Practiſed in his days,Athan, ad Antioch. qu. 114. as appears by that paſſage of his to Antiochus 114th Queſtion; Where he reſolves a doubt that might ariſe from the death of Infants, whether they go to Heaven or no. — ſeeing, ſaith he, the Lord ſaid, Suffer little Children to come to me, for of ſuch is the Kingdom of Heaven: And the Apoſtle ſaith, Now your Children are Holy, it is manifeſt, that the Infants of Believers which are Baptized, do as unſpotted and faithful enter into the Kingdom. Where mark again how unworthily Antipaedobaptiſts abuſe the Fathers, in ſaying their ſtrongeſt Argument for Childrens Baptiſm is from Tradition, which they fly to for want of Scripture.

Next he cites Hilary, and we are of his mind, that confeſſion and profeſſion is requiſite to precede the Baptizing-Aliens, but what is this to exclude the Infants of Believers from that Ordinance?

And whereas he ſaith the Eaſtern Churches did only Baptize the Adult, this is abominably falſe. His firſt inſtance is of a ſaying of Baſil contra Eunomium, Lip. 3. Muſt the Faithful be fealed with Baptiſm-Faith muſt needs precede, and go before. And in his Exbortation to Baptiſm, he ſaith, that none were to be Baptized but the Catechumens, and thoſe that were duly inſtructed in the Faith.

Now this is ſufficient to impoſe a fallacy upon any Ordinany Reader, that hath no acquaintance with that Father, and underſtands not in p. 13what ſenſe he ſpeaks, who would hot think that this Antient Dr. was againſt Infant-Baptiſm, and that no ſuch thing was owned in the Church in his days? Whereas the ſame Father, in the very next lines to what the Author hath above cited, ſpeaks thus, — What then ſay you of Infants,Quid vero de Infant ibus ais? qui ne que , quid gratea quidve ſit paend dognorunt? num & illos Baptizeious? maxime quidem, id que nobis deſignat poſt octavum diem Circumciſio illa, &c. which neither know good, nor evil, may we Baptize them? Yea, (ſaith he) For ſo we are taught by the Circumciſing of Children &c. Hence forward, have a care Reader, how you truſt the Authors Quotations, for the palpable abuſe done to this Father.

The next is Nazianzen, that the Baptized in his time uſed in the firſt place to confeſs their Sins; but I am before hand with them in reſpect of this Ancient Dr. of the Church, and love not to repeat. Nazianzen (ſaith he) adviſed that the Baptiſm of Infants be deferred, quoting it out of Dr. Taylors Liberty of Propheſy. Beſides what we have ſaid of Nazianzens judgment, that he diſſwaded not Infant Baptiſm as unlawful, but as conceiving delay for three or four Years more expedient; but if there were Aliquid periouli, any fear of death, then he allowed of it: I ſhall mind the Reader that when the Learned Dr. Taylor brought in Nazianzen againſt Infant-Baptiſm, he perſonated an Anabaptiſt; but in his latter diſcourſe you have his Judgment very fully for Infant-Baptiſm confuting his former piece; & particularly he quotes the following paſſage out of Nazianzen p. 14for Infant-Baptiſm, viz. What wilt thou ſay of Children which neither are ſenſible of the loſs nor the grace? ſhall we Baptize them? yes, by all means in caſe of urgent danger, for it is better to be Sanctified [i e Baptized] without their knowledg, than to dye without it; for ſo it happened to the Circumciſed Babes of Iſrael &c. I conclude this with what Voſſius ſaith of him in his Theſis de Baptiſmo—non igitur Nazianzenus &c. Nazianzen was not againſt Infant-Baptiſm.

After him comes Ambroſe, who in his 3d Book de Sacramentis. Cap. 2. hath this ſaying, That the Baptized did not only make confeſſion of his Faith, but was to deſire the ſame.

I perceive he is ſtill ſick of the old diſeaſe, for that this Father ſpeaks of the Pagans, in what order they were taken into the Church, and not in Oppoſition to the Baptizing Infants needs no other proof, than that he himſelf was for it. Quia omnis aetas peccato obnoxia, ideo omnis aetas Sacramento idonea. (i.e) Becauſe every Age is Obnoxious to ſin, therefore every Age is fit for the Sacrament.

There is one or two more, but I will leave them for we have enough of it.

After this ſmall Shot, the Author lets fly Canons and Decrees of Councils, for Baptizing ſuch as were of years of diſcretion, and were able to rehearſe the Articles of the Creed; as alſo we have an Enumeration of ſeveral perſons born of Chriſtian Parents, that were not Baptized till they were of Age and able to give account of their Faith.

p. 15To which I Reply, firſt Grant that ſome Councils were againſt Infant-Baptiſm which we ſhall not yeild) yet if we muſt go by number of Councils, we ſhall carry it. He names three which he would have thought to be againſt Infant-Baptiſm, and I think I ſhall not exceed in ſaying we may name ten times three for it: and mark Reader, he takes the priviledge of citing Councils, but if we do it, they are ſlighted and condemned for Popiſh and Superſtitious. 2. We conceive thoſe Councils he names, had alſo reſpect to Pagans in their Decrees, and we have good reaſon for it: becauſe the Canon of Neocaeſaria ſpeaks plainly of the Children of ſuch Women as come out from amongſt Infidels, being proſelyted to the Chriſtian Religion in their Pregnancy, as Mr. Marſhal tells Mr. Tombes, This is taken out of Mr. Tombes Exercitation and Examen.when he Objected the ſame thing. The Author hath taken the whole Story out of him and all the reſt upon the matter, which follows in this Century is fetcht from his Exercitation and Examen printed 27. years ſince, and Anſwered by that Reverend Divine Mr. Steven Marſhal, in his Defence of Infant-Baptiſm. I would make a parallel betwixt the Author I have to deal with and Tombes, but that it would be tedious, wherefore inſtead of that I will tranſcribe the ſame things out of Tombes, which the Author hath brought again upon the Stage: If the Reader compare them he will find, never two Eggs more alike.

Mr. Tombes in his Examen Pag. 10. hath it thus: Grotius (ſaith he) in his Annotation on Matt. p. 1619.14. adds, That the Canon of the Synod of Neocaeſaria held in the year 315. determins that a Woman with Child might be Baptized, becauſe the Baptiſm reached not the fruit of her womb, becauſe in the Confeſſion made in Baptiſm each ones free choyce is ſhewed. From which Canon Balſomon and Zonaras do infer, that an Infant cannot be Baptized, becauſe it hath no power to chaſe the Confeſſion of Divine Baptiſm. This is according to what we have in H. D. to a tittle: what impudence then is it to trouble us with this filly and ridiculous Story, when Mr. Marſhal proved to Tombes that the inference brought from hence againſt the Baptiſm of Believers Children was altogether invalid. For the Canon there ſpeaks of the Children of Women come out from among Infidels, and come over to the Chriſtian Faith, during the time they were with Child. For Balſomon ſaith, ſuch Women as were with Child and come from the Infidels, and what is this to our Queſtion? (ſaith Mr. Marſhal) which is about Children born in the Church of believing Parents; and Balſomon the Gloſſator diſtinguiſheth of Children, ſome in the womb and ſome born, for the firſt (faith he) no man can undertake (he means in Baptiſm;) and for the other, they anſwer by ſuch as undertake for them: which words (as Mr. Marſhal obſerves) are not mentioned by Mr, Tombes, (for he ſays no more than what he found in Grotius,) and for the partial relation, he is ſharply rebuked for wronging the Truth, and labouring to deceive people, and yet the Author I conflict with perſiſts in the ſame courſe.

p. 17Next the Author ſpeaks big words, telling us, That in farther Aſſurance and Confirmation of this great Truth, we have moſt remarkable Inſtances of ſeveral of the moſt Eminent perſons of this Century, that were not Baptized till Aged, though the Ofſpring of Believing Parents, viz. Bazil, Gregory, Nazianzen, Ambroſe, Chryſoſtom, Auſtin, Conſtantine.

This alſo is Mr. Tombes again, Examen p. 9. And that People may not be ſtartled with theſe great names,Reply Tombes his Examen, P. 9. and be made to think, that Childrens Baptiſm, was not practiſed in the Church in thoſe days, wherein they lived, I ſhall acquaint the Reader out of Mr. Marſhal, upon what grounds Chriſtians heretofore deferred their Baptiſm; namely, ſometimes they would do it in imitation of Chriſt who was not Baptized till about thirty years of Age. Conſtantine the Great put off his Baptiſm till he came to the River Jordan, in which Chriſt was Baptized, ſome deferred it, till they had contracted a great deal of ſin, out of an erroneous conceit, that by Baptiſm it would be all waſhed away: Much more we have of this in Marſhal's Defence of Infant-Baptiſm, Pag. 27.

Now for the Inſtances, I find Tombes begins with Conſtantine, and then comes on Nazianzen, but the Author here ends with Conſtantine. This argues nevertheleſs it was taken thence: I ſhall p. 18trouble my ſelf no further to ſeek after any other reaſon why the Baptiſm of theſe men was delayed than what Mr. Marſhal gives Tombes.

For Conſtantine the Great (though the Son of Helena, who is reported to have been a zealous Chriſtian) not Baptized till he was Aged: it doth not appear that his Mother was a Chriſtian when he was born, and for his Father Conſtantine, every one knows he was none, though he favoured the Chriſtians. Furthermore, Mr. Marſhal conceives the reaſon why he received not Baptiſm in his Infancy was thus as follows; viz. Conſtantine his Father, albeit a man of a ſweet temper, and tender of his Subjects: firſt out of the mildneſs of his nature favoured the Chriſtians (ſeeing their unblameable Converſation and Faithfulneſs in all their imployments) therefore he did not in a hoſtile way purſue their Religion, as other Emperours did: yea at length he grew to a good eſteem of it, eſpecially towards the end of his life: in this time his Son Conſtantine the Great, lived in Diocleſian his Court, from whence (his life being twice in danger) he ſuddenly eſcaping, came to his Father then ſick, and preſently upon his death was ſaluted Emperour. Theſe things conſidered it is no marvel if he were not Baptized in his Infancy, when for ought we read neither of his Parents had then imbraced the Chriſtian Religion: When he was returned at his Father's Death he was thirty years of Age, and whether ever his Father was Baptized, the Story is ſilent. Neither is Helena her affection to Religion p. 19in his Infancy related in the Story, though afterward it is often mentioned.

Tombes.

Nazianzen (ſaith Tombes for we have to deal with him almoſt every-where in H. D. … Treatiſe) was the Son of a Chriſtian Biſhop. But how doth that appear (faith Mr. Marſhal)? there was a time when he was a Heathen, whether he was Converted before his Son was born, is not expreſt: whilſt he was young he went with Baſil to Athens to be bred in humane Literature, and from thence to Antioch, but not a word is mentioned of his being addicted to Chriſtianity: Having ſpent thirty years in the Study of Humane Literature, he returns to his Father; and if his Parents were Chriſtian when he was born, they ſhewed no good ſign of it in ſending him to Athens to be trained up among Idolatrous Heathens: ſo it is aqueſtion whether Bazil's Father was achriſtian when he ſent him likewiſe to Athens, to be there bred in humane Literature, though afterward he became Biſhop of Niſen.

Tombes.

Then for the Story of Chryſoſtom, 'tis verbatim out of Tombes his Examen pag. 9. who ſaith (out of Grotius upon Matt. 19.) That he was born of Chriſtian Parents and educated by Meletius a Biſhop, yet was he not Baptized till paſt 21 years of age.

p. 20It is well replyed by Marſhal, That this is taken up purely upon the credit of Grotius, who gives no account from whence he fetcheth the relation; which is the more to be ſuſpected, becauſe the Magdeburgenſes ſpeak not a word of it: And the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorians, that ſet forth the place of his Birth and Parentage, and likewiſe his Call to his Eccleſiaſtical Dignity, are ſilent in this, and give not the leaſt hint of his Religion or Baptiſm. Others ſpeaking of him and of his Parents, ſay they were both Heathens, and his Father dyed within a very ſhort time of his birth. It appears (ſaith Mr. Marſhal) from his own Writings, that when he was twenty years of Age his Mother was a Chriſtian; but whether Father or Mother were ſo at his birth is uncertain; and not likely, becauſe his Education in his younger-time was under Libanius, a great Enemy of the Chriſtians; by which it appears, that it is falſly ſuggeſted, that he was Educated by Meletius.

Laſtly for Auſtin, (for he is the laſt we will ſpeak of, and we may judge of the reſt by theſe) he was not Baptized ſaith Tombes, Tombes Examen, Pag. 14.Examen Pag. till about 30. though Educated as a Chriſtian by his Mother Monica: To which Mr. Marſhal thus replys, viz. I will not take upon me to determine what the particular reaſon was of his not being Baptized in his Infancy, but from hence there is no cauſe to ſay that Children of Chriſtians by profeſſion in that Age were not Baptized in Infancy. For firſt it muſt be proved that Auſtin's Parents were Chriſtians at his Birth; otherwiſe whatſoever is ſaid of him, is not to the Queſtion. p. 21Auſtin himſelf tells us in his Confeſſons: That when he was [Puer] a Child, he was extream ſick like to dye, and he and his Mother were both troubled for not being Baptized, and for his Father, he ſayes at that time, he was an Infidel &c. But enough if not too much of this, they that would know the full Story of his Fathers Converſion, may find it in Auſtin's Confeſſions Lib. 2. c. 6. And Auſtin himſelf confeſſeth he put off his Baptiſm till about the 30th year of his Age, being poyſoned with the Manichean Hereſie, in which he continued nine years, Confeſſ. Lib. 3. c. 11. and during which time he ſaith, he derided Baptiſm. Reader, I am not willing to make Oſtentation of greater skill in Hiſtory than I have, and therefore know I am beholding to Mr. Marſhal who hath made theſe Relations ready to my hand.

After this we have a plauſible Story of one Walfridus Strabo an Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorian, and what is brought from him the Author borrows from his good friend Mr. Tombes: you ſhall have it in his very words, that you may know where the Author hath been fiſhing. Tombes in his Exercitation Printed 1646. Pag. 27. hath it thus.Tombes his Exercitation, Pag. 27. The words of Walfridus Strabo who lived about the year 840. in his Book De Rebus Eccleſiaſticis Chap. 26. are theſe: We are alſo to note, that in the firſt times the grace of Baptiſm was wont only to be given to them, who by integrity of body and mind were come to this, that they could know and underſtand what profit is to be obtained in Baptiſm, what is to be Confeſſed and Believed, what laſtly is to be obſerved of them p. 22that are born again in Chriſt, and confirms it by Auſtin's own Confeſſion of himſelf, continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptized: but afterwards Chriſtians underſtanding Original Sin ne perirent parvuli [Tombes hath it in Latin, but the Author in Engliſh] and leſt Children ſhould periſh without any means of Grace, had them Baptized by the Decrees of the Council of Africa, and then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented.

To this I Anſwer, That Strabo is condemned by many Learned men, for a falſe and heedleſs Writer, and they have ſhewn his errors in diverſe things. Voſſius chargeth him with no ſmall faults in relating matters of Fact. As,

Firſt, he ſaid, Auſtin in his Confeſſions tells us, he continued a Catechumenus till he was 25 years old. [Tombes mentions not this as knowing Strabo was out in his reckoning:) Now Auſtin himſelf tells us in his Confeſſions, that he was not converted till about the 30th year of his Age; and after that continued a Catechized Perſon two years, and in the 34th year of his Age, he was Baptized at Millain by Ambroſe.

Secondly, whereas he makes as if Infant-Baptiſm were an Innovation, & not in uſe in the firſt times, he goes about to prove it very ſimply, from Auſtin's being Baptized at full years: as if Auſtin's times had been the firſt times, whereas we have ſhewn before it was in practice many hundred years before he was born; and Auſtin himſelf (that lived many hundred years before Strabo was born), affirms, That the Church always had it; always held it. It was a ſolid Obſervation of Mr. Geree in his Vindiciae paedobaptiſmi, That if the Antiquity of Infant-Baptiſm p. 23had been dubious amongſt the Ancients, ſurely ſome of the Latin or Greek Churches that held the delay of Baptiſm more convenient, and perſwaded it, would have been the more perſwaded againſt the uſe of it, from its Novelty, and given at leaſt ſome hint of that in their Arguings.

Thirdly, I obſerve a pittiful eſcape in Walfridus Strabo, who ſaith Infant-Baptiſm took its riſe and foundation afterwards, when Chriſtians came to underſtand Original Sin; and when was that I pray, doth he think never till Auſtin's days? I ſuppoſe Chriſtians underſtood this as ſoon as ever Baptiſm was enjoyned; the Scripture is ſo expreſs touching Original corruption: Nay the very Heathens by the light of Nature knew, that we were Originally depraved, although they could not tell which way it came about, as Dupleſſis largely ſhews in his Verity of Chriſtian Religion. This alſo was ſhadowed forth to the Jews in Circumciſion: In ſin was I conceived ſaith David, &c. What a ſtrange imagination then is it in this Writer, That the Baptiſm of Infants was an Invention found out in Auſtin's time, to waſh away Original Sin, of which Chriſtians till then had been ignorant! It is very true the Fathers were of opinion that it was of uſe for that, and that long before Auſtin. They knew Infants were defiled, although they had lived but one day upon Earth as Origen ſpeaks, Hom. 8. in Luk. although Origen miſtakes as to the manner how they came to be defiled. For this fancy of Strabo, minds me with another of Origen's, a little more extravagant, who thought Baptiſm ſerved to waſh p. 24away thoſe ſins which the Soul was guilty of, whilſt it was in ſome other Body (a Pythagorean fancy,) before it entered into the body of the Child; whence it appears that Origen was not for the Traduction of Original Sin from our Parents, but a patron of the Pelagian hereſy, (afterward ſo called.)

Fourthly, Strabo is much out too about his God-fathers and God-mothers, which were in uſe in the Church many hundred years before Auſtin was born, even in the 3d Century in Tertullian's days and yet he tells us, they were firſt invented in Auſtin's days.

Fifthly; Laſtly this Srabo doth at laſt kick down the good pail of Milk, which he before gave our Adverſaries; for declaring his own Opinion upon the matter he ſaith, that it was a ſign of the growth of Religion after a diligent ſearch) to take up the practice of Infant-Baptiſm, and amongſt other Teſtimonies citeth the Fathers in general for it, in oppoſition to the prolonging of Auſtin's Baptiſm, till he was Adult: And concludes at laſt thus — Wiſe Chriſtians Baptized their Infants, being not as ſome heretical perſons, oppoſing the Grace of God, and contend that Infants are not to be Baptized.

Some others my Antagoniſt brings, and quotes Authors for perſons not Baptized till grown up; which whether true or no, I ſhall not enquire nor undertake to determine of the reaſons why their Baptiſm was delayed, which very likely may be the ſame with thoſe before-mentioned, or …or other cauſes which ſhake not the Baſis, upon which p. 25Infant-Baptiſm is ſetled, nor ſtrike at the general Practice of the Church.

CENT. V.

HE tells us again, That in this Age, Believers Baptiſm was Aſſerted, and the grounds thereof by many learned Writers: and here take notice Reader how egregiouſly he Faulters, for he inſtanceth only in two, Chryſoſtom and Auſtin: the former ſaying, That the time of Grace and Converſion was the only fit time for Baptiſm; which was the ſeaſon the three-thouſand were Baptized in the 2d. of the Acts, and the five-thouſand afterwards, Acts 4.

The latter, that is Auſtin, in his Book de fide & bonis Operibus, Cap. 6. ſaith, That none without due Examination, both as to Doctrine and Converſation ough to be admitted to Baptiſm.

In theſe Quotations the Author ſeems to have forgotten himſelf; for ſee what he ſays in his Treatiſe Pag. 121. there he gives an account of the Doctors of this Age [Cent. 5.] that approv'd Infant-Baptiſm, the firſt is Chryſoſtom, the words cited by him are theſe: That Infants ought to be Baptized, as univerſally received by the Catholick-Church: And again, That which the Church throughout the World unanimouſly teacheth and practiſeth about the Baptizing of Children, ought not careleſly to be ſlighted. Magdeburg. Cent. 5. Pag. 375. Then he inſtanceth in Auſtin, who (ſaith he) was as a great Patron, ſo a great Defender of Infant-Baptiſm, p. 26in his Conteſts both againſt the Donatiſts and the Pelagians, and the Celeſtians; and then ſets down ſome paſſages out of his works for it: ſo that here we have theſe Fathers (according to the account he gives of them) diametrically oppoſite to themſelves, and how ſhall we reconcile them? very eaſily, (even as we may do with the ſayings of the reſt:) for when they ſpeak of the Baptizing perſons after examination as to Doctrine and Converſation, they mean Pagans: and when they Aſſert Infant-Baptiſm,The Fathers Reconciled. it is in the behalf of the Children of Believers born in the Church. And juſt as the Author hath ſerved theſe Fathers, ſo hath he conſtantly dealt with Mr. Baxter, in all the Quotations taken from him, concerning a profeſſion of Faith which he maintained as neceſſary before Baptiſm, in his Diſputation with Mr. Blake; although Mr. Baxter did ſo cautelouſly advertiſe the Reader, that a Profeſſion which he ſo much inſiſted upon, was to be underſtood only in reference to Adult Perſons; and that the diſpute had no reference at all to the Children of viſible Believers.

Let us now for a Concluſion of this Century, hear what the Magdeburgenſes ſay, concerning this Age — Baptiſati ſunt porrô tum Adulti tum Infantes. that is, both grown Perſons and Infants were Baptized, Cent. 5. Cap. 6. Pag. 654.

And they tell us how they dealt with the Adult in this Age;Ae Adultorum quidem fuit ea conditio, ut prius in Catecheſeos parti-bus recte & ſolidè inſtituerentur, unde ipſis nomen Catechumenorum fuit. namely, Firſt they were rightly and ſolidly inſtructed in p. 27the parts of the Catechiſm, and from hence they were named Catechumeniſts, of which we have ſuch frequent mention in Eccleſiaſtical Writers.

CENT. VI.

IN this Age (ſaith the Author) The Adult upon Profeſſion of Faith, were Baptized. This is no news: and yet 'tis obſervable he gives no inſtance of any ſuch that were Baptized; which if he had, it had been nothing to the purpoſe; unleſs he could have proved that in this Age the judgment of the Church had been againſt Infant-Baptiſm, which is quite otherwiſe: for the Magdeburgenſes cite this ſaying of Maxentius, Propterea recentes ab utero parvulos credimus Baptizari, that is: We believe Infants newly born are to be Baptized. The Author is ſo ſtreightned in this Century, that he knows not well what to ſay, at length he pitcheth upon a ſpeech of Gregory, and would have that interpreted againſt us. Gregory ſaith, Lib. 4. c. 26. That a Sermon was uſed to be preached to thoſe that were to be Baptized to renounce the Pomps &c. This argues ſomething, but it is only that our Antagoniſt is not yet recovered of his old diſeaſe. For this of Gregory is certainly meant of the method the Church then uſed in Baptizing the newly converted Pagans: for the Magdeburgenſes ſignify in the ſame Century Pag. 228. how p. 28Gregory was for Infant-Baptiſm, by the doubt which he reſolved about Abortives. The queſtion there put is this, what becomes of Abortives, Nunquid Abortivi aeternâ requie perfruuntur?do they go to Heaven? they are not born again of Water &c. and ſo have the guilt of Original Sin lying upon them, (this was the general opinion of thoſe times, that Baptiſm took away Original Sin): now Gregory he anſwers it thus, That the Faith alone of others, may be as helpful to them, as Water is to others. Truly Gregory ſeems to be no very good Teſtimony, either for or againſt Infant-Baptiſm, only we have this advantage, that as to matter of fact it was in uſe in his days: 'tis ſtrange the Author ſhould pitch upon ſuch a man for a Teſtimony, but any body will ſerve the turn, if any thing drops from his pen, that may be wreſted againſt Infant-Baptiſm.

The Magdeburgenſes take notice of ſeveral unſound and ridiculous paſſages of Gregory; as particularly what he ſaith in Cantica Canticorum, viz. — A peccatis omnibus in Baptiſmo abluimur, that is, The guilt of all our Sins is waſhed away in Baptiſm; for certainly (ſaith he) The Mare Rubrum, the Red Sea, was a figure of Baptiſm: and as Pharaoh and his Hoſt was drowned therein, ſo are all our ſins drowned in Baptiſm. And 'tis a very ſweet ſaying which the Author cites out of the ſame place, Cent. 6. Pag. 226. That Baptiſm is the Divine Fountain. wherein the Faithful have the new Creature brought forth. The Author helps him a little in the Tranſlation, for it is in novam Creaturam regenerantur, are regenerated p. 29into a new Creature; and yet they were according to this nonſenſical ſentence the Faithful before they were new Creatures.

CENT. VII.

THe Author begins this Century with the Bracarens Council held in Spain, which decreed, That no Adult perſon but ſuch who had been well inſtructed, and catechiſed, and duly examined ſhould be Baptized. Cent. 7. Pag. 146.

At the reading of which I could not but ſmile; for it minded me with what I have heard related concerning a certain Thief, who having ſecretly gotten into a Room, and being by himſelf, was obſerved by one not far from him, how earneſtly he looked about for ſomething to faſten on, but finding nothing of worth, ſtoopsdown, and filled his Pookets with Ruſhes: the Obſerver comeing in upon him unexpectedly, demanded, what he meant; why ſaith he, only to keep my hand in action. If the Author could have found that it had been decreed in that Council that none ſhould be Baptized without being Catechiſed &c. this had been ad rem. No body denys but the Adult, or Perſons grown up, ought to be duly examined before Baptiſm. The Magdeburgenſes ſay, it was determined in this Council, that none ſhould be admitted to Baptiſm (ex Adultis) of Perſons grown up; where note, that this Decree hath nothing to do with Children: but is ſtill to be underſtood of Aliens, newly come over to p. 30Chriſtianity; for it was decreed that for twenty days before Baptiſm, the Catechumeniſts ſhould be convened before the Clergy, and learn the Creed. And after the Magdeburgenſes have ſaid this, they preſently add — Item in ſexto Conſtantinop. C. 2 do. it is ordained, that none ſhall be Baptized, unleſs he can ſay the Creed, and Lords-Prayer, (Exceptis his, qui propter aetatem loqui nondum poſſunt;) except thoſe who by reaſon of Age are not able to ſpeak: See here again, Reader, what little integrity there is in this Authors Quotations.

He concludes this Century with the relation of one Paulinus, that Baptized in the River, Trent here in England, a great number both of Men and Women at noon-days. Bede L. 2. c. 16. Cent. 7. p. 145.

This will be found as little to the purpoſe as the reſt, for nothing can be hence inferred againſt the Baptiſm of Believers Children; for Bede himſelf tells us, that at that time the inhabitants of this Iſland were Pagans; for 'twas when Gregory ſent Auſtin with fourty others from Rome (whereof Paulinus was one) to preach the Goſpel;Sic in initio Eccleſiae apud Brittannos, ubi jam cito templa non potuerunt extrui, paſſim ad Flumina turba Baptizata eſt. Beda L. 2. Ang. Hiſt. Cap. 14. & he ſaith it was when firſt of all a Chriſtian Church was planted among the Brittains, and before any Temples were erected, ſo that they were neceſſitated to Baptize in Rivers. The Author pretermits all this in ſilence; if our adverſaries did or would but underſtand, the import of that diſtinction of Eccleſia Conſtituenda & p. 31Eccleſia Conſtituta, that is a Church to be planted, and a Church already planted, we ſhould have no more trouble about this Controverſy.

CENT. VIII.

HE hath not yet done with venerable Bede, for he quotes other paſſages out of him, but I have no mind to repeat; only reader know, that Bede and we are of one mind about the order of Baptiſm, in reference to Pagans. Teaching before Baptiſm (ſaith he) is rectiſſimus Ordo, a moſt right Order, which is intended by him with reſpect to Pagans; for he declares himſelf for the Baptiſm of Believers Children, elſe what interpretation ſhall we put upon thoſe words of his cited by the Magdeburgenſes, Pag. 223, of this 8th Cent. namely, Chriſti corpori per Baptiſmum tota Credentium Soboles adunatur, By Baptiſm the whole Of-ſpring of Believers are united to the body of Chriſt: & ſuppoſe Bede had been againſt Infant-Baptiſm, yet no body hath any great cauſe to glory in his Teſtimony, who in many things was very corrupt: and the Magdeburgenſes alſo take notice of ſeveral groſs paſſages of his about Baptiſm. Cent. 8. Pag. 221. As that in his comment upon the 14th Exod. Pag. 221. Diabolus in Spirituali lavacro, id eſt, Baptiſmo, ſuffocatus eſt. In Baptiſm the Devil is choaked, which is not likely unleſs alſo his head could be got under water, and kept there long enough; with much more ſuch pittiful ſtuff there mentioned.

p. 32CENT. IX.

THe Magdeburgenſes acquaint us that in this Century the Baptiſm of Infants was Aſſerted, and grounded upon that Text Matth. 19. Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not; and they tell us of one Hincmarus a Biſhop, how ſharply he reproved one that was againſt it: for the Biſhop ſaid, that in denying it, he did that Quod nullus unquam Chriſtianorum facere auſus eſt; Which no Chriſtian ever durſt to do. Cent. 9, cap. 4. pag. 140.

CENT. X.

UNder this Century, in their 6th Chapter Circa ritus Baptiſmi, about the Rites of Baptiſm, they have this paſſage that in this Age tam Inſantes quam Adultos Baptizabant, They Baptized both grown Perſons and Infants.…atrini adhibiti etiam ſunt. Magd. Cent. 10. p. 293. Cent. 10. pag. 293. Beſides, they give inſtances of ſeveral Infants Baptized, and tell us, that God-fathers were in uſe in this Age, & that they ſtrictly enjoyned, that they look to it, that the Children that were Baptized be inſtructed in the Chriſtian Faith, when they come (ad ſuſtain et atem) to ripeneſs of years, Cap. 6. Pag. 292. yet is not the Author aſhamed to inſinuate as if they had been againſt Infant-Baptiſm, even in this Age alſo. For firſt, he brings in Auslbertus (the Magdeburgenſes call him Ausbertus,) and what of him? p. 33Why he hath this expreſſion (which the Author quotes out of the Magdeburgenſes) namely, That the Faithful are born, not of Blood, but of God; viz. of the Word of God preached, and of the Baptiſm of God duly adminiſtred, by which Sacraments God's Children are begotten, Cent. 10. pag. 189. Good Doctrine indeed, and much to the purpoſe; Baptiſm is one of the Sacraments, and the Word preached another.

The next is Smaragdus on Mat. 28.Ordo Baptizandi in Adultis a Smaragdo traditur, ſay the Magdeburgs. What, ſaith he? why firſt, Men are to be taught, (that is, Heathens) afterward baptized; That this is his meaning, take his own word for it, pag. 188. where he thus expreſſeth himſelf, Little Children are to be baptized, becauſe it is ſaid, Suffer little Children to come unto me, &c.

Laſt of all the Author cites Theophylact, from the Magdeburgenſes, and would fain have it alſo believed that he was againſt Infant-Baptiſm, becauſe of that ſaying of his, Whoſoever is truly baptized, hath put on Christ, pag. 189.

I cannot but think the Author doth wilfully miſtake, and ſets himſelf on purpoſe to blind the Reader; for he cannot but obſerve the Magdeburgenſes quoting that paſſage of his, on the 15th of Luke, Cent. 10. pag. 190. where Theophylact lays down this Poſition, That an Infidel or Pagan muſt needs die in his ſins; Why? becauſe he hath not put off the oldman ſacramentally; that is, he hath not been baptized. This Ancient Doctor ſpeaks in that place only of ſuch, and what is this to the Baptiſm of Believers Children?

CENT. XI.

HEre Anſelm is introduced by him, as if he were againſt us, becauſe he ſaith Believers are baptized into the Death of Chriſt, Cent. 10. pag. 186. I perceive the Author's pulſe begins now to beat very low: For the Magdeburgenſes do in this Century bring in a paſſage moſt expreſs for Infant-Baptiſm, in the Comment on the third of Matthew, Octavus dies in quo Circumciditur Infans dies eſt Baptiſmatis, in quo Neophytus quiſque exuitur labe pr…ae generationis. The eighth day, in which the Infant was circumciſed, is the day of Baptiſm. Alſo on Rom. 6 Anſelm p. 34hath this ſaying; Profecto & parvuli qui Baptizantur in Chriſto, &c. pag. 260. They tell us farther, that in this Age they did baptize not only Adult perſons, but ſuch as were newly born, pag. 260. and alſo give inſtances of divers Children baptized in this Age, citing a paſſage out of Meginhardus de fide, That in this Age Sureties were in uſe, which anſwered for the Children.

CENT. XII.

RƲpert, Lombard, Aquinas, and the reſt of the Popiſh Schoolmen were zealous Aſſerters of Infant-Baptiſm; and whatever they ſpeak of Confeſſion or Profeſſion, before it be adminiſtred, is meant, as before, of Pagans; and the Magdeburgenſes cite divers paſſages of Lombard, how that Children, although they have no Faith of their own, may be baptized in the right of others Faith that preſent them to the Ordinance. Johannes Boemus, [the Author miſtakes and calls him Bohemius] is indeed of Strabo's mind, and beſides theſe two I may truly ſay, that from the beginning of the Centuries hitherto, this unfaithful man hath perverted the ſayings of all the Authors which he hath quoted; and upon conſideration of his carriage herein, I am confident of theſe two things:

Firſt, That never did any Writer more prevaricate, and ſhew more faſhood than he hath done.

Secondly, That he would certainly have forborn it, if he had thought any man would have been at the trouble to examine and ſearch whether he ſpake truth or not.

p. 35PART II.

We now come to the Second Part of his Treatiſe, which is to diſprove Infant-Baptiſm, under this Head, That the Baptizing of Infants is no Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt.