ferved that the chapter out of which this paffage is taken, is thought by fome learned men to be none of Ireneus's, but a fpurious piece; and if it is his, it is only a tranflation, as almost all his works be, and a very foolish, uncouth and barbarous one, as learned men observe; fo that it is not certain that these are his words, or are a true tranflation of them; what wife and confiderate man will fay, that this is a proof of infant-baptifm being an undoubted apoftolic tra dition? feeing the paffage is so much contested, and so much is to be faid against it; seeing, at most and best, the sense of it is doubtful; and seeing it is certain that Irenæus uses the word regeneration in a different fenfe from baptifm'; who can be sure he uses it of baptifm here? Upon the whole, what thoughtful man will aaffirm from hence, that infant-baptism is an undoubted apoftolic tradition? And seeing these two teftimonies are the only ones produced in favour of infantbaptifm in the fecond century; and the latter Dr Walls confeffes, "is the first "express mention that we have met with of infants baptized;" though there is no mention at all made of it in it, any more than in the former; he must have a strong faith to believe, and a good affurance upon fuch evidence to affert," that the baptifm of infants was the undoubted practice of the chriftian "church in its purest and first ages; the ages immediately fucceeding the "apostles." Let us now proceed to the third century. Tertullian is the first man that ever made mention of infant-baptifm, that we know of; and as he was the first that spoke of it, he at the fame time spoke against it, dissuaded from it, and advised to defer it; and though he was quite fingular, as our author fays, in this his advice; it should be observed, that he is alfo quite fingular in his mention of the thing itself; there being no writings. of any cotemporary of his extant, from which we might learn their sense of this affair. We allow that infant-baptifm was moved in the third century; that it then began to be talked of, and became matter of debate, and might be practifed in the African churches, where it was first moved. We do not deny the probability of the practice of it then, though the certainty of it does not appear; it is probable it might be practifed, but it is not certain it was; as yet it has not been proved. Now here we stick, by this we abide, that there is no mention made of it in any authentic writer before Tertullian's time. And this writer himself elsewhere "obferves, that " by his time, it is well known, a great va"riety of fuperftitious, and ridiculous, and foolish rites were brought into the "church." The date of infant-baptifm cannot, we apprehend, be carried higher than his time; and we require of any of our learned Pædobaptist brethren, Ib. l. 1. c 18. & 1. 4. c. 59. & 1. 5. c. 15. The Diffenting Gentleman's Third Letter, &c. p. 32 • Reasonable Service, p. 30 thren, to produce a fingle paffage out of any authentic writer before Tertullian, in which infant-baptifm is exprefsly mentioned, or clearly hinted at, or plainly fuppofed, or manifeftly referred unto. This being the cafe, as we own it began in this century, and might be practifed by fome, it might be needlefs in a good measure to confider after-teftimonies; however, I fhall not think fit wholly to neglect them. Origen is next quoted, and three paffages out of him; fhewing that the baptifm of infants is a tradition of the apoftles, and an ufage of the church for the remiffion of fins; but it fhould be obferved, that thefe quotations are not from the Greek of Origen; he wrote much in that language, and there is much still extant in it; and yet nothing is produced from thence, that can fairly be conftrued in favour of infant-baptifm; though many things may be observed from thence, in favour of adult-baptifm. The three paffages are quoted out of fome Latin translations, greatly interpolated, and not to be depended on. His Homilies on Leviticus, and expofition of the epiftle to the Romans, out of which two of them are taken, are translated by Ruffinus; who with the former, he himfelf owns, he used much freedom, and added much, and took fuch a liberty in both of adding, taking away, and changing, that, as Erafmus fays", whoever reads these pieces, it is uncertain whether he reads Origen or Ruffinus; and Voffius obferves, that the former of these was interpolated by Ruffinus, and thinks therefore, that the paffage cited was of the greater authority against the Pelagians, becaufe Ruffinus was inclined to them. The Homilies on Luke, out of which is the other paffage, were tranflated by Jerom, of whom Du Pin fays, that "his "verfions are not more exact than Ruffinus's." Now both thefe lived at the latter end of the fourth century, and it looks very probable, that thefe very paffages, are additions, or interpolations of these men, fince the language agrees with those times, and no other; for no cotemporary of Origen's, nor any writer before him or after him, until the times of Ruffinus, Jerom and Austin, speak of infant-baptifm as an usage of the church, or an apoftolical tradition; in short, as bishop Taylor obferves", "a tradition apoftolical, if it be not configned with a fuller "testimony than of one perfon (Origen,) whom all after-ages have condemned "of many errors, will obtain fo little reputation amongst thofe, who know that "things have upon greater authority pretended to derive from the apostles, and yet falfly; that it will be a great argument, that he is credulous, and weak, "that shall be determined by fo weak a probation, in a matter of fo great concernment." Cyprian ■ Hift. Pelag. par. 1. I. 2. p. 1472 Liberty of Prophefying, p. 320. In Rivet. critici facri, 1. 2. c. 12. p. 202. 1 Hift. Eccles. vol. I. p. 132. Cyprian, with his council of fixty-fix bishops, are brought as witneffes of infantbaptifm, a little after the middle of the third century. We allow that as infantbaptifm was moved for in Tertullian's time, fo it obtained in the African churches in Cyprian's time; but then by Fidus the country bifhop, applying to the council to have a doubt refolved, whether it was lawful to baptize infants until they were eight days old; it appears to be a novel practice; and that as yet it was undetermined, by council or custom, when they were to be baptized, whether as foon as born, or on the eighth day, or whether it was to be left to every one's liberty: and it should also be obferved, that in this age, infant-communion was practifed as well as infant-baptifm; and very likely both began together, as it is but reafonable, that if the one be admitted, the other fhould. But of this more hereafter. The Clementine Conftitutions, as they are called, are next produced, as enjoining infant-baptifm; but why does this Gentleman call them the Clementine Conftitutions, unless he is of opinion, and which he fuggefts by this title of them, that Clemens Romanus was the compiler of them from the mouths of the apostles? and if fo, he might have placed the paffage out of them with greater advantage, at the head of his teftimonies; but he must know, that thefe writings are condemned as fpurious, by almost all learned men, excepting Mr Whiston; and were not heard of till the times of Epiphanius, in the latter end of the fourth century, if so foon: and it should be observed, that these fame Constitutions, which direct to the baptizing of infants, injoin the use of godfathers in baptifm; the form of renouncing the devil and all his works; the confecration of the water; trine immersion; the use of oil, and baptizing fafting; croffing with the sign of the cross in the forehead; keeping the day of Chrift's nativity, Epiphany, the Quadragefima or Lent; the feaft of the passover, and the festivals of the apostles; fafting on the fourth and fixth days of the week; praying for faints departed; finging for the dead, and honouring their relicks; with many other things foreign enough from the fimplicity of the apoftolic doctrine and practice. A teftimony from fuch a work, can be of very little credit to the cause of infant-baptifm. And now we are come to a very remarkable and decifive teftimony, as it is called, from the writings of Austin and Pelagius; the fum of which is, that there being a controverfy between these two perfons about original fin, the latter, who denied it, was preffed by the former, with an argument taken from the baptifm of infants for the remiffion of fins; with which Pelagius feemed exceedingly embaraffed, when it greatly concerned him to deny it if he could; and had it been an innovation, fo acute, learned, and fagacious a man as he was, would have discovered it; but on the contrary, when he was charged with a denial of it as the confequence of his opinion, he warmly difclaims it, and complains of a flander; and adds, that he never heard that even any impious heretic denied it, or refused it to infants; and the fame fays Austin, that it never was denied by any man, catholic or heretic, and was the conftant ufage of the church; for all which vouchers are produced. To which may be replied, 1. However embaraffed Pelagius might be with the argument, it did not lead to a controversy about the fubject, but the end of baptifm, and about the latter, and not the former was the difpute; nor was he under fo great a temptation, and much lefs neceffity, nor did it fo greatly concern him to deny the baptifm of infants, on account of his tenet; fince he was able upon his principles to point out other ends of their baptifm, than that of remiffion of fin; and particularly, their receiving and enjoying the kingdom of heaven; and as a late writer obferves, this propofition "baptifm ought to be administered to children, as well as to the adult; was not inconfiftent with, nor repugnant to "his doctrine; for though he denied original fin, he allowed baptism to be "administered even to children, but only for their fanctification.” 66 a 2. It should be known and obferved, that we have no writings of Pelagius extant, at least under his name, only fome paffages quoted by his adverfaries, by which we can judge what were his fentiments about infant baptifm; and it is well known that a man's words often are mifquoted, or misunderstood, or mifrepresented by an adversary; I will not fay that this is the cafe of Pelagius; I would hope better things of his adverfaries, particularly Austin, and that he has been used fairly; I am willing to allow his authorities, though it would have been a greater fatisfaction to have had these things from himself, and not at fecond hand. Nor, 3. Would I detract from the character of Pelagius, or call in queftion his acuteness, sagacity, and learning; yet two doctors of the age in which he lived, are divided about him in this refpect, Austin and Jerom; the former fpeaks of him as a very confiderable man, and of great penetration; but the latter, as if he had no genius, and but very little knowledge; it must be owned, that Austin was the most candid man, and Jerom a four one, who feldom spoke well of those he oppofed, though he was a man of the greatest learning, and fo the best judge of it but however acute, learned, and fagacious Pelagius was, yet falling in with the stream of the times, and not feeing himself concerned about the subject, but the end of baptifm, might give himself no trouble to inquire into the rife. of it; but take it for granted, as Auftin did; who perhaps was as acute, learned! and fagacious as he, that it had been the conftant ufage of the church, and an apoftolic tradition; as he had many other things, in which he was mistaken, as will foon appear. * Bower's Hiftory of Popes, vol. I. p. 339. Bower ibid. p. 329, c. 330 4. Though 4. Though Pelagius complained that he was defamed, and flandered by fome who charged him with denying infant-baptism; yet this, Austin observes, was only a shift of his, in order to invert the state of the question, that he might more easily answer to what was objected to him, and preserve his own opinion. And certain it is, according to Austin, that the Pelagians did deny baptifm to some infants, even to the infants of believers, and that for this reason, because they were holy; what others made a reason for it, they make a reason against it. 5. Pelagius fays no such thing, that he never heard, no not even any impious heretic, who denied baptifm to infants. His words indeed are ', nunquam fe vel impium aliquem hæreticum audiffe, qui hoc, quod propofuit, de parvulis diceret; "that ❝he never heard, no not any impious heretic, that would say concerning infants, "what he had propofed or mentioned:" the fenfe depends upon the meaning of the phrafe, quod propofuit, "what he had proposed or mentioned," of whom, and what that is to be understood; whether of Austin, and the state of the cafe as proposed and fet down by him; fo our author feems to understand it, since by way of explanation, he adds, viz. "that unbaptized infants are not liable to "the condemnation of the first man; and that they are not to be cleansed by "the regeneration of baptifm:" but this gentleman has not put it as Austin has ftated it, which is thus; "it is objected to them (the Pelagians) that they will "not own that unbaptized infants are liable to the condemnation of the first "man; & in eos tranfiffe originale peccatum regeneratione purgandum, and that "original fin has paffed upon them to be cleansed by regeneration:" and according to this sense the meaning cannot be, that he never heard that any heretic denied baptifm to infants; but either that he never heard that any one should fay, that unbaptized infants are not liable to the condemnation of the first man, and that original fin had not paffed upon them to be cleanfed by regeneration; but then this is to bring the wicked heretics as witneffes against himself, and to make himself worse than they or the meaning is, that he never heard that any of them should say, that unbaptized infants are liable to the condemnation of the first man, and that original fin has paffed upon them to be cleanfed by regeneration, which is most likely: but then this makes rather against, than for the thing for which it is brought; fince it makes the heretic as never faying that infants ftood in need of being cleanfed by baptifm: or elfe, quod propofuit, "what he had proposed or mentioned," refers to Pelagius, and to the state of the question as he had put it; representing that he was charged with promising the kingdom of heaven to fome, without the redemption of Chrift; and of this he might say, he never heard the most impious heretic to fay; and this feems to be the sense by what he subjoins; "for who is fo ignorant of what is read De peccator. merit, & remifs. 1. 2. c. 25. In Aug. de peccator. originali, I. 2. c. 18. in |
