A Defense of Infant Baptism, Treatise · Part 1
SIR,
I Received your Book about the time mentioned by your ſelf: which when I had read over, and thereby perceived how meane an eſteem you had not onelyonly of my Sermon, but of all other things extant, in defence of Infant-Baptiſme; and indeed of all Men whoſe judgement differs from your owne; and how highly you value your own performance in this piece: I concluded you would have no reſt in your ſpirit untill it ſaw the light; and the rather, becauſe you ſo earneſtly preſſe mee To call in to my aſſiſtance all the reſt who are ingaged in this Cauſe, that ſo you might have an adverſary fit to deale with, that as a mighty man you might incounter with an Hoſt. But when after ſome friendly conference with you, you declared to me, that if you might enjoy liberty to exerciſe your Miniſtery, in ſome place where you ſhould not be put upon the practice of baptizing of Infants, you could (yea, and intimated to me that you would) keepe this Opinion private to your ſelfe, provided onelyonly, that if any ſhould preach in your Pulpit for the Baptizing of them, you ſhould take your ſelf bound in the ſame place to preach againſt it; otherwiſe Mens preaching or printing abroad, ſhould be no provocation to you. (In hope whereof, my ſelf endeavoured to help you in to the place where now you are, deſiring the Church might not loſe the benefit of thoſe good gifts which God hath beſtowed upon you.) And thereupon I tooke no further thought of any preſent Examination of your large Treatiſe, having my hands full of other employments, becauſe I verily thought you would have ſate quietly down, preached Chriſt, kept your Opinion to your ſelf, and not have any further appeared (eſpecially at this time) to increaſe the flame of our Diviſions and confuſions.
But ſince you think it neceſſary to deprive the Infants of Beleevers, of that which wee conceive to bee their glorious priviledge; yea, and looke upon all other endeavours of Reformation, as things which will come to nothing, till this opinion of yours prevaile (ſo dearely are you in love with your own Babe) and come out into the field ſo bravingly, and gaint-like, to tread down all who ſtand againſt your way: I have (with the Lords aſſiſtance) undertaken your pompous Treatiſe; and as farre as my impaired health, and other ſervices would permit, indeavoured to bring your Examen to the tryall, with as much brevity and cleareneſſe as I could poſſibly; and I hope alſo, with ſo much evidence of truth, that there ſhall be no need of a Colledge to make any further anſwer unto you. Wherein I ſhall not (as you have done) carpe at every phraſe or expreſſion, nor digreſſe into impertinent Diſcourſes, thereby to ſwell up a volume; nor amuſe the Reader with multitudes of Quotations of Latine and Greek Authors, and then turn them into Engliſh; nor frame as many ſenſes of an expreſſion as is poſſible, and then confute them, and ſo fight with men of ſtraw of mine own fitting up; nor ſpend a whole ſheet of Paper together, in confuting what was never intended by my Adverſary, as the Reader ſhall clearly perceive you have deal… with me: but plainly grapple with you, and inſiſt onelyonly upon what properly belongs to the cauſe in hand.
But firſt give me leave to obſerve your deſtructive Artifice. It is the Socinians way to elude all Texts of Scripture which are urged againſt them, if they have been differently expounded by Learned and Godly men, ancient or modern: to queſtion all concluſions infer'd by conſequence from Scripture: to deride the teſtimonies of any of the Ancients, by diſcovering the nakedneſſe, error, and overſight of thoſe Reverend men: and by making themſelves merry by turning the Orations, Epiſtles, or alluſions of the Fathers into Syllogiſmes: and by inſerting of Ergo, now and then, to make all their Rhetoricall paſſages ſeem ridiculous. I appeal to the judicious Reader, whether this plot be not carried through your Examen & Exercitation. Eſpecially I obſerve your maine faculty to lye in framing ſpecious anſwers to Arguments brought to prove any thing. Your great Argument in your Exercitation is; if I can anſwer all Arguments for baptizing Infants, then &c. And then you form the Argument into ſeverall ſhapes, and ſeek to clude them; and herein I confeſſe you are dextrous. The reſt of the Arguments wherein you doe aſſert, or goe directly to prove; alaſſe how inconſequent are they, as will appeare when they come to bee examined. The like courſe you take in your Examen, laying out abundance of ſtrength in the anoſc…uaſticall part, waving and eluding the dint of an argument, by diſtinctions and ſeverall ſenſes, and finding ſome men of note to conſtrue a Text otherwayes, and the like. So that the Reader may ſee what you doe not like, but he may ſtay long enough before you bring ſatisfying arguments to ſettle him in that which you would have, when you have ſtartled him, in what you would not have. But this kind of diſputing never edifies the Church: what one book was ever written by any of our Divines, even in the great point of Juſtification, or Faith; which ſome learned and ſubtle Papiſt hath not been able to cloud and ſlur in ſuch a way of anſwering? Well, however I proceed to your Examen.
And I begin with your Prologue, wherein you declare Reply to the Preface.the occaſion and end of this your writing; the ſum whereof you make to bee this. Firſt, you ſent (as you ſay) Nine Arguments drawne up in Latine to a Committee appointed (as you were informed) to give ſatisfaction about points of Paedobaptiſme; afterward Three Arguments more, with a ſupplement of ſome other things in writing, which were delivered to Mr. Tuckney, and by him joyned to the other Papers; your intent being either to give or receive ſatisfaction in this great point; but to this day (much contrary to your expectactation) you have had no returne from the Committee. Secondly, you are more provoked by ſome paſſages in a Sermon of Mr. Vines. Thirdly, and by a compariſon in my Sermon, between Hazaels cruelty to the Infants of the Iſraelites, and the principles of the Anabaptiſts. Fourthly, you finde mee too vehement in maintaining of this point, of which you and others ſee no ground. Fifthly, yea Mr. Dan. Rogers confeſſes himſelfe unconvinced by demonſtration of Scripture for it. Sixthly, that Mr. Ball cuts the ſinewes of the Argument drawn from Circumciſion. Seventhly, that Muſculus at length found 1 Cor. 7. 14. impertinent to prove this point. Eighthly, to conclude, upon your beſt ſearch, you are confirmed that it is an Innovation maintained by dangerous principles, a thing not to bee acquitted from Will-worſhip; that it hath occaſioned many errors in Doctrine, corruptions in Diſcipline and manners, unneceſſary and vaine diſputes, and almoſt quite changed the Ordinance of Baptiſme, &c.
This is the ſum of your Introduction; to which, becauſe it is but a pompous dumb ſhew, I ſhall returne a very briefe anſwer.
Firſt, for your Latine buſineſſe ſent to the Committee, I thought you had not been ignorant, that the worke of Committees, is but to prepare matter for the Aſſembly; but neither Committees nor Aſſembly have power to anſwer any thing, ſent from any (except from the honorable Houſes) without leave from the Parliament. And if you pleaſe now to take notice of it, you will no longer wonder why the Committee hath made no return to your private Paper; this I thinke is ſufficient to remove your firſt ſtumbling block: onelyonly I am further to tell you from Mr. Tuckney, that hee deſires you to get better evidence for what you relate concerning him; for the truth is, he neither mediately nor immediately received any Papers from you, nor joyned your 3 laſt Arguments to your 9 firſt.
Secondly, your offence at a paſſage in Mr. Vines his Sermon, ſhall bee conſidered in the place where you againe repeate it, and aggravate it to the utmoſt, Part 2. Sect. 6.
Thirdly, as to your exaggerating my alluſion to Hazaels practice. I anſwer, I compared not their intentions with his, but the fruit of their principles; caſting all beleevers Children as much out of the Covenant of Grace, as they do the Children of Turks and Pagans and therein you your ſelf joyn with them. Now whether ſuch a compariſon might not be uſed without any further Apologie, I leave the unprejudiced Reader to judge.
Fourthly, whether my proofs for this Doctrine are weak, uncertaine, far-fetch't, ſhall God willing appeare to them, who wil impartially read and compare your book and mine together.
Fifthly, as for what you ſuggeſt from my Reverend and Learned Friend, Mr. Dan. Rogers, although enough might be taken out of his words in that book, to declare his own meaning; I rather chuſe to ſet it downe in the very words which he wrote to me in a Letter, bearing date the 29 of January laſt paſt, in way of anſwer to a Letter which I wrote to him; wherein I requeſted of him to know, what in his name I ſhould anſwer to this paſſage of your book: his words are theſe; If I were to anſwer that Anabaptiſt, I ſhould anſwer him ſilentio & contemptu: for why ſhould I not? ſince in that very place of my Sacraments, part 1. p. 78, 79. where I confute thoſe Schiſmaticks, he ſnatches my words from their own defence. My words are, I confeſſe my ſelfe unconvinced by any demonſtration of Scripture for Paedo-Baptiſme, meaning, by any poſitive Text; what is that to helpe him? Except I thought there were no other arguments to evince it: Now what I thinke of that, my next words ſhew, pag. 77. lin. 4, 5, 6, 7. I need not tranſcribe them. In a mord, this I ſay, though I know …, yet that is no argument for the non-Baptizing of Infants; ſince ſo many Scriptures are ſufficiently convincing for it. Therefore this want of a poſitive Text muſt no more exclude Inſants, &c. then the like reaſon ſhould diſanull a Chriſtian Sabbath, or Women-kind not to be partakers of the Supper: The quoting of mine own Text were enough.
6. If Mr. Ball cut the ſinewes of the Argument from Circumciſion to Baptiſme, himſelf was very much miſtaken in his owne meaning and intentions, who in the very ſame place alledged by you, uſes the ſame Argument, & makes the parallel to lie in the ſame things which my Sermon doth: you might have done well to have informed the Reader ſo much, when you uſed his authority to overthrow that Argument: his words are theſe, Circumciſion and Baptiſme are both Sacraments of Divine inſtitution, and ſo they argree in the ſubſtance of the things ſignified, the Perſons to whom they are to be adminiſtred, and the order of adminiſtration, if the right proportion be obſerved: as Circumciſion ſealed the entrance into the Covenant, the righteouſneſſe of Faith, and Circumciſion of the heart; ſo doth Baptiſme much more clearly; as, Abraham and his Houſhold, and the Infants of beleeving Jewes, were to bee Circumciſed; ſo the faithfull, their families, and their ſeed are to be baptized. Circumciſion was to bee but once applyed by Gods appointment; and the ſame holds in Baptiſme, according to the will and good pleaſure of God.
Seventhly, I perceive you glory much that Muſculus hath deſerted 1 Cor. 7. 14. as an impertinent proofe for baptizing of Infants, and you repeat it at leaſt three or foure times in your book: and I obſerve through out your whole Treatiſe, that when any Authour joynes with you in any particular, you improve his authority to the utmoſt; which makes me conceive, that it would be a great glory to you, to be able to prove a conſent of Learned men to concur with you in your way. And therefore I cannot but wonder that you ſhould ſo much ſlight and undervalue the Judgements of Fathers and Councells, Harmonies and Confeſſions of whole Churches, when they differ from you. As for Muſculus, whether he changed his Judgement upon 1 Cor. 7. on good grounds, ſhall be examined in due place: In the meane time I informe the Reader that in the ſame place Muſculus acknowledges that there are Arguments enough, and ſufficiently ſtrong to prove baptizing of Infants, though this 1 Cor. 7. be left out. And if Muſculus Opinion ſway in the one, I hope it's not to bee rejected in the other.
Eightly, whether Dignum tanto tulit hic promiſſor hiatn; whether your roaſt be anſwerable to your great boaſt; Whether your Arguments and Anſwers will make good this high charge that Paedo-Baptiſme is an Innovation, maintained upon dangerous principles, &c. we proceed now to examine.
And firſt wee ſhall inquire concerning the Hiſtoricall Sect. 2. Reply to the Hiſtorical part, vindicating the Antiquity of Infant Baptiſm.part, Whether Paedo-Baptiſme as it is now taught, be but a late Innovation: whether it bee not as anoient as is pretended.
Becauſe many of the Anabaptiſts ſhame not to ſay, That the Ancients, eſpecially the Greek Church, rejected Infant-Baptiſme for many hundred yeares: I ſaid in the beginning of my Sermon, that the Chriſtian Church hath been in the poſſeſſion of it for the ſpace of 1500 years and upward, and named a few teſtimonies out of the Greeke and Latine Fathers, in little more then one page, to make this good; no wayes intending to make the weight of the Queſtion to hang in any degree upon humane teſtimonies or conſent of authority, but onelyonly upon the evidence of the Word; upon this you have beſtowed two or three ſheets of your book, and as if all Antiquity run on your fi…e you confidently affirme:
1. As much may bee ſaid for Epiſcopacy, keeping of Faſter, the religious uſe of the Croſſe.
2. That my higheſt Teſtimonies reach not ſo high.
3. That being rightly weighed, they make rather againſt the preſent Doctrine and practice, then for it.
4. That there are many evidences, which doe as ſtrongly prove, that from the beginning it was not ſo; and therefore is but an Innovation. The firſt of theſe you ſuppoſe ſo cleare to Scholars, that it is needleſſe for you to bring any proofe; the other three you undertake to make good in your ſubſequent diſcourſe.
Truly Sir, your undertaking is very high and confident, and I ſhall diligently weigh with what ſtrength you perform it; and ſhall therefore more fully inquire into the practice of Antiquity in this point, then elſe I ſhould have judged convenient to doe. As for that which you tooke for granted, That there are plaine teſtimonies for Epiſcopacy, the Religious uſe of the Croſſe, &c. before any teſtimonies can be produced for the baptizing of Infants, pardon mee that I forbear to beleeve you till you have made it good. I have already alledged ſome, and ſhall now (God willing) alledge more teſtimonies to prove that in the Judgement of the Ancients, the baptizing of Infants was received in all ages, and from the very Apoſtles, as a divine Inſtitution. I read no ſuch thing for Epiſcopacy, as a diſtinct order from Presbytery; your ſelfe may read in Dr. Reynolds his Epiſtle to Sir Francis Knolls, that in the Judgement of Ambroſe, Chryſoſtome, Auguſtine, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Primaſius, Sedulius, Gregorius, and many other, that Biſhops and Presbyters were all one by divine Inſtitution, and that Eccleſiasticall conſtitution made the difference between them. Much leſſe doe I read among them, that the Religious uſe of the Croſſe was received in all ages, and that as a divine Inſtitution. If you can make it out that theſe things were ſo, you will do a very acceptable ſervice to the Papists, Anabaptiſts, & Prelaticall Party, who no doubt will return you hearty thanks, if your evidence be correſpondent to your confidence. If you cannot, you ſhould doe well to revoke this bold aſſertion. In the meane time I ſhall examine your Examen, of the Antiquity produced to make good the practice of the Ancient Church in Paedo-Baptiſme. The firſt whereof was taken from Juſtine Martyr.
Your firſt exception put in againſt this teſtimony is concerning Juſtine Martyr, or the Treatiſe under his name vindicated.the year in which he lived: I ſaid 150; thereupon you charge me with overlaſhing, becauſe I affirmed, the Church had been in poſſeſſion of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500 yeares and upwards. Yet my overlaſhing herein, is not ſo much as you would have the world believe; though my teſtimonies had pleaded for no higher time then 150 after Chriſt: Neither have I overlaſhed ſo farre in this (as God willing hereafter ſhall appeare) as you have done more then once. I ſaid the Church was ſo long in poſſeſſion of it; and if you bee pleaſed to ſubtract 150 from 1645. I hope the remaining number will ſhew the miſtake was not great, as appeares in the margent. If the Church was not all the while in poſſeſſion of it, it had been your part to have informed your Reader …of the time, wherein the Churches quiet poſſeſſion was diſturbed, and by whom. It is true, I named Baltazzar Pacommitanus with his aſſociates, who to their own ruine ſtarted up to diſturbe this poſſeſſion: but the claim of an unjuſt intruder to juſtle out the true owner, will not carry the Title in any Court where equity takes place. In pleading the Churches poſſeſſion of this truth for ſo long time, I ſaid not ſo much as others have affirmed before me; Learned Auguſtine (though his judgement bee ſlighted by you) affirmed as much in his time, and yet I read not of any then that excepted againſt him for it: The Church (ſaith he) ever had it, ever held it, they received this from the faith of their Anceſtors, Hoc Eccleſia ſemper habuit, ſemper tenuit, hoc a majorum fide accepit, hoc uſ que in finem per ſeveranter cuſtodit. Aug. Serm. 15. de verbis Apoſt.and this will it with perſeverance keep unto the end. If he might ſay that the Church before his time ever had, & maintained it, and if after his time it was more clearely h…ld out; then I hope I did not overlaſh in ſaying the Church had bin 1500 years poſſeſſed of it. And it were an eaſie task to produce abundance of teſtimonies, giving evidence (not onelyonly for their own age, but) that it was the received cuſtome in all ages even from the Apoſtles time, & that this evidence was true, we may hence know, (ſaith Learned Ʋoſſius) becauſe the Pelagians never durſt deny it, when the Orthodox Divines uſed to preſſe it, who certainly wanted neither Learning nor will to have gainſayed them, if they could have found them abuſing Antiquity: nay, they not onelyonly not denyed this, but concurred in it, ſo ſaith Auguſtine, lib. 2. contra Caeliſt. & Pelag. Caeliſtus (ſaith he) in a book which hee ſet forth at Rome, grants, That Infants were baptized for the remiſſion oſ ſins, according to the rule of the univerſall Church, and according to the ſentence of the Goſpell.
In the next place you tell me I know that booke from whence this teſtimony was taken, was queſtioned whether it was Juſtine Martyrs or no. Truly I was not ignorant thereof; therefore I ſaid, in a Treatiſe that goes under his name; I did not confidently averre that he was the Author of it; yet you plainly call it a baſtard Treatiſe, and never prove it▪ but whoſeſoever it was, it is well known to be ancient; and both Proteſtants and Papiſts aſſerting Paedobaptiſme, cite it.
Thirdly, I take notice that you anſwer nothing againſt the truth of the teſtimony it ſelfe: onelyonly you ſay, that by it I may ſee that the reaſon of baptizing Infants was, not the Covenant of grace made to beleevers and their ſeed, which you make the ground of baptizing Infants at this day. You cannot be ignorant that this teſtimony was not alledged by me to prove the ground why it was adminiſtred: I onelyonly made uſe of it to beare witneſſe to the matter of fact, that Infants were baptized in that age in which that booke was written, which is plainely held out in the anſwer to the queſtion; you may alſo remember what Iuſt. Mart. qu. 56I ſaid of all the teſtimonies quoted by me, that I did not relate them to prove the truth of the thing, but onelyonly the practice of it; and ſo much it doth notwithſtanding the anſwer which yet you have brought unto it: what ground the Covenant of Grace made to beleevers and their ſeed, gives to Baptiſme, ſhall bee manifeſted hereafter, and whether the Ancients uſed not (at leaſt) ſome of the Arguments which we doe.
Come we now to conſider what you anſwer to Irenaeus his teſtimony; here you ſpeake, 1. Of his Countrey. 2. Of P. 5. Irenaeus teſtimony vindicated.the age he lived in. 3. You queſtion his tranſlation. 4. And in the laſt place you ſpeake a little againſt the teſtimony it ſelf.
Before you fall upon the examination of the teſtimony, you ſay, Hee was a Greeke, and wrote in Greeke; but wee have his Works in Latine, except ſome fragments: this you conceive to be a reaſon why we cannot be ſo certain of his meaning, as we ſhould be, if wee had his owne words in the language in which he wrote: and may not this Objection lie againſt any Tranſlation whatſoever? and upon that ground you may ſlight it. I cannot gueſſe why you adde this foreign, that hee was a Greeke, &c. unleſſe it were to intimate to your Reader that I could not diſcern whether he were to be numbred in the Catalogue of Greek or Latine Fathers: yet you know that I mentioned him in the firſt rank of thoſe Renowned Lights of the Church, which wrote in the Greek tongue, to which afterwards I added two other: and when I came to ſpeake of any of the Latine Fathers; Cyprian was the firſt in whom this queſtion did occurre. But whether his words in the teſtimony alledged bee truly tranſlated into Latine, ſhall by and by be conſidered.
As for his age, you acknowledge with me, that hee lived in the ſame Century with Juſt. Martyr: the yeare in which he flouriſhed is variouſly related by the Authors named by your ſelfe; one ſayes 180, the other 183, I may adde i… third who varies from them both, and ſayes 175, and may Trithem.not others point at other times alſo? For ought I know, you needleſly trouble your ſelfe, and your Reader, in naming particular year… in which theſe famous Lights of the Church lived, which I thinke can hardly with exactneſſe be done: it is ſafe to ſay, about ſuch a time, or in ſuch a Century, ſuch and ſuch lived, which cannot bee prejudiciall to the Reader, when wee know a Century includes many years: neither can any man warrantably reſtrain it to any one year alone wherein ſuch a man flouriſhed, as if he had flouriſhed one year and no more.
But I proceed to what you ſay of the teſtimony it ſelfe, it is extant, Iren. 2. 39. Chriſtus venit ſalvare …, &c. Your exceptions againſt it are many.
Firſt, you queſtion whether re…aſuatur there ſignifies baptiſme or no, as Feuardemiur his gloſſe take… it. Secondly, You ſay, that neither Chriſt nor his Apoſtles call Baptiſme a new birth. Thirdly, poſſibly this was not the word uſed by Irenaeus in his own Writing. Fourthly, that the Latine alters Irenaeus his minde, as learned Rivet ſayes. Laſtly, that Irenaeus meant not Baptiſme in this place, you goe about to prove by his ſcope therein. Theſe are your exceptions which now wee come to examine.
To begin with the firſt of them, when, Irenaeus ſaith, Chriſtus venit ſalvare omnes qui per eum renaſountur, infantes & parvulos & pueros, &c. Firſt you queſtion the meaning of the word renaſountur, whether Baptiſme is meant thereby; and you ask me, whether this was any other then Feuardentius P. 6.his gloſſe, and adde Rivets cenſure of him.
I take not upon me the defence of Feuardentius, let him goe for ſuch a one as Learned Rivet relates him to be, A corrupter Anſw.of Irenaeus in many things: yet that judicious Man ſays not that he corrupted Irenaeus his ſenſe in this place. And that he did not, it's manifeſt to me; becauſe Baptiſme uſually is ſtiled by the Greek Fathers a new birth. Learned Voſſini ſaith upon that very place, that to call baptiſme renaſcentia, was …ſitat… veteribus loquendi forma; which a few inſtances will make good. Juſtine Martyr ſpeaking of the manner of adminiſtration of Baptiſme, ſayes of the baptized party, He is brought to the place where the water is, Juſt. Mart. foreign, &c.and i… regenerated in the ſame manner wherein wee were regenerated: and to put it out of all controverſie, he is there ſpeaking of Baptiſm under the name of Regeneration; he adds, They are then waſhed in water in the name of our Lord God Creator of all things, and of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, and the holy Ghoſt. Here he tels us what he meant by Regeneration mentioned before: viz. When the Party was in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt waſhed with water, that is, baptized. Dionyſini Areopag…ta (but you will ſay he is queſtioned, yet no man can queſtion whether he expreſt Baptiſme by regeneration) ſpeaking of Baptiſme ſayes, Divine ſignes of the divine generation, and what is that (I pray you) but a new birth? foreign, Dionyſ. Areop. Hierarch. ca. 2. foreign.yea in the ſame Chapter he addes further of it. The Saorament of our divine generation as in a ſigne. And in the beginning of that part, hee calls the Font, or place in which Baptiſme was adminiſtred, foreign, the mother of our adoption. Athanaſine De Sab, & Circumciſ.ſayes, foreign, we are borne again by waſhing: and doth not Baſil call it foreign, the regeneration Baſil. exhortatione ad baptiſmum.of the ſoule? Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. amongſt many other titles he puts on Baptiſme, this is one, foreign. Now I demand of you, do not all theſe Authors call Baptiſme a new Birth, which you would faſten onelyonly on Feuardentius? yea doth not Ambroſe call the Fon: Baptiſterium regeneration is lavacrum, the lavacre of Regeneration? Lib. de initiandis ca. 2.Whatſoever you ſay of me, I hope by this time you will not think that both Latine and Greeke Fathers learned of Feuardentius his gloſſe to call Baptiſme a new birth.
Secondly, you ſay, no where doth our Lord or the Apoſtles, P. 6.call Baptiſme a new birth. I deſire to know of you the meaning of that place, Tit. 3. 5. I thought the Apoſtle there had called Baptiſme foreign, the waſhing of the new birth, or Regeneration: and what that is but Baptiſme, yet I know not. To me the Apoſtle ſeemes plainely to parallel the waſhing of regeneration, and the renewing of the holy Ghoſt, as type and countertype. And the Analogie between waſhing in Baptiſme, and Regeneration, lies in that cuſtome of waſhing Infants from the pollutions of the wombe when they are firſt born. A learned Critick of Mr. Mede.our own in his Diatriba upon that place, thinkes none will deny that in theſe words the waſhing of Regeneration, the Apoſtle is ſpeaking of Baptiſme: ſure I am, moſt of the Interpreters which I have ſeen upon that place agree that he either argues directly from Baptiſme, or at leaſt alludes to it.
Thirdly, you grant, though the word renaſcuntur is uſed for Baptiſme by the Ancients (which before you ſeemed to pin on Feuardentius his ſleeve) yet poſſibly it was not the word uſed by Irenaeus in his owne writing. It ſeems, now you dare not ſtand upon the ſtrength of the word renaſcuntur, becauſe you confeſſe it was uſed by the Ancients for Baptiſme; therefore your conjecture here is, That poſſibly it was not the word uſed by Irenaeus for Baptiſme in his own writing. I ſhall goe further then you (and yet not wrong the truth) and ſay, undoubtedly, renaſcuntur was not the word uſed by Irenaeus in his owne writing, for he wrote in Greek, and therefore it may well be conceived he ſaid not renaſcuntur, though he might ſay foreign: But to that which you anſwer, I adde, you know 'tis commonly ſaid in the Schooles, fortè ita, ſolvitur per fortè non: you ſay, poſſibly it was not Irenaeus his word. I anſwer, poſſible it is that Irenaeus might uſe the Greek word, which is well tranſlated renaſcuntur: for why might not hee being a Grecian, ſpeak of Baptiſme in the phraſe and ſtile as other Grecians did? yea, that he did ſpeake ſo, is moſt probable, becauſe that other Greek Fathers uſe the word foreign, a new birth, in the ſenſe in which I alledged it.
As for the altering of Irenaeus his mind by the Latin Tranſlation, not having his works in his owne language, I dare not ſay ſo much: when you bring forth Irenaeus his words in Greek, I ſhall the better be inabled to judge of it; in the meane time I accept of the Tranſlation, having made it good by parallel phraſes in other Greek Fathers.
In the laſt place you labour to prove, That it is not meant of Baptiſme from Irenaeus his ſcope in that place. To this I anſwer, P. 6.albeit that bee granted which you ſay was his ſcope there, yet his words prove the queſtion in debate before us. I hope you will not deny, but that the ſcope of a ſpeech may tend to prove one thing; and yet the expreſſions uſed may give light to otherthings: was not the Prophet Ezekiel his ſcope by the parable of dry bones riſing again, to prove the reſtauration of the Jews (who then ſeemed to be dead) Ezek. 37.to their former ſtate? that no doubt was the drift, yet hee layes it forth by that parable: and Tertullian by the De reſur, ca. 31.ſame proves the Reſurrection at the laſt day, if hee had not beleeved that dead bones were to riſe againe (ſaith the father) how could hee by that Simile taken from them prove the Reſurrection of the Jewes? So may I ſay here, let it be ſuppoſed that Irenaeus his drift is, as you ſay, to prove that Chriſt was an Infant to ſanctifie Infants, yet hee ſayes they were renewed when they were baptized. As for Irenaeus his judgement of Chriſts living upon the earth about 50. yeers, it was not alleadged by me, therefore I leave it to you to helpe Irenaeus therein, becauſe you alledge it. Now I deſire the Reader to caſt his eye back upon all that you have ſaid about this teſtimony, and ſee whether you have brought forth any thing to obſcure the light that it gives to our queſtion: all the ſtrength of what you ſaid lay in the word renaſcuntur, whether that ſignified Baptiſme or no: which by the uſuall language of the Grecians I have made good againſt your exception, and ſo I paſſe from your examen of this Author and follow you to the next.
In the third place you come to ſift Origens teſtimony: Where, firſt, you queſtion the authority of the booke; ſecondly, Origens Teſt. vindicated.you ſay, if it be Origens, yet hee calls Paedo-baptiſme but an Apoſtolicall tradition, and from thence you draw forth ſome concluſions. In all which I hope to manifeſt your miſtakings, and ſo to diſcover the weakneſſe of your premiſes, that they ſhall not in any indifferent man his judgement be able to draw theſe concluſions after them.
Firſt, you queſtion the authority of theſe paſſages cited out of Origen whether they are his or no: and you call the Author of them ſuppoſed Origen: It had been your part before you had ſo branded them, firſt to have made it manifeſt by ſome undenyable evidence or other, that they were not Origens, you queſtion but prove not, and I am not the firſt that hath produced theſe teſtimonies to prove Infant-Baptiſme, many learned men handling this queſtion have done the ſame before me.
You ſeek alſo to weaken the authority of theſe teſtimonies by the Cenſures of two judicious men, Eraſmus and Perkins: the former of them (who was vir emunctae naris in giving judgement of the writings of the Ancients) ſaith, that when a man reads his Homilies on Leviticus, and on the Epiſtle to Romans, tranſlated by Ruffinus, hee cannot be certaine whether he reads Ruffinus or Origen. Yet Eraſmus ſaith not that theſe Homilies ſet forth under his name were Ruffinus his Homilies, and not Origens. If Ruffinus had wronged Origen in that point now in queſtion, why ſhould not that have been laid in his diſh by ſome of the Antients diſcourſing on this queſtion, who no doubt would have been forward enough to have taken notice of it to Ruffinus his prejudice, as well as other things which they object againſt him?
To this you adde Reverend Perkins his teſtimony, who puts his commentary on the Romans amongſt his counterfeit works, as being not faithfully tranſlated by Ruffinus. It may be Origen might ſuffer by his Tranſlators, for Tranſlations are various: ſome affect in their Tranſlations to follow their Author foreign, to trace the very footſteps of the words they tranſlate: other Tranſlations are metaphraſticall, or by way of paraphraſe, they expound as they tranſlate; thus ſeverall men have their ſeverall fancies, though they adhere to the Author which they tranſlate, even when they keep not in all things to his words: Hierom gives inſtance in the Septuagint Hierom ad Pammachium.Tranſlators, whoſe teſtimony I need not name to you. Ruffinus acknowledges, in tranſlating Origens Homilies on Leviticus, that hee added ſome things to what Origen ſaid, and what they were hee expreſſes: ea quae ab Origene in auditorio Eccleſiae ex tempore non tam explanationis quam Ruffini peroratio in Ep. ad Rom.aedificationis intentione perorata ſunt; the things which were ſpoken by Origen to his auditory, he tranſlated them by way of explanation, or did more fully lay them forth in a popular way and therein Ruffinus dealt candidly, telling us what were the things hee added; in this Eraſmus acknowledges his faire dealing. But as for his Commentary on the Romans, Ruffinus confeſſeth ſe hoc opus totum He contracted it halfe in halfe. Ruffi. praefat. a… Rom.ad dimidium traxiſſe, there was no addition of Ruffinus; Eraſmus here blames him for cutting off what Origen delivered more at large, but neither doth Ruffinus confeſſe, nor Eraſmus challenge him here for any addition to what Origen ſaid: I ſhall onelyonly deſire the Reader to take notice that none of the teſtimonies by me cited out of Origen, are denyed by Eraſmus to be Origens: neither can they be conceived to bee any of the additions mentioned before by Ruffinus: therefore your exception is not proved by Eraſmus nor Perkins teſtimony.
You adde, in the paſſages which I cite, there are plaine expreſſions in them againſt Pelagians, which makes you thinke they were put in after the Pelagian hereſie was confuted by Hierome and Auguſtine; though they make againſt the Pelagians, yet who can neceſſarily inferre, that all theſe Homilies in which theſe paſſages occurre were written after the Pelagian Hereſie was broached? Iuſt. Martyr maintaines the Divinitie of Jeſus Chriſt, yet we know hee lived long before Arius the ring-leader of that curſed Sect which denied it: can any man conclude that Iuſt. Martyr did not beare witneſſe to the divine Nature of Chriſt, becauſe hee lived before Arius ſtarted up?
Then you tell us Origen calls Infant-baptizing an Apoſtolicall tradition, according to the obſervance of the Church. This cavill I prevented when I quoted the teſtimony, which ſeemes to have ſome weight in it, for you grant what I ſaid about Traditions, which is warrant enough to me to adde no more to juſtifie it, otherwiſe (beſides the teſtimony of Scripture which I named in 2 Theſſ. 2. 15.) many other out of Antiquitie may be added, where Tradition is taken in that ſenſe. Epiphanius calls Baptiſme and other myſteries obſerved Epiph. in ſ…ne operis.in the Church, which are brought forth out of the Goſpell and ſetled by Apoſtolique authority, foreign: where by the way you may ſee that hee grounds the Baptiſme, then in uſe in the Church, (and even then Infants were Baptized) on the Scriptures and authoritie of the Apoſtles, as well as other myſteries of the Chriſtian; Religion. But I follow you, Becauſe, ſay you, in neither of theſe places taken notice of by mee Origen cites any Scripture for baptizing Infants, therefore it muſt bee underſtood of an unwritten Traedition: had it appeared as a new notion not heard of in the Church before, then had it been fit he ſhould have confirmed what he ſaid: but it being a poſition, which (as he ſayes the Church obſerved) hee needed not to prove it. Ignatius preſſes upon Hiero to attend to reading and exhortation, and cals thoſe things foreign, traditions, yet addes Ign. ep. ad. Hier.no Scripture to confirm what he ſayes, becauſe they were things well known to the Church to bee conſonant to the Scripture. So Origen tells us Infant-Baptiſme was generally obſerved by the Church; and had any appeared to plead againſt the lawfulneſſe of it, he would no doubt by Scripture have maintained it, as well as affirmed it, to come from the Apoſtles, which he did.
Theſe are your premiſes which now being anſwered, your concluſions infer'd from thence, of themſelves muſt fall to the ground: for if Infant-baptiſme came from the Apoſtles, and was generally obſerved in the Church in Origens time, then you have no reaſon to challenge it as a thing not known before his time, nor delivered over to the Church in his time: albeit he expreſt it under the name of an Apoſtolicall Tradition.
The laſt Greek Author alledged by me was Gregory Nazianzen, Greg. orat. 40. in Bapt. Nazian. vindicated.who cals Baptiſm ſignaculum vitae curſum ineuntibus: againſt which teſtimony you have nothing to object: onelyonly whereas I added, hee ſeemed afterwards to reſtraine baptizing Infants to the caſe of neceſſity: You ask of me, Doth he ſeeme onelyonly to reſtrain it to the caſe of neceſſity? He gives (ſay you) his P. 8.reaſon why they ſhould be baptized, but withall declares his opinion that others ſhould ſtay longer: but what of all this, what follows hence more then this, that in his dayes Infants were baptized, though his advice was, that they ſhould defer it, unleſſe there were danger of death?
Theſe are the Greek Authors alledged by me, none of which are denyed by you to teſtifie the practice of the Church in this point in their ſeverall ages, onelyonly your exceptions have been all on the by, not againſt the teſtimonies themſelves, which yet (notwithſtanding what you have anſwered) I doubt not will by any judicious Reader bee allowed, for cleare proofes of the practice of Paedo-baptiſme in the Greek Church.
After your examination of the former Teſtimonies, you P. 9.adde 3 Arguments to ſhew that Infant-Baptiſme was not known in the Greek Church.
Firſt, if it had been known among them; you wonder why I finde nothing for it in Euſebius, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanaſius, and Epiphanius? To this I ſay, they ſpake to the clearing of ſuch queſtions as were afoot in their times: had any queſtion been ſtarted when they wrote about Paedo-baptiſme, no doubt they would have cleared it, as Cyprian did, and as it was done in the Councell of Neocaeſarea. It is enough to mee that none of the Authors named by you ſpeake againſt it; can wee ſay that the Fathers living before the Pelagians troubled the Church, denyed the traduction of originall ſin, becauſe they ſpake not clearly of it, before it was denyed by thoſe curſed Heretiques. Nor is it any glory to you that your Error was not ancient enough to be confuted by Euſebius, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanaſius, and Epiphanius: yet whether any of theſe named by you ſpake for Infant-Baptiſme, ſhall now bee conſidered. I finde even in ſome of them which you have named; expreſſions which doth induce mee to beleeve that they were farre from rejecting of Paedo-baptiſme.
I will not ſearch into them all, for if any thing were brought out of Ignatius, you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you ſee him, (as you have done with others named before) and I have no time to wrangle. You deſire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus ſaith? why, Vide Clem. Alex. paedagog.ſure he had none but great Infants to his Scholars; if you (who pretend to be acquainted familiarly with the ſecrets of antiquity) be acquainted with him, you'll know what I meane: He deſired (as it is likely more Greeke Fathers who were converted from Paganiſme did) to ſet forth Religion in ſuch a way as might move other Pagans to come and make confeſſion of the Chriſtian faith, that ſo they might be added to the Church by Baptiſme in ſuch a way as was proper to the baptizing of grown men. The next (whoſe teſtimony you miſſe) is Athanaſius: you deſire mee to quote any thing out of him to prove the Greeke Church did admit Infants to Baptiſme; if that will make you ceaſe wondering, I'll doe it: what ſay you to that paſſage in Athanaſius? where hee is ſhewing how we are buryed with Chriſt in Baptiſme, and riſe againe; hee ſayes, the dipping of the Infant quite under water thrice, and raiſing Athan. dicta & interpretatio Script. qu. 94. Athanaſiu… gives teſtimony to Infant Baptiſm. foreign, &c.of it up again, doth ſignifie the death of Chriſt, and his reſurrection upon the third day: is not that teſtimony plaine? In his Queſtions ad Antioch. in the ſecond queſtion of that booke, it is deſired to be known, how ſhall we know that he was truly baptized, and received the holy Ghoſt, (foreign) in holy Baptiſm when he was a Child? (it ſeems then it was a cuſtome for Infants to receive Baptiſme:) He ſets down an anſwer to it, that is to be known (ſaith he) by the motions of the Spirit in his heart afterwards, as a Woman knows ſhe hath conceived, when ſhe feels the child to ſtir in her womb; foreign, not becauſe his Parents ſay ſo. If that place doth not plainly, and in an Orthodoxall way beare witneſſe to Paedo-baptiſme, I know not what can doe it.
I could out of the ſame Booke adde another teſtimony, but you will perhaps tell me, the words next following qu. ad Antioch. 114.thoſe that I ſhall cite are queſtioned. But I ſhall then reply, 1. The words that follow may bee erroneous, and yet written by Athanaſius. 2. The words which I ſhall cite may be the words of Athanaſius, and the words which follow, none of his, but added by ſome other. 3. How doe you prove that Tertullian, or Greg. Nazianzen wrote thoſe words which you cite out of them. 4. You can (more then once) make this a plea for your ſelfe (that your allegations may gaine a favourable conſtruction) That your proofes taken out of Antiquity doe …s ſtrongly prove the point P. 4.in hand, as proofes are uſually taken in ſuch matters. I doubt not but all impartiall Readers will vouchſafe me the ſame favourable graines of allowance, and then this teſtimony alſo of Athanaſius may paſſe for currant.
Theſe words then which are ſafe & ſound, grounded upon the ſame Scripture which I have much inſiſted on, are read in the works of Athanaſius: where the queſtion is about Infants dying, requiring a reſolution that might clearly ſet forth, whether they goe to be puniſhed, or to the Kingdom? Athan. ad Antioch. qu. 114.The anſwer is, Seeing the Lord ſaid, Suffer little children to come unto me, for of ſuch is the Kingdom of Heaven. And the Apoſtle ſayes; Now your children are holy; (obſerve that Goſpel ground, foreignthe ſame that I build upon) it is manifeſt that the Infants of beleevers which are baptized, doe as unſpotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome. This aſſertion is owned by all the Reformed Churches.
Epiphanius you ſay, ſayes nothing of it in a place, which you cite: and are you ſure he ſayes nothing any where elſe? admit he doth not, forme a Syllogiſme, and ſee how your argument will run, &c. but I deſire you at your leaſure to caſt your eye upon that expreſſion of Epiphanius, which doth induce mee to beleeve that hee did not reject Paedo-baptiſme: where hee tells us, That Circumciſion had its time, untill the great Circumciſion came, that is, the waſhing of the new birth, as foreign, Ephiphan. contr. Cerinthianos.is manifeſt to every one. What's the waſhing of Regeneration but Baptiſme? which he would ſcarcely have called Circumciſion, if hee had rejected Infant-Baptiſme, Epiphanius owned the argument from Circumciſion to Baptiſme.and denyed that the children of beleevers (who are hopefully capable of Circumciſion made without hands, may lawfully partake of this great Circumciſion: and addes, That this was notoriouſly knowne to all; ſurely then none denyed it in his time.
Secondly, you reaſon from the continuance of the Queſtions, The queſtions put to the Baptizes, diſprove not Inſant-Baptiſme.put to perſons when they were to be baptized, and anſwered by them: which I think becauſe we muſt conceive children were not able to returne an anſwer to them, thereby you would inferre they were not baptized: But I anſwer, when the Goſpel went firſt abroad into the world, ſuch as being of age were firſt taught, were then baptized, Act. 2. 41. & Act. 8. 13. 37. After that time ſuch as were taught are ſaid to be catechized: for foreign, the Paedag.Catechiſme leads men to faith, ſaith Clem. Alexandrinus. When ſuch were prepared and made fit to be baptized, certain queſtions were propounded to them concerning their faith in Chriſt, their reſolution to forſake the Devil, &c. which are related by many of the Ancients: when thoſe of age afterwards brought their children to Baptiſme, theſe queſtions were likewiſe put to them (though of themſelves they were not able to make anſwer to them) but how warrantably I will not goe about to prove; yet that they were uſed at Infants Baptiſme, as well as at the baptiſme of ſuch as were of age, it appeares by Balſamon in Can. 6. Conc. Neocaeſar. Aug. Ep. ad Januarium, &c. To all which queſtions at Childrens Baptiſme, ſuch as undertooke their education made anſwer on their behalf. Therefore you cannot by theſe queſtions infer that Children were not baptized, ſeeing theſe Authors certifie that queſtions were put to them, and alſo tell us who anſwered for them.
Thirdly, you conceive becauſe many children borne of Chriſtian parents were not baptized when they were young; Therefore it was not their cuſtome to baptize Infants. For the making good hereof you bring forth inſtances of Conſtantine the Great, Greg. Nazianz. and Chryſoſtome.
Before I ſpeak of theſe inſtances, it will not be impertinent Of old ſome defer'd their owne Baptiſme, as well as their Infants.to ſpeake ſomewhat of the practice of ſome among the Ancients in deferring Baptiſme; and here I finde that ſome Ancient Chriſtians deferr'd their owne Baptiſme many times, (as well as their Infants) but upon no good ground, as may appeare by many ſharpe invectives againſt them for it, which are extant in the Greek Fathers: ſee Baſil. exhortat. ad Baptiſmum, Greg Nazienz. orat. 40. in Lanct. Bapt. Chryſoſt. Hom. 2. in Act. Apo.
From theſe ſeverall Authors and others, may be gathered the grounds upon which they defer'd Baptiſme. Sometimes they would doe it in imitation of Chriſt, who was not baptized till he was about thirty yeares of age; they would Vbi prius.put off their baptiſme untill they came to the like age. Greg. Naxianz. diſputes againſt theſe. Conſtantine the Great put Euſeb. de vit. Conſt. lib 4.off his Baptiſme untill hee ſhould come to the River Jordan in which Chriſt was baptized, though he never attained to that deſired place, for he dyed at Nicomedia. Some againe Ʋbi prius.deferred Baptiſme, untill they ſhould have opportunity to be baptized by ſome ſpeciall Biſhop of ſome eminent place; theſe Greg. Nazian. reproves at large. Some alſo put off their Baptiſme upon another ground, they conceived it did waſh away all ſin; ſo thought Orig. Hom. 15. in Iheſh. Hom. Aug. Confeſ. 1. 11.5. in Ex. Cypr. lib. 3. ad Quirinum. & lib. 4. ep. 7. Whereup-upon it was a common ſpeech, when they ſaw one to follow his ſinfull courſes, ſine illum, faciat quod vult, nondum baptizatus eſt: to the ſame purpoſe Greg. Nyſſenus in his exhortation to Baptiſme, brings in the very ſame ſpeeches of them, who put off their Baptiſme upon this ground; ſaying, Sine, carne abutar, & turpi libidine fruar, in caeno voluptatum volutabor, manus ſanguine polluam, aliena auſeram, d…loſe ambulabo, pejerabo, mentiar: baptiſmum tum demum ſuſcipiam, cum a vitiis & iniquitatibus deſiſtam. Hee ſpeakes much more to that purpoſe in that place, to which I refer the Reader: all which teſtifies what they thought of Baptiſme, that it waſhed away all their ſins, therefore they defer'd it; for they would have none abridged of their ſinfull delights untill they were baptized. Epiphanius tells us that Marcion gave order to have Baptiſme thrice adminiſtred; firſt when a man had committed any great ſinne, after that in his judgement, hee might bee baptized for the doing of it away: Againe, if after that Baptiſme hee had renewed his ſinne, hee was the ſecond time to bee baptized; and ſo the third time, if after the ſecond he had renewed his ſin again. This opinion of the efficacy of Baptiſme to doe away ſinne, might induce them to defer it untill they were ready to leave the world, that by baptiſme then adminiſtred to them, in their opinion, all their ſinnes might bee done away. But Naz. confutes ſuch, telling them all times were fit for Baptiſme; ſeeing no time was free from death; So did Greg. Nyſſenus alſo. They were alſo led into this error by another, ſome thought that baptized perſons might live and not ſin, for if they did ſinne after Baptiſme (in their conceit) there remained no repentance for them, miſunderſtanding that place of Heb. 6. 4. which place alſo was abuſed by the Novatians, denying remiſſion of ſins to Chriſtians, …inning after baptiſme.
It is cleare upon theſe and the like grounds (but how juſtly, I leave it to you to judge) many put off their owne baptiſme. Neither doe I ſee why that others alſo may not be thought (even upon no better grounds) to have deferred the baptiſme of their Infants; which yet doth no wayes prejudice the commonly received, and conſtantly practiced ordinance of Infants-Baptiſme, no more then the above-named practiſe may bee brought to prove that it was not the received practiſe of the Church to baptize ſuch as were converted from Paganiſme to Chriſtianity, at their firſt converſion.
Yet here I cannot but adde further, that ſometimes it might fall out that Chriſtians might not have the opportunity of bringing their Children to Baptiſme, 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 in ſuch a caſe they were neceſſitated to put off the baptizing of their Children. Greg. Naz. ſayes expreſſely, that ſome may be hindered from Baptiſm by ſome violence, or ſome unexpected accident, foreign: Orat. 40.that though they would, they could not enjoy the Grace (of baptiſme whereof he is ſpeaking;) if by ſuch accidents they themſelves might be hindered from Baptiſme, why might not the like accidents hinder them alſo from receiving Baptiſme for their children?
Againe, ſometimes their lot might fall out to live among Heretiques, which corrupted the Faith, and therefore would not have their Children baptized by them: might they not do herein as that pious man Moſes, who refuſed to receive impoſition of hands from bloody Lucius Sozom. 4. 38. Theod. 4. 14.that Arian Biſhop. Neither would Antiochus bee ordained by Jovinian, who adhered ſometimes to the Arians: aſſuredly, ſuch as ſcrupled to bee ordained officers in the Church by ſuch, may upon the like grounds be thought rather to chuſe to defer the baptizing of their children, then to have them baptized by ſuch. Many queſtions were moved in the Church about Baptiſme adminiſtred by ſuch as were not ſound in the Faith: which were agitated ſo farre by Cyprian, and other Aſrieans, that they held their Baptiſme to be null; and therefore condemning their dipping, or waſhing, ordered that ſuch ſhould be baptized.
Some other cauſes might be found out, why men might defer both their owne, and their childrens Baptiſme, which yet I will not juſtifie: they might herein doe, as holy Moſes, Exod. 4. defer'd the Circumciſing of his ſon, yet Moſes well knew it was an Ordinance in Iſrael, that Gen. 17.every ſon of eight dayes old ſhould be circumciſed. Holy men in this might aliquid humanum pati; I will neither excuſe nor aggravate their fault: onelyonly I thought good to ſpeake ſomewhat in generall of the cuſtome of ſome in deferring Baptiſme.
I come to the inſtances here given by you: the firſt is Conſtantine the Great, (though the ſonne of Helena, who is Conſtantines Bap. no Argument that Infants were not then baptized.reported to have been a zealous Chriſtian) not baptized till hee was aged. You ſhould have done well to have proved her to have been ſuch, when Conſtantine was borne, otherwiſe what gaine you if ſhee were converted afterwards? The true cauſe why he received not Baptiſme at his Infancy (ſo neare as I can gather it from the ſtory of his life) was this: Conſtantius his Father, albeit a man of a ſweet temper, and a Prince wonderfull tender of the welfare of all his Subjects; firſt out of the mildneſſe of his nature favoured Chriſtians; (ſeeing and obſerving their unblameable converſation and faithfulneſſe in all their employments:) therefore he did not in an hoſtile way purſue their Religion, as others Emperors did: yea, at length he grew to a good eſteem of it, eſpecially towards the latter 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, hee was by the Army ſaluted Emperour: Theſe things conſidered, it is no marvaile if hee were not baptized in his Infancy; when, for ought I read, his Parents had not then embraced the Chriſtian Religion when he returned at his Fathers death, he was 30 yeares of age: and whether ever his Father was baptized, the ſtory is ſilent. Neither is Helena her affection to Religion in his Infancy, related in the Story, though afterwards it is often mentioned. You need not then wonder, why when hee was an Infant hee was not baptized: inaſmuch as it appears not that his Parents were then become Chriſtians; yea, and himſelfe alſo was an unbeleever many years, as is apparent in the ſtory.
The next mentioned by you, is Greg. Naz. the ſonne of a Chriſtian Biſhop, and brought up long by him, was not baptized Nor Gregory Nazianzen.till hee came to be a youth. You ſay he was the ſonne of a Chriſtian Biſhop, but how doe you prove it? he that writes his life, tells us, there was a time when his father was not a Chriſtian; yet afterwards, when hee had caſt of the ſuperſtition and deceit of the Hypſiſtarians, bee appeared a true follower, or diſciple foreign, &c.of the Divine grace; and ſo firſt hee became a Sheepe, and afterwards a skilfull Shepheard to the Church. What was the Hypſiſtarian errour, Greg. himſelfe explaines in his Funerall Oration for his Father. Whether hee was converted from it before Gregory was born, it is not expreſt: Yet the Hiſtorians tell us when Naz. was but young, he with Baſil were bred in humane literature at Athens; from thence he paſt to Antioch, all this while we read not of his ſtudying the Chriſtian Religion till afterwards. For it is to bee remembred, Socr. 4. 21. Soz. 6. 16.that when he with Baſil had ſpent much time, and well profited in humane literature, ſome would have perſwaded them to become Teachers of that kinde of learning; others moved them to betake themſelves to publike pleading of cauſes; but refuſing that way of ſtudy, they beg…n to thinke how to order their lives holily, as the rule of Chriſtian Religion did direct them, wherein they profited much; in the knowledge whereof Origens books were helpfull to them. Greg. Nazianz. having ſpent 30 yeares in thoſe ſtudies, he returned to his Father and was baptized: Greg. vita.his education was not under his Father, as you relate; and if his parents were Chriſtians when he was borne, I wonder they ſhould ſend him to Athens to be trained up under Heathens; and why hee was not baptized as ſoone as hee was converted to Chriſtianity, if you can lay downe the true cauſe, I deſire you to doe it; I dare goe no further then I have warrant from the ſtory, and the relation of his life: Yet I may hint my conjecture from his own words; where he ſays there were three ſorts of men (beſides thoſe which I named before) who deferred Baptiſme. 1. Some purpoſely Orat. 40.put it off, becauſe they would live in ſin; there were others living more temperately, taking in as it were the meane between vertue and vice, who though they ſinned, yet approved not of their ſins, but were over-power'd by them. Laſtly, ſome defer'd their Baptiſme, that they might the better prepare themſelves to receive it; and poſſibly hee for a while might bee ranked in the third ſort of them, that for ſuch a thing put off their Baptiſme: yet himſelfe reaſons ſtrongly againſt delayes of that nature, in that Oration, which peradventure was after hee was better informed.
Thirdly, you bring in Chryſoſtome among your inſtances, Nor Chryſoſt.Educated by Meletius a Biſhop, yet not baptized till hee was paſt 21 yeares of age: If you can make this out, you ſay ſomewhat, though it will fall ſhort of that you intend to evidence thereby. Chriſtian birth, and Epiſcopall education might juſtly give occaſion to a man to wonder how ſuch a one came to eſcape the priviledge, which other Infants ſo borne, had; if it were the cuſtome to baptize ſuch. But ſtay a little, herein you have adhered too farre to your friend Grotius, upon whoſe credit you have avouched all this, though neither he, nor you tell us from whence you fetch this relation. I being loath to be led by an implicite faith, without ſome ground; after ſome ſearch I have found that which makes me think you are deceived both in Chryſoſtome his Parents and education. The Eccleſiaſticall Story (the Penman whereof undertakes to ſet forth the place of his birth, his parentage, his call to his Epiſcopall dignity, and his removall from it) ſayes he was born of a prime family in Antioch, and names his parents, Socr. hiſt. 5. 2. Siz. 8. 2.but not a word of his Religion nor of his Baptiſme. I could here tell you that ſome others ſpeaking of his Parents and of himſelfe, ſay, foreign, he and they were Heathens, (for ſo is the word foreign there to bee taken) and they that ſay ſo are Grecians. But however, by Chryſoſtome his mothers own words it appeares that his father dyed within a very ſhort time after his birth: ſo much is manifeſt from his mother, ſee Chryſ. de Sacerdotio lib. 1. the death of thy Father preſently followed upon the ſorrows which I had foreign, &c.in thy birth, which unſeaſonably made thee an Orphan, and mee a widow: and this fell out when Chryſoſtome foreign, was young and could not ſpeake, as ſhee ſayes; there ſhee puts him in minde of her care of his education, and of the charge ſhe had been at to improve it; but not a word of his Religion. I confeſſe it appeares from Chryſoſtome, that about the 20 yeare of his Orat. ad viduam juniorem.age his mother was a Chriſtian: but whether his Father or his mother was ſo at his birth, it appeares not. His education in his younger time was under Libanius, who was an enemy to Chriſtianity, and a ſcoffer at it, untill he was about 20 years of age: then changing his former ſtudies, habit, and profeſſion, he came to Meletius, by whom being inſtructed in divine knowledge, within 3 yeares afterwards he was baptized of him. After his mothers death, he betook himſelfe to a Monaſticall life, in which time hee was much furthered in his holy ſtudies by Carterius and Diodorus, to whom he often repaired.
Theſe things conſidered (which Chryſoſtome his own words make out) you can hardly perſwade your Reader that there is any ſtrength in what you bring forth from his example to plead againſt Paedo-baptiſme, for you neither prove his Parents were Chriſtians at his birth, neither was he educated under Meetius, yet both theſe you have affirmed, but without ground of evidence.
To all the forenamed inſtances you adde ſomewhat more Grotius not to be rel…ed upon in this point.out of Grotius, which before I doe examine, I have ſomething to ſay to you concerning Grotius, whom I ſee you follow in ſeverall paſſages of your Examen. I cannot but wonder, why you (who pretend to bee familiarly acquainted with the ſecrets of Antiquity) ſhould have ſo much correſpondency with them who are not likely to help you with any certain intelligence. Hugo Grotius is the ſtrongeſt ſtake to ſupport your tottering hedge; and ſure I am Grotius was a friend to the Socinians, and it is well known what they thinke of Baptiſme. I have learned from Reverend Doctor Rivet, that Grotius was perverted by Cardinall Peron, Rivet. Apol. provera pace Eccleſia contr. votum Grotii.who pleaded the cauſe of the Anabaptiſts in his anſwer to King James. Quae tum protulerat, congeſſit, (ſaith Doctor Rivet of the Cardinall) in ſuam reſponſionem ad Regem M. Britan. & Anabaptiſtarum cauſam egit, quantum potuit, ſtrenue. Video eum ſatisfeciſſe D. Grotio, qui in talibus ſatis est liberalis. Doctor Rivet told Grotius, that learned Voſſius had ſet forth 8 Arguments in Print, to prove the lawfull uſe of Infant-Baptiſme, and deſired him to anſwer them firſt, and then Doctor Rivet promiſed to vindicate Voſſius; but Grotius made a poor excuſe in his Votum pro pace Eccleſiaſtica, Rivet. exam. animad. Grotii.and returned no anſwer at all. Grotius that hee might comply with the Papiſts, grants that Infant-baptiſme ought to be received upon the authority of the Church of Rome: and to pleaſe the Socinians alſo, (for it ſeemes hee intended to gratifie both) he puts forth this queſtion: An Christus Grotii votum pro pace Eccleſ. ad articulum 9.ab Joanne baptizatus ſuit in nomen Patris, Filii, & S. ſancti? If any man deſire a full character of Grotius, let him read his Piety, ſuch as it is, in that ſubtle peece, entituled, Hugonis Grotii Pietas, or his Annotations upon Caſſander, and his defence of thoſe Annotations, and his Votum pro Pace: and he will acknowledge that Grotius was no fit man to bee truſted, nor likely to deliver the true ſenſe of the Ancients in this or any other point. I will not ſtand to tell you what Laurentius, and Mareſius ſay of him, but ſure they prove enough againſt him; and therefore I will put an end to this diſcourſe, with that cenſure which learned Rivet hath paſſed upon Grotius, in Grotius own words; Judicat prout amat, aut odit; amat & odit prout libet. In his verbis exactiſſime deſcripſit ingenium ſuum, ſaith D. Rivet Apologet. pro vera pace Eccleſ. Sir. I ſhall deſire you may have a more ſure friend to relye upon then Grotius: how far he hath deceived you, and you following him, hath wronged the truth, and both of you your Reader; I will now God willing open.
You ſay, Grotius (in Annot in Matth. 19. 14.) addes, That the Canon of the Synod of Neocaeſare a determines, That a Woman P. 9. 10. The Councell of Neocaeſ. not againſt baptiſm of Infants.with Childe might bee baptized, becauſe the baptiſme reached not to the fruit of her wombe; becauſe in the confeſſion made in Baptiſme, each ones own free election is ſhewed: from which Ca…on, you ſay, Balſamon, and Zonaras doe inferre, That an Infant cannot be baptized, be…auſe it hath no power to chooſe the confeſſion of divine Baptiſme. Your inference from the Canon, gives me juſt occaſion to thinke that you never read Balſamon whom you name; for if you had, you would not aſſert what you doe. That this may appeare, I will ſet downe the words of the Canon, the occaſion of it, and what the Gloſſator (mentioned by you) ſayes of the ſame. The words of the Canon are theſe:
Of her that is with Child, foreign. Con. 6. Con. Neocaeſarienſis.that ſhee may bee baptized when ſhee will: for ſhee that bringeth forth, in this doth not communicate with the birth that is brought forth, becauſe every one manifeſts his own free choice in confeſſion.
The occaſion of this Canon was this, as both your Gloſſators obſerve, it was propounded to the Fathers in that Councell, to know whether a Woman when ſhee is with child might be baptized or no? ſome oppoſed it, becauſe (as they thought) in her Baptiſme, the childe in her wombe was alſo baptized: and this they held could not bee, becauſe there is required of him that would profeſſe himſelfe a follower of Chriſt (as Zonaras expounds the laſt words of the Canon) a free election: or (as Balſamon hath it) there is required of every one in Baptiſme his own promiſe, which an Infant in its mothers wombe cannot doe: at length it is determined in the Canon, the woman in that condition might bee baptized when ſhee would, &c. from whence your friend Grotius infers, That the childe uſeth Proles baptizari non ſolere… niſi propria vo untate, et profeſſi…ne.not to bee baptized but of its owne proper will and profeſſion: and to back this aſſertion, hee addes ſome words from Balſamon and Zonaras, as if Balſamon had denyed that any were to be baptized, but ſuch as were able of themſelves to make confeſſion of their faith in Chriſt.
To vindicate the truth here from Grotius falſe inference, and yours alſo in concurring with him therein; I deſire the Reader to take into his conſideration theſe two things. 1. Of what kinde of Women the Canon ſpeakes of. 2. What the Gloſſator mentioned by you ſpeakes in the ſame gloſſe of Infants baptized in their Infancy. The firſt will let us ſee, that what you would infer from the Canon▪ is nothing to the queſtion before us. The ſecond will let all men ſee that you deale not fairely with your Reader.
Remember our Queſtion is, Whether Infants of beleevers P. 3.are to bee baptized with Chriſts Baptiſme, &c. but this Canon, ſpeakes of children of Women as come out from among Infidells, being then converted when they are with childe; for Balſamon ſayes, Such Women as were with childe, and come from the Church or company of unbeleevers: and foreignwhat is this to our Queſtion, which is about children born in the Church of beleeving Parents?
Secondly, Balſamon diſtinguiſhes of children; ſome are foreign yet in the wombe, and not brought forth into the world, others are foreign, young, but borne into the world, for the firſt of theſe he ſayes, no man can undertake, (he meanes in Baptiſme) but as for children that are borne foreign, they affirme by ſuch as undertake for them, and they being actually Baptized are accounted worthy of divine illumination: your inference by Balſamons teſtimony is directly contrary to Balſamons words, for hee rotundis verbis affirmeth that children born, do in Baptiſme anſwer by ſuch as undertake for them: which words are mentioned neither by Grotius nor your ſelfe: herein you wrong the truth, and labour to deceive the Reader: in the beginning you charged me with overlaſhing (which yet was your haſte, and not my errour) but here I may ſafely put you in mind of docking or Curtalling the Author cited by you.
Laſtly, in this Paragraph you tell us that Grotius addes that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day doe keepe the cuſtome of deferring the Baptiſme of little ones, till they could Pag. 10.themſelves make confeſſion of their ſaith: you bragge much of the Greeke Church, but I will not deale with the Greeke Churches as you deale with the Fathers, I will not put the The Greeke Church miſreported by Grotius in this point.Latine Church, Auguſtine and thoſe Fathers and Councells which accord with him in one ſcale, and the Greeke Church in the other, ſuch compariſons are odious: But this I can and muſt ſay, that when you have ſearched into the Greek Church to the utmoſt, that you and all the Anabaptiſts in England cannot prove that the Greeke Church did for many hundred yeers reject the Baptiſme of Infants; which is the aſſertion which I ſaid might well put the Anabaptiſts to the bluſh, and (now I adde) your ſelf alſo for juſtifying them in ſo ſaying.
To returne to Grotius his Annotations, who ſayes, that many of the Greeks, &c. What ſome of the Greeks may doe at this day I know not, but againſt his teſtimony of the Greeks in every age I will produce ſome teſtimonies (gathered by a learned Grecian, to whom the cuſtomes of the Greek Church were better knowne then to Grotius, or the Anabaptiſts who relye on Grotius his relation) whereby it is evident that baptizing Infants was held eeven neceſſary to be obſerved in the Greek Church.
Photius (that learned Grecian) gathering together the Phot. patriarch. Covel. anno, as ſome, 845. as others, 849.Greek Councells and laws for ordering of Church affaires, and reconciling them one with another, hath many things for Infant-Baptiſme: as firſt, hee brings in an Imperiall Conſtitution, wherein it was provided, that all baptized Samaritans and Grecians ſhould be puniſhed, who brought not their wives and children in their families to holy baptiſme. foreign, Tib. 1. de fide ca. 10.Here was a Law which required Grecians that were baptized to procure baptiſme for their children, otherwiſe they ſhould be puniſhed.
Again, Tit. 4. ca. …. he brings forth another Imperiall Conſtitution concerning Samaritans; ſuch among them as are of age muſt not raſhly bee baptized, but requires they ſhould bee trained up in good Doctrine, and then admitted to Baptiſme; but their children, though they know not the Doctrine, are to bee baptized. So for Grecians, it's required that all their little ones without delay be baptized, Conc. in Trullo. Can. 84. Whereupon it was appointed in that Councell, when there were no ſure Witneſſes to be produced, who were able to teſtifie little Children (whoſe baptiſme was doubted of) were baptized, neither for their tender age could teſtifie it themſelves, without foreignany offence ſuch ſhould be baptized.
Balſamon in his gloſſe upon that Canon, relates a ſtory how Children comming from a Chriſtian Countrey, were taken by the Scythians and Agarens, and bought by the Romans: the queſtion was, whether the Children ſhould bee baptized or no? though ſome pleaded, they came from a Countrey where Chriſtians dwelt; and therefore it is to be preſumed that they were baptized foreign, in their Infancy; Some pleaded it was the care of their Mothers to procure baptiſme to them: and others pleaded other Arguments for their Baptiſme: yet if they could produce no witneſſe to make it good, they were to bee baptized. All which clearely teſtifies that Infant baptiſme was then generally in uſe among Chriſtians, ſeeing they were ſo carefull to have it teſtified that they were baptized, and did preſume where Chriſtians dwelt it was in uſe.
Now ſee what from theſe teſtimonies may bee held out for Paedo-baptiſme among the Greeks; if ſuch among them as brought not their Children to Baptiſme were puniſhed: if Imperiall Laws, as well as Synodicall Canons required Infant-baptiſme; which they held ſo fit, that if there were any Children (of whoſe Baptiſme it was doubted,) they required they ſhould be baptized; may not I from all this wonder why Grotius, or you from him, do affirme, That in every age they deferr'd the baptiſme of their children till they could make themſelves a confeſſion of their faith? Conc. Carth. ca. 14.Whereas the former Conſtitutions about Infants Baptiſme teſtifie that among them in thoſe ages it was held an undoubted truth.
I might alſo adde to theſe one of the eight Canons concluded in Carthage againſt the Pelaegians; wherein was affirmed, That whoſoever denyed Baptiſme for the remiſſion of ſinne, to a new borne Infant, &c. ſhould be anathematized.
All which being duely weighed, it will eaſily appeare, Whether the Anabaptiſts need to bluſh, in ſaying, that the Ancients, eſpecially the Greeke Church, rejected the Baptiſme of Infants for many hundred yeares. Let the ſeverall teſtimonies of the Ancients in the Greeke Church alledged by mee, ſpeake whether the Greeks rejected that ordinance or no: And ſo wee paſſe from the Greek Church here, though afterwards you give me occaſion to ſearch further into the Grecians.
Come we now to examine whether the Writers of the Latine Church will be more propitions to you in oppoſing Paedo-baptiſme, then the Greeks have been; here Cyprian is the firſt that comes under your Examen; and calculating his age, you tell us Ʋſher places him in anno 240, Perkins 250; I might tell you that others take notice of him in other yeares, as Trithemius 249, Henr. Oc…us 245; ſo hard a thing it is to ſet down prec…ſely the particular year; yet all (as I ſaid before) agree in the Century in which he lived.
You acknowledge with me, that he was one of the ancienceſt Writers among the Latine Fathers; onelyonly Tertullian, you ſay, was before him; and who denies that? here upon your Semi-Socinian Grotius his credit you ſay, That nothing was determined in Tertull. his time, concerning the age in which children were conſecrated by their Parents to Chriſtian Diſcipline; becauſe hee diſſwadeth by ſo many Reaſons in his Booke of Baptiſme, c. 18. the baptizing of Infants. And you adde, If he did allow it, it was onelyonly in caſe of neceſſity; as may appeare by his words in his booke De Anima. ca. 39. Though my task in this examination of your Examen, bee onelyonly to make good what I ſaid before in my Sermon; yet you ſhall have my anſwer to this place quoted by your ſelf▪ whereby it may appeare there are more witneſſes to confirm the ſame truth, which I avouched but onelyonly by the teſtimonies of a few.
Tertullian indeed in the former of theſe places, is perſwading Tert. de Bapt. c. 18. In Tertullians dayes Infants were baptized.men to defer both the Baptiſm of children, and others who are of age. Yet I beſeech you tell me, doth he not therein intimate that it was the cuſtome of the Church in his age to baptize the one as well as the other? otherwiſe I ſee no reaſon why he ſhould deſire that they would defer the one as well as the other. And what's the reaſon of his delay? ſuch as did undertake or promiſe for children were in danger; whilſt they promiſed on their behalf, that which by reaſon of their own mortality, and increaſe of evill diſpoſition in children, afterwards might make them breake, or deſtroy their promiſe; his words are theſe, Pro cujuſque perſonae conditione, de diſpoſitione, etiam aetate, cunctatio Baptiſmi utilior eſt: praecipue tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim neceſſe eſt, ſi non cam neceſſe, ſponſores etiam periculo ingeri? qui et ipſi per mortalitatem deſtruere promiſſiones ſuas poſſunt, & proventu malae indolis falli. Is it not evident by that place, that Baptiſme was adminiſtred in all ages, even to little ones; and that there were ſome who undertooke that they ſhould perform the promiſes made by them on their behalf? onelyonly this cuſtome of baptizing them did not very well pleaſe Tertullian: wherefore he ſeeks to diſſwade from it, but never pleads againſt it as an unlawfull thing, or an abuſe of Chriſts inſtitution, as you doe; yet how diſpleaſing a delay of that nature was to others (famous in the Church) hath been cleared by ſeverall teſtimonies before: here may you take notice of one, even before Cyprian in the Latine Church, that beares witneſſe againſt you, that in his time children were baptized. This truth is ſo perſpicuouſly laid down by him, that you cannot deny it; and therefore you come with an [if,] and ſay, If hee did allow it, it was onelyonly in …ert. de Anima, c. 13.caſe of neceſſity; for this you refer me to his book de Anima, c. 39. where having reckoned up the idolatry, and ſuperſtitious fooleries of the heathen at the birth of their children, he ſpeaks of children, one of whoſe Parents is holy; and confeſſes both by the priviledge of their birth and profeſſion they are deſignati ſanctitatis, ac per hoc etiam ſalutis, not ſancti, till they be born of water and the Spirit: but in that place is altum ſilentium, of his allowing baptiſm Cyprians teſtimony vindicated.to them in caſe of neceſſity, as you ſay: wherein if a man told you that you did overlaſh, he ſhould not wrong the truth.
But before wee part with Tertullian, give mee leave to aske the queſtion, whether the diſſwaſion which you cite out of Tertullians booke de Baptiſmo, may not reaſonably bee interpreted of the Infants of Infidells? becauſe in that Chapter Tertullian ſpeakes of the baptiſme of ſuch as were not born of Chriſtian Parents, (ſuch as the Eunuch, and St. Paul;) and therefore hee deſires that the Baptiſme of ſuch Infants ſhould bee deferred, till they came to yeares, and were able to make confeſſion of their ſinnes, and profeſſion of their faith, their Parents being Infidels, and their Sponſors mortall; for what (ſaith hee) though theſe Infants may have ſome Sponſors to undertake for their Chriſtian education? yet their Sponſors may die before they are capable of inſtruction; and then that promiſe is void and of none effect.
And I am very much inclined to beleeve, that this is the true meaning of the place, becauſe it is cleare and evident by the 39. Chapter of his book de Anima, that Tertullian did acknowledge that the children of beleevers had a kinde of priviledge (which he calls prerogative) by their birth, beſides that of their education: and therefore in caſe the Sponſors who undertook for the education of the Infants of Pagans did live, yea, and give thoſe Infants due education; yet there was a great difference between them and the Infants of beleevers, who had ſuch a birth priviledge as gave them right to Baptiſme; and by Baptiſme, and the Spirit, ſaith he, they are made (what they were by God deſigned to be) holy indeed. Becauſe I will give you, and the learned Readers light enough, I will tranſcribe the paſſage at large, and give you leave to judge, for I hope you will make it appeare that you are pius Inimicus, and paſſe judgement upon my ſide, when you have received ſome new light, if it bee new to you: but truly, I feare, that you ſaw ſomething in this 39 Chapter, which made againſt you: and therefore you doe barely cite the Chapter, and not ſet down the words of the Author, which was not ſo fairly done: be pleaſed then to peruſe the teſtimony in words at length, and not in figures. Hin… enim Apoſtolus ex ſanctificato alterutro ſexu ſanctos procreari ait, tam ex ſeminis praerogativa, quam ex inſtitutionis diſciplina: caeterum, inquit, immundi naſcerentur, quaſi Deſignatos tamen ſanctitatis, ac per hoc etiam ſalutis intelligi volens fidelium filios, ut hujus ſpei pignora matrimoniis, quae retinenda cenſuerat, patrocinarentur. Alloquin meminerat Dominicae definitionis, niſi quis naſcatur ex aqua & ſpiritu, non introibit in regnum Dei, id eſt, non erit ſanctus. Sir, are you not now convinced that Tertullian did conceive that the Infants of beleevers had ſuch a ſanctity (as I called Covenant-holineſſe) by the prerogative and priviledge of their birth, as gave them a right to baptiſme? I would not abuſe Tertullian, as you did Origen and other Reverend and Learned men; and therefore have given you a faire interpretation out of his owne words: I beleeve by this time you are ſicke of Tertullian; let us confer with Cyprian and his 66 Colleagues, upon whom you have paſſed a Magiſteriall cenſure.
Cyprian, ſay you, ſaith enough, and more then enough, except hee ſpake to better purpoſe: if that which hee hath ſpoken P. 10.be weighed in the ballance of your judgement, his words, though many will be found but light: yet you ſay that Hierom, and eſpecially Auguſtine relyed upon that Epiſtle for the proving of baptizing Infants: for my part, I am more ſtrengthened in my Opinion of the worth of Cyprian's words in that Epiſtle by this your confeſſion: for had there not been ſolidity and truth in what hee ſaid; learned Hierom, and Reverend Auguſtine (two eminent men in the Church, though you thinke great darkeneſſe was upon their ſpirits) would not have relyed on that which hath no weight in it; they were well able to ponder the weight of words, before they would relye upon them, or applaud them. And what ſaith Auguſtine of that Epiſtle? That Cyprian was not deviſing any new decree, but followed the moſt ſure faith of the Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens, ſed Eccleſiae fidem firmiſſimam ſervans, &c. Aug. Ep. 28. ad Hier.Church: doth he not therein teſtifie that Cyprian maintaining that Infants might bee baptized before the eighth day, did deviſe no new decree, but obſerved faithfully what the Church did before him: whereby it ſeems, though Auguſtine approved Cyprians judgement, yet he relyed not upon his reaſons to make good Infant-baptiſme; this to him is no new doctrine, he had another eye upon the conſtant and ſure faith of the Church, which in that point hee followed faithfully.
You tell me, I ſaid Fidus denyed not Infants Baptiſme, but thought they ought not to be baptized before the eighth day: to this you give no anſwer; and may I not thereby thinke that it appeareth evidently to your ſelfe, as well as to mee, that Paedo-baptiſme in that age was in uſe? for this you deny not: and indeed, that this was the queſtion wherein Fidus craved reſolution of Cyprian: ſ…il. whether Infants were to be baptized before the eighth day, it appears by the words of the Epiſtle: Quantum ad cauſam pertines, quos dixiſti intra ſ…cundum, vel tertium diem qu… … conſtitut…s baptizari non opertere, & conſiderandam eſſe legem circumciſioni… antiquae, ut intra oct av…m diem, eum qui natus eſt baptizandum & ſanctifieandum non putares, &c. Fidus queſtion therefore was, as I ſaid before: this appeares alſo by Auguſt. his teſtimony, who ad Boniſacium, lib. 4. contr. …. Ep. Pelag. c. 18. ſayes the ſame.
So farre then we agree: but you ſay, I might have gone further, and obſerved Fidus his reaſons; one whereof was drawn from Circumciſion, which was done upon the eighth day after the birth of the childe: The other is drawn from the childes uncleanneſſe in the firſt dayes of its birth, which makes men abhorre to kiſſe it, &c. both which are related by Cyprian, not Ʋeſtigium infantis in primis parus ſui diel us conſtituti mundum non dixiſſeas his owne judgement, but as reaſons of Fidus his ſcruples, whereof hee ſought reſolution from him: to both which he gives the judgment of the Councell, aſſuring him, that none of them agreed with him herein. If Fidus did Judaize in both theſe, or either of them, what's that to mee, who ſay he denyed not Baptiſme to bee adminiſtred to Infants? if the ground hee went upon to tye it to the eighth day, was unſound, I ſeek not to juſtifie him in it. Yet let me tel you, that Fidus was not the onelyonly man that reaſoned from Circumciſion to Baptiſme, though they doe not tye Baptiſme to the eighth day, as Fidus did. Beſides the teſtimonies Ath. de Sab. & Circumciſ. Orat. 40.brought out of Athanaſius before, take notice that hee calls Circumciſion a type of Baptiſme. Greg. Nazianz. proves that Children are now to be baptized, as under the law they were circumciſed. Auguſt. alſo ſaith the ſame, lib. 1. contra Greſcon. Grammaticum, c. 30. & de Bapt. contr. Donatiſt. lib. 4. c. 23. Where he ſayes, Baptiſme is as profitable to children now, as Circumciſion was to children of old. Chryſoſt. alſo Hom. 40. in Geneſ. calls our Circumciſion Baptiſme. But none of all theſe holy men tyed Baptiſme to a certain day, as Circumciſion was, as Chryſoſtome ſpeaketh in the ſame place.
How far theſe worthy men Judaized in that age, in ſaying Baptiſm now comes in ſtead of Circumciſion, is not now to be conſidered by us; therefore I leave it.
In the next place, you ſay, The reſolution of this Councell is not to bee ſlighted, becauſe upon your ſearch, you finde it the P. 11.ſpring-head of Infant-Baptiſme. It ſeemes when you caſt your lead into the ſea of Antiquity to finde out the depth of this ordinance, your line was too ſhort, and your plummet too light, that it could not reach beyond this Epiſtle: are there not divers inſtances among the Ancients which make it manifeſt, that before that time Infantbaptiſme was in uſe, as hath been manifeſted to you already? therefore that was not the firſt time in which it ſprung up in the world.
You ſay further, I am miſtaken about the proofes of their opinion, which you call not reaſons or proofes, but anſwers to objections. I will not wrangle with you about words, call them what you pleaſe, Arguments or Anſwers: this is enough to me, what I have produced is recorded in the Epiſtle: and all of them doe juſtifie the lawfulneſſe of baptizing Infants, which was the thing which I went about to cleare: neither doth any of them enforce Baptiſme to be tyed up to the eighth day, as Fidus thought.
From the words of that Epiſtle, you alledge 3 things; 1. They thought baptizing, giving Gods grace, denying it, denying Gods grace. 2. They thought the ſoules to bee loſt, which were not baptized. 3. That all Infants (not beleevers onelyonly) were to bee baptized. The 2 firſt I grant are rightly collected from the words of the Epiſtle; you might, if you pleaſed, have collected divers other things, as that Baptiſme comes in ſtead of Circumciſion, &c. But ſuppoſe all their grounds which they plead be not to be juſtified: yet they doe not darken the light which the place gives to our queſtion. If a man were to make good any aſſertion of a neceſſary truth, and uſe ſeverall arguments to make it out; if one of theſe arguments be not good, or be weake, that may bee rejected, and yet the truth ſtand firme, ſeeing the other arguments are good and ſtrong to evidence the truth. It is true, when the Ancients ſaid that Children were to be baptized, ſometimes they ſtood peremptorily for the neceſſity of Baptiſme, as if without it no ſalvation were to be excepted; yet they made it out by other Arguments then that: why ſhould then the truth juſtified and cleared up by them, be rejected for this? When they were to prove that men of yeares inſtructed in the truth, ſhould receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, they made that good by ſeveral Reaſons; as ſometimes from the neceſſity of the command which Jeſus Chriſt laid upon all the Diſciples of the Goſpel, that they might remember his death till his coming again. At other times they urged it, leſt men ſhould brand themſelves with unthankfulneſſe in not comming to the feaſt when they are invited. Sometimes again they preſt the ſame duty upon the people to come to that ordinance, that they might have the inward Grace ſignified and exhibted in the Sacrament, to bee ſealed up and confirmed to them. Theſe three wayes did they uſe to preſſe their Hearers to the frequent receiving of the Sacrament: yet at ſome other times alſo they pleaded the neceſſity of that Sacrament, as if no man without the uſe thereof could be ſaved. No man can deny the firſt three Arguments to be good, though the laſt is not: and notwithſtanding the weakneſſe thereof, this is a ſure truth, That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be received. So it is here, divers Arguments are brought to prove that children are to bee baptized; and amongſt many, this is one, They conceived the want of it might bee prejudiciall to the ſalvation of Infants, which I will not juſtifie; yet I dare not reject the truth made out by other media, reaſons or arguments. And it is to bee remembred that this Argument was moſt frequently uſed by the Ancients in the heate of diſputation, when they had to do with them that denyed the traduction of originall ſin from Adam to Infants: howſoever, at ſome other times they confeſſe with Auguſtine, that ſome doe receive rem Baptiſmi Lib. 4. c. 22. contr. Donat▪abſque Sacramento, a man may have the grace given in Baptiſme, and not be baptized.
As for the third inference made by you from his words, that not onelyonly Infants of beleevers, but all Infants are to bee baptized: though he layes it down in generall termes, that none are to be hindered from comming to Chriſt: yet what he ſays ought to bee underſtood of the Church, becauſe he ſpeaks of ſuch as God hath cleanſed or purified, who were common.
You conſtrue ſome paſſages of the Epiſtle as anſwers to ſome objections, which doe no wayes weaken, but ſtrengthen what I have ſaid from thence. OnelyOnly in the cloſure of this Section, you would find fault with my gathering up of Cyprians mind, as if hee had meant that Infants are to bee baptized, becauſe they are under Originall ſinne, and need pardon. You ſay the Argument is rather, that they have leſſer ſinnes then others; and therefore there is leſſer hinderance to them to come to this Grace, remiſſion of ſinne, and Baptiſme. Cyprian indeed ſayes, if Baptiſme be not denied to men of yeares, who hath committed more hainous ſins then Infants, why ſhould Baptiſm be denyed to Infants, who are onelyonly guilty of Originall ſin derived to them from Adam: doth hee not there mention Originall ſinne, which he ſayes is remitted to Children when they are baptized: which in his judgement is leſſe then the grievous actuall ſins of men of years, added to their Originall ſin.
In the farewell of your cenſure of Cyprians judgement, you call it naked, and ſay, you would have covered the nakedneſſe thereof, but that the truth ſuffered ſo much thereby: and ſo can at your pleaſure put upon it the title of an abſurd Epiſtle. P. 12.Sir, for one man to ſlight the judgement of 66. men, eminent in their generation, doth not well become a modeſt diſpoſition taught in the Goſpel, to thinke better of others then himſelf. I am afraid, that when Cyprians Epiſtle, and your anſwer ſhall bee compared together; the nakedneſſe of your anſwer will rather appeare; yea, remember what the Philoſopher trampling upon Plato his neat Carpet, ſaid, calco Platonis ſuperbiam: yet hee ſpying a hole in his ſlovenly cloake, anſwered, & ego per rimam pallii tuam video ſuperbiam, &c. I cannot but account it your nakedneſſe, that if it be naked, you have not in your anſwer laid open the nakedneſſe of it: but though it be abſurd in your eye, yet in the judgment of men renowned for learning and piety, it hath ever been accepted in the Church, notwithſtanding ſome miſtakes in it.
Next to Cyprian comes Auguſtine under your Examen: P. 12.Whoſe authority was it (as you ſay) that carryed on Baptiſm Auguſtine vindicated.of Infants in the following ages almoſt without controule: For which you bring forth Walfridus Strabo, and Petrus Cluniacenſis teſtimonies, which I here mean to paſſe over, and take notice of them in another place.
I confeſſe learned Auguſtine his authority was great in the Church, both whilſt he lived, and ſince, and that worthily; not onelyonly for his defence of the truth which you now oppoſe, but of other greater and more neceſſary truths alſo, which hee ſolidly maintained againſt the adverſaries who laboured either to ſuppreſſe or corrupt the ſame: albeit you ſeeme not much to ſtand upon his judgement: which with you is of no more value, then his proofes and reaſons can adde weight thereunto. Thus you ſlight him, though what he ſaid is approved by divers Fathers and Councels named by your ſelfe; and how far your bare ſingle judgement and cenſure will out-weigh Auguſtine, Proſper, Fulgentius, and the Councells, (which you mention in this Queſtion) let the Reader judge.
It hath been an ancient juſtifiable courſe in the Church in examining of controverſies in Religion, to look back upon the writings of famous men who flouriſhed in the Church before: was not Siſinnius his counſell to good purpoſe, which he preſented to Theodoſius (then ſtudying how to put an end to the unhappy differences wch troubled the Church in his time) when hee perſwaded him, foreign Soz. 7. 12.foreign: and to demand of them who petitioned him, whether they would not ſtand to the judgement of ſuch as were Teachers in the Church before it was divided? eſpecially when their judgement diſſented not from the Scriptures: his counſell no doubt was good and wholſome; yet I deſire that herein I may not bee miſtaken. This I ſpeake not, as if I attributed more to Antiquity then to Verity. I have long ſince reſolved (by Gods aſſiſtance) with Hierom, Antiqua legere, probare ſingula, …etinere quae bona ſunt, & a fide Catholicae Eccleſiae non recedere; it were happy for the Church among us, if in this unruly age, many (who not content with former truth:, are carryed on with an itching diſpoſition after novelties) would doe the like.
I return to judicious Auguſtine: Here I expected your accurate Examen would have canvaſt the ſeverall teſtimonies in the places quoted by me; but I am deceived: Whereby it ſeems you have nothing to ſay againſt them, but that they evidence what was that Churches practice in his time about our queſtion (which was the true and onelyonly end why I named any teſtimonies from Antiquity:) for if they did not, I doubt not you would have ſaid ſo much: onelyonly here you tell us what your account is of his proofes and reaſons of his judgement in this controverſie: all which to you ſeeme to bee but light: this you labour to prove in 6 following Sections, which I will now view; and ſee whether your weighty anſwers wil ſatisfie his light reaſons in the judgement of any indifferent Reader.
Your firſt exception againſt his judgement is, becauſe he makes it an univerſall Tradition; a ſhrewd fault, or a dangerous P. 14.poſition; which wil not down with an Anti-paedo-baptiſme. And firſt you reaſon againſt it to this purpoſe; If the Church had thought it neceſſary that all children of Chriſtians by profeſſion ſhould bee baptized in their Infancy; then none born within the pale of the Church ſhould have miſs't of it. But ſo it is that many did. Ergo, &c. Your Minor you prove, Auguſtine himſelfe, Adeodatus his ſon, and Alipius his friend were not ſo baptized; and thus you labour to prove againſt Auguſtine, that Infant-baptiſm was not univerſally received in that Church as he ſaid, which you thinke to evince by the induction of theſe inſtances.
Firſt, that it was univerſally uſed in the Church, teſtimonies of good Witneſſes recording the practiſe of the Church make it manifeſt; and wee have heard of ſome of them before in their ſeverall ages; as, Irenaus lib. 2. cap: 39. (notwithſtanding the bar you put in againſt him;) hee tells us that Chriſt came to ſave all ſorts of people, whether young or old, for they are regenerated by him in Baptiſme. Origen in ſeverall places; as, in Luc. 14. lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. & in Levit. Hom. 80. in which places he tells us, it was the cuſtome of the Church to give Baptiſme to little ones; and ſayes, not of this or that Church: which by a conſtant courſe they had obſerved: therefore in his time we find it univerſally practiſed in the Church; otherwiſe he could not ſay that the Church obſerved it. Cypr. Ep. 39. proves (as we have heard) that Baptiſme is to be denyed to no age: then hee addes, quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans, &c. this he ſets down as no new Doctrine, but faithfully adhearing to the order of the Church; as we heard from Auguſtine before: may wee not now from all theſe ſay, it was in his time the univerſall cuſtome of the Church to baptize Infants?
Shall I adde other Witneſſes who lived in the ſame Century with him? Chryſoſtome Hom. ad. Neophytos. Ambroſe Other ancient teſtimonies for Infant baptiſm.Ep. ad Demetriadem Virginem. Hieron. ad Laetam, & lib. 3. adv. Pelag. all which I now paſſe over: and are not all theſe Witneſſes of the practiſe of the Church? which being weighed, who can deny that Auguſtine might well relate Paedo-baptiſm to bee univerſally practiſed, having ſuch a cloud of Witneſſes to confirm it.
And to manifeſt it further, this is ſomewhat to mee; Epiphanius (whoſe teſtimony you looked for) in the end of his worke relating what was generally obſerved in the Church tells us, The Baptiſme adminiſtred in the Church in his time, was performed according to the Tradition of the Goſpel, and the authority of the Apoſtles; as well as other myſteries then in uſe. And we know that in his time Baptiſme was adminiſtred to Infants; therefore in his judgement, what the Church did therein, they had authority for it from the Goſpel and the Apoſtles: to make that good, he ſays afterwards, That Baptiſme came in ſtead of Circumciſion, which then was not in uſe.
Furthermore, ſometimes Hiſtorians relating particular cuſtomes in ſome things which were not in uſe in ſome Churches and Countreys, (upon which aroſe ſome debat…s in the Church) doe not mention that of Infants Baptiſme as one of theſe particular cuſtomes obſerved in ſome Churches, and not in other; See Socrates Hiſt. lib. 5. 22. it's true, he relates ſome diverſities of ſeverall Churches about perſons that had power to baptize, and about the time in which Baptiſme was commonly adminiſtred; but he mentions none that excluded Infants from Baptiſme, whilſt others baptized them; which no doubt he would have done if there had been any ſuch cuſtome then afoot in the Church. Sozom. likewiſe ſetting down the ſeverall cuſtomes of ſeverall Churches (though they were of the ſame Opinion) Soz. 7. 19.among all which ſingular cuſtomes, baptizing Infants is not named for one, yet in uſe in that age: therefore it is to be conceived as the generall practiſe of the Church. Indeed there was a different cuſtome (eſpecially in ſome after ages) in the manner of baptizing both Infants and grown men; in ſome places they dipt them thrice, in ſome but once: and of this very cuſtome Gregory the great meanes, when he ſaith, In una ſide nil officit eccleſiae diverſa Soz. 1. 17.conſuetudo. But in none of theſe Ancients doe I read any ſuch diverſity of cuſtomes that ſome Churches baptized Infants, others baptized them not: if you know any, I pray you produce them in your next.
Now I come to ſpeake to the particular inſtances, by which you goe about to diſprove this univerſall practiſe of the Church: you tell me Auguſtine was not baptized till above 30 yeares, though educated as a Chriſtian by his Mother Monica. Firſt, I might anſwer you with the Proverb, una P. 1 ….hirundo non facit ver; or that one exception takes not away Auguſtines baptiſm, no argument that Infants were not then baptized.the generall rule: if after ages come to read the ſtories of the Church, after the Lord was pleaſed to begin the Reformation thereof in Luthers time: and then find that even in that time Baltazzar Pacommitanus with ſome of his ſeduced brethren did withſtand Paedo-Baptiſme; or if after generations among us ſhall find that when God begun ſo happily to advance that bleſſed work of Reformation beyond the pitch it was brought unto in our Anceſtors dayes, if they ſhould meet with Mr. Tombes Examen of this queſtion, and therein ſee your Judgement againſt the conſtant and univerſall practlſe of the Church at this day: if ſuch ſhould from a few particular Examples infer that this was the Doctrine commonly received in the Reformed Churches (that children ſhould not be baptized:) Or deny that this was the common received Doctrine that children ſhould be baptized; aſſuredly, a man that knows the Doctrine and preſent practiſe of the Church, might with all reaſon deny the conſequence, becauſe ſome among them did not ſtand for Infant-Baptiſme; therefore the generality of them denyed it. So it may be here thought, peradventure ſome (though born of Chriſtian Parents) were not in that age baptized in their Infancy; yet that is no way prejudiciall to the univerſall practiſe of the Church, in which Paedo-baptiſme was received.
But ſecondly, I anſwer more particularly: I grant Auguſtine was not baptized till hee was 30 years old. And I will not take upon me to determine (beſides the generall obſervation of the reaſons, upon which Baptiſme in thoſe dayes was deferred by ſome, which formerly have been hinted) what the particular reaſon was of his not being baptized in his Infancy: but I will hold forth unto the Reader ſo much as ſhall clearely ſhew that you have no cauſe from that example to ſay, That children of Chriſtians by profeſſion in that age were not baptized in th…ir Infancy; becauſe you ſhould firſt prove that Auguſtine his parents were Chriſtians at his birth; otherwiſe you ſpeake not to the queſtion before us; What was the profeſſion of his Parents when he was borne? take it from Auguſtine himſelfe: who ſayes (though Poſſidonius in his life ſeemes to ſay otherwiſe) when he was Putr, a child grown, hee fell extreame ſick, which put him in feare of death, (then hee and his mother alſo were both troubled that hee was not baptized:) he ſayes of his Father at that time, as yet he beleeved Aug. C…nf. l. 1. c. 11. ille nondum erediderat.not in Chriſt. When Auguſtine was about 16 yeares of age, his father was but catechumenus, Conf. lib. 2. ca. 6. In another place ſpeaking of his mothers peaceable cohabitation with him, (though he was a man of a haſtie diſpoſition, and ſometimes uſed her unkindly) yet he ſayes of her, virum ſuum in extrema vita temporali ejus lucrata est Confeſſ. 9. 9.tibi (i. e. Deo,) &c. Doth not that teſtimony plainly hold out, that hee was not gained to the Chriſtian faith untill hee drew neare the end of his life? and if it was ſo long before he was truly gained to the Lord; how can it ſeeme ſtrange to any, that he who beleeved not in Chriſt himſelf, ſhould neglect, or it may bee hinder the baptizing of his Childe in the name of Chriſt?
It is alſo ſaid of Monica, that when ſhee was but 13 yeares old, ſhe was marryed; her mother taught her to pray, but we read not of her baptiſme when ſhe was young: or if ſhe were baptized when hee was borne, how ſhall wee know that her husband would give way to her to have Baptiſme adminiſtred to her ſon, ſhe ſuffered many things of him whilſt he continued an Infidell, as Auguſtine confeſſeth. Nay more, if ſhe were baptized herſelf at his birth, why might ſhee not be conceived to be carryed away with the error of ſome in that time of deferring Baptiſme till death, that they might not ſinne after it? it appeares not, his Parents were Chriſtians (it is out of doubt his Father was not) at his birth: therefore nothing for the ſtrengthening of your aſſertion is gained by this inſtance.
Afterwards Auguſtine put off his own Baptiſm till he was about 30 years, and upward, and what marvaile? He was poyſoned with the Manichaean hereſie, in which hee continued Poſſ…d. de vita Aug c. 1.almoſt 9 years, Conf. lib. 3. c. 11. in which time what account hee made of Baptiſm, may bee ſeen in his deriding Conf, 4 3.of it to his deare and intimate friend (who was baptized in his ſickneſſe) by whom hee is ſharply rebuked for it. I might alſo adde what hee confeſſes, that the ſtrength of his luſtfull diſpoſition carryed him on to many ſins, which made him make no haſte to bee baptized; quia poſt lavacrum illud, major & periculoſior in ſordibus delictorum reatus Conf. 1. 11.ſorct: ſo much may be read in Auguſtine himſelfe, of the cauſes of deferring his baptiſme, which yet can be no prejudice to the general practiſe of the Church in that age; as it is mentioned by himſelf, and others.
Neither is it any wonder why Adeodatus his ſonne was not baptized in his Infancy: for how can wee ſeeke for Nor his ſonne Adeoda…us.his Baptiſme in Infancy when as his father was unbaptized? he being borne when his father was about ſome 15. or 16. yeers of age. When Auguſtine himſelfe was baptized, hee cauſed him to be baptized with himſelfe, Adeodatus being Conf. 9. 6.almoſt 15. yeers old. Indeed if Adeodate had continued unbaptized after Auguſtine his baptiſme, your objection drawne from him might have had ſome colourable pretence, which now it hath not; much leſſe any weight in it to confirme what you ſeeke to ſtrengthen thereby.
As for Alipius, beſides his ſcandalous converſation, hee Conf. 6 7. Conf. 7. 19. Nor Alipius.was alſo poyſoned by the Manichees: and further it appeares alſo what miſtakings he had concerning the doctrine taught in the Church about Chriſts ſoule; whereupon it is ſaid of him, ad ipſam Chriſtianam ſidem tardius movebatur: therefore conſidering how long he continued in his errors, it is not to be wondered at that he alſo was ſo long unbaptized. So much for your three inſtances.
Afterwards becauſe you feare theſe inſtances will not bee ſufficient to make good your anſwer, therefore you grant with Grotius, that Paedo-baptiſme was much more frequented, and with greater opinion of neceſſitie in Africa, then in Aſia, or other parts of the world: I take what you grant, that it was uſed both in Africa and Aſia: and may I not then with Auguſtine ſay it was univerſall, both among Greekes and Latines?
And when you ſay it was more frequented in Africa then in Aſia; I know you would intimate that the received cuſtome was, that ſome did, others did it not, each doing what hee thought beſt, but that the Greekes leſſe regarded it then the Latines: for ſo I finde both Grotius, and the Arminians in their book Cenſura cenſurae, Cap. 23. to affirme confidently, but neither you nor they muſt be beleeved upon your bare aſſertion againſt ſo many witneſſes: yet this ſticks with you, that in the Councells (as Grotius ſaith) you cannot find ancienter mention Pag. 14.of that cuſtome then the councell of Carthage: I have formerly told you why Fathers and Councells mention not all things which are controverted in our age, which was this: becauſe their care was to reſolve the doubts which troubled the Church in their dayes: if there bee no Canon concerning it, why may it not be thought that they did not mention it, becauſe in their times none did ſcruple it? yet when any thing relating to childrens Baptiſme was ſtarted, then the Church maintained it, witneſſe the 66 Biſhops aſſembled in a Councell anſwering Fidus about that queſtion. I might alſo put you in mind that Conſtitutiones Clementis make mention of it ſaying, But baptize yee your Children: foreign albeit for my part I conceive theſe Conſtitutions not to be his, under whoſe name they goe, yet with the beſt Criticks I may affirme this, that they relate the ancient cuſtomes of the Greek Church, gathered into one volume, the Compiler of them deſiring to put credit upon them would have ſeverall Conſtitutions to come from ſeverall Apoſtles.
And although it was more uſed in Africa then elſe-where, yet Fulgent▪ de fide ad Petrum, ca. 30.you queſtion whether they did in Africa baptize Infants but in caſe of neceſſitie, or for healths ſake: I pray remember what Tertullian that learned African ſaid de Anima. Fulgentius tells us baptiſme is ſufficient to waſh away originall ſinne from Infants, ſo Hilarius Ep. 2. ad Auguſtinum mentions it, yet neither of theſe ſpeake of Baptiſme in the danger of death: to which you ſay they reſtrained it.
You mention the diſtinction of Catechumeni and perſons Baptized, and the uſe of catechizing before Baptiſme, that even after Auguſtine his dayes the baptizing of perſons of growne age did continue as well as of Infants, &c. Doe you not forget the queſtion before us? you ſhould have proved that Infants were not baptized, and now you ſpeake of baptizing of men of yeers, which gives you occaſion to mention the diſtinction of Catechumeni and others, and that is nothing to our queſtion; for who ever doubted that even in Auguſtine his time many ſtill adhered to Paganiſme? and when any of them had embraced the faith, why might they not be catechized, and ſo prepared for Baptiſme, and when they were ſound fit baptized? Auguſtine could us before, that his father was Catechumenus when hee was ſixteene yeers of age.
Then you come to cenſure baptizing of whole Countries upon the baptizing of their King, &c. which is nothing to our queſtion, otherwiſe I might relate unto you ſeverall examples where you might ſee, what a notable preparation for the converſion of Nations it hath been to have their Governours ſhew them the way, but I forbeare.
In your ſecond Section you except againſt Auguſtine his judgement, becauſe he held that Infants without baptiſme muſt Pag. 15.bee damned by reaſon of originall ſinne, which is not taken away but by baptiſme. I grant that Auguſtine, and ſome others of the Ancients preſſed baptizing of Infants upon that ground, but not onelyonly upon that ground: and they did moſt preſſe that ground when they had to doe with Heretiques, denying originall ſinne to be conveighed from parents to their children: yet they maintained Paedo-Baptiſme upon other ſound grounds, as formerly I have proved; therefore this exception is of no vilidity, nor was this Auguſtines conſtant Doctrine: yea it was a Doctrine which hee retracted as an errour, as ſhall afterwards appeare.
Againe you ſay, that you cannot finde among the Ancients the ground that I goe upon: that the Covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their ſeede. What if you have not found it, will you therefore ſay it is not to be found in their writings? Bernardus non vidit omnia: why may not ſome things in the vaſt monuments of Antiquity paſſe unſeene by you? though you have ſeene much, and thinke that you have ſeene more truth then all the Ancients did, and can cenſure what they ſay at your pleaſure: But if you did find this in the writings of the Antients, it would make nothing for, or againſt me, who have not placed Infant-baptiſme upon that ground, becauſe they placed it ſo: I have aſſerted that ground from the Scripture, as afterwards, God willing, ſhall bee made good. But that they alſo, (even many of the ancients) preſſed Baptiſme upon the ſound grounds which wee doe, I have made it appeare out of ſeverall writings.
As for the judgement of Bellarmine, Aquinas and others quoted by you, I will not trouble my ſelfe in anſwering for them: they were not alledged by me, neither will I ſtand to their judgement.
In your third Section you bid mee conſider of Auguſtine his judgement, holding it neceſſary for Infants to receive the Lords Supper: that opinion is nothing to our queſtion in debate before us, therefore you can expect no anſwer from mee to it, for I never pleaded it.
But what is your Argument from hence, Auguſtine held it fit to give Infants the Lords Supper, Ergo, What? draw a concluſion to hurt me if you can, our queſtion being whether Infants were baptized in his dayes.
Fourthly you tell me that Auguſtine held a certainety of Pag. 16.Regeneration by Baptiſme, and he makes no queſtion of the Regeneration of Infants, &c. I confeſſe that ſometimes hee ſayes ſo, yet at other times (as I told you before) hee ſayes there are ſome qui rem baptiſmi abſque Sacramento baptiſmi conſequentur. So alſo did Ambroſe comforting Valentinian his ſiſters upon his death (for hee died whilſt Ambroſe was on his journey comming to Baptize him) where he ſaid of him, Quem in Evangelio geniturus eram, amiſi: ſed ille non amiſit gratiam quam popoſcit—vita jam fruitur aeterna—qui habuit ſpeculum tuum Sancte p…ter, quomodo non accepit gratiam tuam? hee ſpeakes confidently of his eternall eſtate, though unbaptized: yet Ambroſe as well as Auguſtine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptiſme.
Fiftly, you ſcorne his judgement in defending queſtions put to Infants at their Baptiſme, and anſwerd by others. That's enough to me to prove that Infants were then baptized, though I will not take upon me to juſtifie that cuſtome of putting forth queſtions to them, who by reaſon of their age were not able to returne an anſwer: poſſibly I could tell you how, and that many other cuſtomes crept into the Church, but becauſe it is not to our purpoſe, I forbeare.
Laſtly, you ſay, it is apparent out of that Epiſtle of Auguſtine, That Infants, whether borne of Beleevers, or of ſuch as had not received the Chriſtian faith, were baptized, neither doe … in that juſtifie him: you may take notice that here againe you confeſſe the queſtion that Infants were baptized.
But becauſe you make ſuch a great matter of it that it muſt needs follow that they rejected covenant-holineſſe or the birth-priviledge of beleevers Infants, becauſe they baptized other Infants if brought unto them; I reply that you cannot bee ignorant that many learned men deny this conſequence, becauſe they conceive that not onelyonly ſuch as are borne of Chriſtian parents might bee baptized, but that other Infants alſo if any Chriſtian would undertake to traine them up in Chriſts Schoole might bee admitted into it by Baptiſme; you know many of the reformed Divines thinke this lawfull, who yet plead covenant-holineſſe, as further warrant why beleevers children not onelyonly may, but ought to be Baptized: and Tertullian pleads both theſe grounds in the place I quoted at large, both prerogative of birth, and benefit of education. Furthermore many of the Rabbines ſay, that the children of Gentiles might bee circumciſed if a Jew would bring him up in Religion, yet they all hold a birth-priviledge of Jewes children, for Circumciſion; I alledge all this to ſhew that you ſhould not thus vilifie and ſcorne their practiſe and grounds without a more cleare refutation of them then yet you have made: whether that which hath beene ſpoken out of Cyprians Epiſtle, and Auguſtines approbation of it, doe not advantage my cauſe, whether they have not proved as much as I alledged them for, I leave to the judicious and impartiall Reader.
To all the forenamed Authors I added Hierome and Ambroſe his teſtimonies to prove the ſame: here you confeſſe that they were of the ſame judgement with Auguſtine in our queſtion, therefore you conceive your anſwer to Auguſtine his teſtimony to be a ſufficient anſwer to them alſo: in like manner I referre you to my reply to your former anſwer.
Your laſt Section of this Chapter is a Recollection of what you have already alleadged both for the invalidating of the teſtimonies brought by me to prove the practiſe of Infant-baptiſme, as alſo of what you have brought to induce an opinion that there was no ſuch thing practiſed in the firſt and beſt Antiquity. You muſt give me leave to recollect what I have already anſwered to theſe exceptions and allegations; as for your Vives and Strabo, I ſhall give you my thoughts of them anon.
You confeſſe I brought theſe teſtimonies onelyonly to prove the practiſe of Infant-Baptiſme, and that you cannot deny they prove, onelyonly you adde they rather prove the thing an errour then a truth, becauſe practiſed upon ſuch erroneous grounds. As the neceſſitie of Baptiſme to ſalvation: The certaintie of the Remiſſion of originall ſinne: The denying of Baptiſme unto none. But are theſe the onelyonly proofes by which the Ancients did aſſert the baptizing of Infants; I have proved, that notwithſtanding ſome of them owned that corrupt ground (and pleaded it eſpecially in the heate of diſputation) yet they baptized them upon the ſame grounds which we doe. Doe not Tertullian, Cyprian, &c. argue from Circumciſion unto Baptiſme as wee now doe, and others of them from Covenant-holineſſe? (but this and our other proofes you threaten to conſider hereafter.)
In the meane time this you adde, (you ſhould have ſaid repeate) for you adde nothing to what you had ſpoken before.
That the Teſtimonies produced prove not that it was in practiſe, but in caſe of ſuppoſed neceſſitie. Let the Reader judge whether theſe Teſtimonies have not proved it an univerſall practiſe, and ſo not onelyonly in caſe of ſuppoſed neceſſitie; and let Mr. Tombes but conſult that Booke, which I perceive hee hath made great uſe of in this Controverſie, an Arminian Book commonly known by the name of Cenſurae Cenſurae, and that will tell him that Auguſtine may bee ſaid to bee the firſt that grounded Infant-baptiſme upon neceſſitie, Cen. Cen. cap. 23.
Secondly, you ſay there was ſtill in practiſe a conſtant courſe of baptizing the growne children of profeſſed beleevers when they were at full age: you have ſeene already how much you are miſtaken in thoſe inſtances you give of ſuch a practiſe, and how much this practiſe was diſavowed by the Fathers of thoſe times, could you but finde as much in Antiquitie againſt the baptizing of Infants as there is againſt the deferring Baptiſme, how would you triumph?
Thirdly, you ſay they did conceive a like neceſſitie of, and accordingly did practiſe the giving of the Lords Supper to Infants. But did all the Fathers fore-mentioned judge and practiſe ſo? you cannot but know that all that plead for them doe not plead for the other, nor can you ſhow that all that practiſed the one practiſed the other; I confeſſe ſome of the Africans did ſo.
Your fourth, that they made no difference betweene the Infants of beleevers and unbeleevers brought unto them, if it were true, doth not diſprove the practiſe of Baptizing Infants, onelyonly it proves an errour in that practiſe. But (if by unbeleevers you meane Pagans) it is not proved to bee their generall practiſe, I thinke it was practiſed by ſome of them upon the grounds above mentioned, but not found in their conſtant and generall practiſe.
In your fifth you ſpeake cautelouſly that the Ancienteſt of Teſtimonies for practiſe [according to any Rule determined] is Cyprian neere 300. yeers after Chriſt. Here I muſt needs take notice of your overlaſhing, who before calculating his age acknowledged him to live but 250. yeers, and here you ſay hee lived almoſt 300. yeers. I ſee that the Teſtimonies of Iuſtine Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, (who all lived neerer the times of Chriſt then Cyprian) are made good againſt your exceptions; you finde onelyonly this evaſion, that their Teſtimonies doe not prove the practiſe of Infant-baptiſme, according to any Rule determined. But Sir remember our controverſie at preſent is concerning the practiſe, not the Rule.
In the next place you undertake to prove that it was not ſo from the beginning, and that by many evidences. Now I cannot but conceive it likely, that Auguſtines Eccleſia ſemper habuit, ſemper tenuit, ſhould ſway as much with the intelligent impartiall Reader, as Mr. Tombes his Non ſemper habuit, non ſemper tenuit; eſpecially conſidering that you bring not in all the Antiquitie you have produced one man that doth either deny the Baptizing of Infants to have beene the ordinary practiſe of the Church or that condemne it, onelyonly two you cite that doe adviſe the deferring of it, as they doe alſo the Baptiſme of growne men.
As firſt, the propounding of queſtions unto Infants, which as Strabo and Vives did, ſo any reaſonable man ſay you will thinke a manifeſt proofe that at firſt none were baptized but ſuch as underſtood the ſaith of Chriſt.
This ſuppoſeth theſe queſtions to bee of as Antient uſe in the Church of God as Baptiſme it ſelfe, which certainly you can never prove from Scripture, and how can any reaſonable man thinke that a manifeſt proofe to whom Baptiſme was, or was not at firſt adminiſtred, that was not in uſe in the firſt adminiſtration. I have produced teſtimonies bearing witneſſe to the baptizing of children, which plead for it, before you can bring any to witneſſe that thoſe formes of queſtions and anſwers, had any being in the Church.
Secondly, your examples of Greg. Naz. Chryſoſt. Auguſt. Conſtantine the Great, have been already anſwered. Your miſtakes in their parents, education, reaſons of their deferring Baptiſme, ſo made manifeſt, as it is abundantly evident they are farre from proving the Baptizing of Infants of Chriſtian parents not to have been the received and conſtant practiſe of the Church of Chriſt.
Thirdly, Greg. Nazianzen and Tertullian whom you cite as diſſwading; you have heard even in the places cited to you, the one bearing witneſſe to the practiſe of Infant-baptiſme, the other commanding it.
Fourthly, the Teſtimony of the Councell of Neocaeſaerea which you ſay is plaine againſt it; of the teſtimony of this Councell, let the Reader looke backe and judge, but the gloſſe upon that Canon to which you referred us, I am ſure is a plaine Teſtimony for it.
Fiftly, the ſilence which you impute to the chiefe writers, Euſebius, &c. is your miſtake, not their fault; for Euſebius, what the reaſon of his ſilence is you have heard; and for your, &c. if you meane Tertullian, Athanaſius, Epiphanius, whom before you charged with ſilence in this cauſe, I hope you may now heare them ſpeaking and witneſſing for us.
Sixtly, for the many paſſages in Auſtine and others that call it an Apoſtolicall Tradition, in what ſenſe they are to bee underſtood I have already ſhewed, and am loath to detaine the Reader with Tautologies.
For your Triumviri that bring up your reere and ſhut up this firſt part of your Battalia, Grotius, Vives, and Strabo. (to whom I wonder you did not adde Cenſura Cenſurae, for you are more beholden to them for your Teſtimonies of Chapter 23.Antiquity, ſuch as they bee, then to all your other three, and I dare ſay, without diſparagement to your reading, whoever lookes in Grotius and them, ſhall find almoſt all that you have ſpoken in this Controverſie from Antiquity collected to your hand.) One of your three Champions I have encountred, and I hope diſpatched already; and for the other two Vives and Strabo, I ſee they are men of great account with you. Vives you quote five or ſix times, and adorne your Frontiſpice with a peece of his, and Strabo you mention often. But I beſeech you Sir, muſt wee take the bare word of Vives a man of yeſterday, or of a Strabo in matters of fact in things done ſo many hundred yeers before they were borne, and that againſt the expreſſe witneſſe of ſo many worthy and learned men who lived in thoſe times? what evidence doe either of them produce out of Antiquitie to make their aſſertion good? You know well enough that learned Voſſius did take notice of Strabo and Vives, and proves out of Authors that lived many hundred yeers before Strabo (for hee lived but about 850) that Infants were baptized in the Church of old, and wonders that Strabo ſhould rely upon ſo weake an argument as hee doth; and I as much wonder that you knowing all this ſhould boaſt ſo much of ſuch broken Reeds. And ſo I leave you and your men, and ſhall expect to ſee what reliefe you will bee able to give them, for they can give none to you.
More Teſtimonies you ſay you could have added out of ſundry Authors: which I hardly beleeve ſeeing you are forced to rake up an old uſe continued in ſome Cities of Italy onelyonly upon the heareſay of Vives. But theſe you ſay are enough to you, and you thinke to any that ſearch into antiquity, to prove that the cuſtome of Baptizing of Infants was not from the beginning, and therefore is but an innovation, I verily beleeve upon your next ſearch into Antiquitie, you will be of another mind.
And for your confident aſſertion that the Doctrine that Baptiſme is to be… given to Infants of Beleevers onelyonly becauſe of Covenant-holineſſe, is not elder then Zuinglius: Zuinglius I confeſſe was a great Patron of this cauſe, who in a publike diſpute did ſo convince and ſtop the mouths of the Anabaptiſts, that they appearing to the Magiſtrates unreaſonably obſtinate were baniſhed the Citie. But whereas you ſay hee is the firſt that you can finde that maintained the Baptiſme of Infants upon this ground; I ſhall be glad to helpe you; peruſe but what is before your eyes, and you ſhall find Tertullian and Athanaſius pleading the right of Infants to the Kingdome of heaven upon Covenant holineſſe: you may finde Epiphanius, Cyprian, Nazianzen, Auguſtine, Chryſoſtome, and others pleading Baptiſme to come in the roome of Circumciſion, and divers of them pleading Infants right to Baptiſme from the Jewes Infants right to Circumciſion, which to mee is all one as to plead it from Covenant-holineſſe: you may alſo finde even the Pelagians acknowledging a Divine Inſtitution for it, ſecundum ſententiam Evangelii. And now I hope it will not offend you if I ſay, I am ſorry you diſcover ſo much either ignorance, or negligence in the ſearch of Antiquity, as to ſay, The Tenet and Practiſe of Infant-baptiſme accordingly as wee hold and practiſe, is not much above 100. yeers old, ſo farre as you can find.
To conclude this part of my Treatiſe about the Antiquity of Infant-Baptiſme, give me leave to adde theſe few things. Firſt, that I ſhould not have judged it convenient to have made ſo much ſearch into the practiſe of antiquity, if you had not ſo confidently undertaken to ſhew that the ancients were of your mind, and that I perceive your faire ſhowes make many begin to thinke it was as you affirme, and therefore taking my ſelfe bound to give the beſt account I could with truth, I have not onelyonly made what diligent ſearch I could my ſelf, but have alſo (which I willingly acknowledge that no man may thinke of my reading above what it is) made uſe of my friend who is better verſed in their writings then I am, leſt the truth in this matter of practiſe might ſuffer through my weakneſſe, who have but juſt leaſure enough to looke into theſe Authors now and then, and conſult them upon occaſion. Yet had it been needfull, I could have added many other teſtimonies out of the Antients to let you ſee that they approved Infant-Baptiſme, and affirmed that Baptiſme came in the place of Circumciſion, as the Author of the Booke De Vocatione Gentium, lib. 1. cap. 7 Cyrill. Alexandrin. in Levis. lib. Iſychius Presbyter in Levit. lib. 2. cap. 6. and many more.
Secondly, in this ſearch I find that the Ancients did not thinke that all who died unbaptized were damned, as you uſually charge them.
They conceived that Martyrs were baptized with their blood, and therefore might bee ſaved though they were not baptized with water. When great Baſil diſcourſed of this point in his Homily of the 40. Martyrs, he ſaith of one foreign; He was baptized not by another (or the ſaith of another) but by his owne faith: not in water, butin his owne blood. Here Baptiſme by water was denyed, and yet ſalvation attained by a two fold Baptiſme, by faith, and in blood.
Yea I alſo obſerve that they who were no Martyrs, were in the judgement of the Ancients ſufficiently baptized by the holy Ghoſt, without blood or water: and for proofe of this point, I ſhall produce a teſtimony out of Auguſtine, whom I cite the rather, becauſe upon ſecond thoughts hee did retract his opinion, and acknowledge that Baptiſme was not Abſolutely neceſſary to ſalvation, Martyrdome might ſuffice without Baptiſme, nay faith and converſion of the heart might ſuffice without Martyrdome, or Baptiſme, in caſe a man were caſt into ſuch ſtraights, that hee could not be made partaker of Baptiſme; Etiam atque etiam conſiderans inv…nio (ſaith hee) non tantum paſſionem pro nomine Chriſti, id quod ex Baptiſmo deerat, poſſe ſupplere, ſed etiam fidem converſionemque cordis, ſi forte ad celebrandum Myſterium Baptiſmi in anguſtiis temporum ſuccurri non poteſt, in his fift booke De Baptiſmo contra Donatiſtas; obſerve that hee ſaith, etiam atque etiam conſiderans, &c. and therefore I told you this was his judgement upon ſecond thoughts, and more mature deliberation.
And when this point came to be debated in after ages, the Church tooke notice of this Retractation, Bernard diſcourſes upon this ſubject at large in his 77. Epiſtle, and proves clearely out of Ambroſe and Auguſtine that inviſible ſanctification was ſufficient to ſalvation without a participation of the viſible Sacrament. Inviſibilem ſanctificationem quibuſdam affuiſſe, & profuiſſe ſine viſibilibus Sacramentis—Solam interdum fidem ſufficere ad ſalutem, et ſine ipſâ ſufficere nihil, &c. Faith alone ſaith hee, (that is, faith without Martyrdome) is ſufficient to ſalvation, and nothing but ſaith: for though Martyrdome, ſaith Bernard there, may ſupply the defect of Baptiſme, wee muſt not conceive that the puniſhment or ſuffering prevailes, but the faith of him that ſuffers. Sufficiet ſpiritus ſolus (ſaith Bleſenſis, one that's as ancient as Bernard, more ancient then your Walafridus Strabo) quia ipſius teſtimonium pondus habet. It is alſo cleare and evident, that after this opinion prevailed, Infant-Baptiſme was not rejected, and therefore you are extreamely miſtaken in this point. Now if (in the opinion of the ancients) men of growne yeers might bee ſaved without Baptiſme, if they were either converts, or Martyrs, why may not elect Infants who are certainly ſanctified, bee made happy without Baptiſme, when they have been made holy by the ſpirit of holineſſe? could any of the ancients reaſonably grant the one, and deny the other?
Thirdly, you may ſee that in pleading for this univerſall practiſe I ſpeake no louder then other Reformed Divines, for the antiquity of Infant-Baptiſme. Judicious Calvin who was well verſed in Antiquitie, in his inſtruction againſt the Anabaptiſts hath theſe words; I affirme that this holy Ordinance of Infant-Baptiſme hath been perpetually obſerved in the Chriſtian Church, for there is no ancient Doctor, that doth not acknowledge that Infant-Baptiſme was conſtantly adminiſtred by the Apoſtles.
4. That notwithſtanding all this evidence I have brought from Antiquity, yet I build as little upon Antiquitie as any other man. I acknowledge what learned Rivet ſaith to be very true, that Tradition is in moſt points uncertaine, and therefore he that will build ſure muſt build upon the Scripture: Proinde neceſſario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis; quae ſi rem non evincant, fruſtra traditionem advocabimus. Animadv. in Annot. Grotii in Caſſandrum, Art. 9. Pag. 71. And I would have you and every Reader to remember, that I doe not build my faith upon humane Traditions in this Argument, nor did the ancients build upon humane traditions in this thing: the very Pelagians themſelves acknowledge it upon this ground. Parvulos baptizandos eſſe concedunt (ſaith Auguſtine of the Pelagians) qui contra authoritatem univerſae Eccleſiae procul-dubio per Dominum et Apoſtolos traditam, venire non poſſunt, lib. 1. de peccat. merit. et Remiſſ. cap. 26. Nay, they were forced to their owne prejudice to acknowledge that Infants were baptized ſecundum regulam univerſalis Eccleſiae & Evangelii ſententiam, lib. cont. Caeleſt. & Pelag. Now that which was preſſed from the ſcope of the Goſpell was not preſſed as a Tradition, and that which was acknowledged by the Pelagians to be the practiſe of the univerſall Church, according to the rule of the Goſpell, was not built upon tradition. I will therefore cloſe up my teſtimonies produced out of the ancient writers, with that ſavoury paſſage of learned Calvin, in his Inſtructions againſt the Anabaptiſts; Caeterum minime peto, ut in eo probando nos Antiquit…s …llo modo juvet, &c. I doe not deſire (ſaith hee) to borrow any helpe from Antiquity for the proofe of this point, any whit farther then the judgement of the Ancients ſhall be found to bee grounded on the Word of God: for I know full well, that as the cuſtome of men doth not give authority to the Sacraments, ſo the uſe of the Sacrament cannot hee ſaid to be right, and regular, becauſe regulated by cuſtome.