in the gospel, not only as to attempt to affirm it, but even lightly mention "it, or even imagine it? Moreover, who fo impious that would exclude in"fants from the kingdom of heaven, dum eos baptizari & in Chrifto renafci pu"tat? whilst he thinks, or is of opinion that they are baptized and regene"rated in Chrift?" for fo it is in my edition of Austin; putat, and not vetat, as Dr Wall quotes it; and after him this Gentleman: and Pelagius further adds, "who fo impious as to forbid to an infant, of whatsoever age, the common re"demption of mankind?" but this, Austin fays, like the reft is ambiguous; what redemption he means, whether from bad to good, or from good to better: now take the words which way you will, they cannot be made to say, that he had never heard that any heretic denied baptifm to infants, but that they denied the kingdom of heaven to them; and indeed every one muft allow, whoever is of that opinion, that infants are by baptifm really regenerated in Chrift; which was the prevailing notion of those times, and the light in which it is put ; that they must belong to the kingdom of heaven, and share in the common redemption by Chrift. 6. Austin himself does not fay, that he had never heard or read of any catholic, heretic, or fchifmatic, that denied infant-baptifm; he could never fay any fuch thing; he must know, that Tertullian had oppofed it; and he himself was at the council of Carthage, and there prefided, and was at the making of that canon which runs thus; "alfo it is our pleasure, that whoever denies that "new-born infants are to be baptized let him be anathema: " but to what purpose was this canon made, if he and his brethren knew of none that denied infant-baptifm? To fay that this refpects fome people, who were still of the fame opinion with Fidus, an African bishop, that lived 150 years before this time, that infants were not to be baptized until they were eight days old, is an idle notion of Dr Wall: can any man in his fenfes think, that a council, confifting of all the bifhops in Africa, fhould agree to anathematize their own brethren, who were in the fame opinion and practice of infant-baptifm with themfelves; only they thought it fhould not be adminiftered to them as foon as born, but at eight days old? Credat Judæus Apella, believe it who will; he is capable of believing any thing, that can believe this. Austin himself makes mention of some that argued against it, after this manner; "men are used to ask this quef“tion, fays he, of what profit is the facrament of chriftian baptifm to infants, "feeing when they have received it, for the moft part they die before they know any thing of it?" and as before obferved, he brings in the Pelagians faying, es • Ed. Antwerp. by Plantine, 1576. VOL. II. f Hift. of Infant-baptifm, part I. ch. 19 §. 37. De Peccator. merit. 1. 2. c. 25. U U that that the infants of believers ought not to be baptized and fo Jerom', who was a cotemporary of his, fpeaks of fome chriftians, qui dare noluerint baptifma, "who "refused to give baptifm to their children;" fo that though infant-baptism greatly obtained in thofe times, yet it was not fo general as this author reprefents it. Auftin therefore could not fay what he is made to fay: but what then does he say, that he never remembered to have read in any catholic, heretic, or fchifmatic writer? why, that infants were not to be baptized, that they might "receive the remiffion of fins, but that they might be fanctified in Chrift:" it is of this the words are spoken, which our author has quoted, but are not to be found in the place he refers to; having through inadvertence mistaken Dr Wall, from whom I perceive he has taken this, and other things. This, and not infant baptifm itself, was what was tranfiently talked of at Carthage, and curforily heard by Austin fome little time ago, when he was there: this was the novelty he was ftartled at, but did not think it feasonable to enter into a debate about it then, and fo forgot it: for furely it will not be faid, that it was the denial of infant-baptifm that was defended with fo much warmth against the church, as he fays this was; and was committed to memory in writing; and the brethren were obliged to afk their advice about it; and they were obliged to dispute and write against; for this would prove the very reverfe of what this gentleman produces it for. Now, though Austin could not fay that he never remembered to have heard or read of any catholic, fchifmatic, or heretic, that denied infant-baptifm; yet he might fay he never remembered to have heard or read of any that owned and practifed infant-baptifm, but who allowed it to be for the remiffion of fin; which is widely different from the former: it is one thing what Austin says, and another, what may be thought to be the consequence of his fo faying; and in the fame fense are we to understand him, when he says*, "and this the church has always had, has always held." What? why, that infants are diseased through Adam; and stand in need of a physician; and are brought to the church to be healed. It was the doctrine of original fin, and the baptism of infants for the remiffion of it, he speaks of in these paffages; it is true indeed, he took infant-baptifm to be an ancient and conftant ufage of the church and an apoftolic tradition'; which perhaps he had taken up from the Latin tranflations of Origen by Jerom and Ruffinus before-mentioned; fince no other ecclefiaftical writer fpeaks of it as fuch, before thofe times: but in this he was deceived and mistaken, as he was in other things which he took for apoftolic traditions; which ought to be equally received as this, by thofe who are influenced by his authority; and indeed every boneft man that receives infant-baptism upon 1 Ep. ad Lætam, t. I.. fol. 19. M. the the foot of tradition, ought to receive every thing else upon the fame foot, of which there is equally as full, and as early evidence of apoftolic tradition, as of this let it then be obferved, 66 1. That the fame Austin that afferts infant-baptifm to be an apostolic tradi. tion, affirms infant-communion to be fo like wife, as Bishop Taylor" obferves; and thus Austin fays", "if they pay any regard to the apoftolic authority, or " rather to the Lord and Matter of the apoftles, who fays, that they have no life in themselves, unless they eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, "which they cannot do unle's baptized; will fometimes own that unbaptized "infants have not life;"-and a little after, "no man that remembers that he "is a chriftian, and of the catholic faith, denies or doubts that infants, not having the grace of regeneration in Chrift, and without eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, have no life in them; but are hereby liable to everlasting pu"nishment;" by which he means the two facraments of baptism, and the Lord's fupper; the neceffity of both which to eternal life he founded upon a mistaken fenfe of John iii. 5. and vi 53. as appears from what he elsewhere fays °; where having mentioned the firft of thofe paffages, he cites the latter, and adds; "let "us hear the Lord, I fay, not indeed fpeaking this of the facrament of the holy "laver, but of the facrament of the holy table; whither none rightly come, "unless baptized. Except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, ye shall have no life in you; what do we feek for further? what can be faid in answer to this, "unless one would fet himself obftinately againft clear and invincible truth? "will any one dare to fay this, that this paffage does not belong to infants; and "that they can have life in themselves, without partaking of his body and blood?" And of the neceffity of this, as well as of baptifm to eternal life, he says the African chriftians took to be an ancient and apoftolic tradition. Innocent the first, his cotemporary, was alfo of the fame mind; and the giving of the eucharift to infants generally obtained; and it continued fix hundred years after, until tranfubftantiation took place; and is continued to this day in the Greek church: and if we look back to the times before Austin, we fhall find that it was not only the opinion of Cyprian, but was practifed in his time; he tells a ftory which he himself was a witnefs of; how that " a little child being " left in a fright by its parents with a nurse, fhe carried the child to the magif"trates, who had it to an idol's facrifice; where because the child could not "eat flesh, they gave it bread foaked in wine: fome time after, the mother "had her child again; which not being able to relate to her what had passed, "it was brought by its parent to the place where Cyprian and the church were "celebrating the Lord's-fupper; and where it fhrieked, and was dreadfully "diftreffed, and when the cup was offered it in its turn by the deacon, it shut its lips against it; who forced the wine down its throat; upon which it fob"bed, and threw it up again." Now here is a plain inftance of infant-communion in the third century; and we defy any one to give a more early instance, or an inftance fo early, of infant-baptifmm: it is highly probable that infantbaptifm was now practifed; and that this very child was baptized, or otherwife it would not have been admitted to the Lord's-fupper; and it is reasonable to suppose, they both began together; yet no inftance can be given of infantbaptifm, fo early as of infant-communion; wherefore whoever thinks himfeif obliged to receive the one upon fuch evidence and authority, ought to receive the other; the one has as good a claim to apoftolic authority and tradition, as the other has. 2. The fign of the crofs in baptifm was used by the ancients, and pleaded for as an apoftolic tradition. Bafil, who lived in the fourth century obferves, that fome things they had from fcripture; and others from apoftolic tradition, of which he gives inftances; and, fays he, " because this is the firft and most "common, I will mention it in the first place; as that we fign with the fign of "the cross thofe who place their hope in Chrift; and then asks who taught this "in fcripture?" Chryfoftom, who lived in the fame age, manifeftly refers to it, when he fays', "how can you think it fitting for the minister to make the fign on its (the child's) forehead, where you have befmeared it with the dirt?". which Cyril calls the royal feal upon the forehead. 66 66 W Cyprian in the middle of the third century relates the cuftom of his times; "what is now also in use among us is, that those who are baptized, are offered "to the governors of the church; and through our prayers and impofition of hands, they obtain the holy Spirit, and are made compleat fignaculo Dominico, "with the feal of the Lord:" and in another place he fays, " they only can escape, who are regenerated and figned with the fign of Christ." And Tertullian, in the beginning of the fame century, fpeaking of baptifm fays, "the "flesh is washed, that the foul may be unfpotted; the flesh is anointed, that "the foul may be confecrated; caro fignatur," the flesh is figned," that the "foul alfo may be fortified." Now this ufe of the crofs in baptism, was as early as any instance of infant-baptifm that can be produced; higher than Tertullian's • Homil. 12. in 1 Ep. ad Corinth. Ep. 73. ad Jubajanum. p. 184. Bafil. de Spiritu San&t. c. 27. • Catechef. 12. §. 4. De refurrectione carnis, c. 8. W Ad Demetrian. prope-finem. tu'lian's time it cannot be carried: what partiality then is it, I know to whom I fpeak, to admit the one upon the foot of tradition, and reject the other? The fame Tertullian ▾ also speaks of sponsores, fponfors, or godfathers, in baptifm; which this writer himself has mentioned, and thus renders; "what occafion is "there-except in cafes of neceffity, that the fponfors or godfathers be brought "into danger," not to take notice of the Clementine Conftitutions, as our author calls them, which enjoin the use of them; and which appear to be as early as infant-baptifm itself; and indeed it is but reasonable that if infants are baptized, there fhould be fponfors or fureties for them. 3. The form of "renouncing the devil and all his works," ufed in baptifm,. is also by Bafil reprefented as an apoftolic tradition; for having mentioned feveral rites in baptifm, received upon the fame foot, he adds; "and the rest. "of what is done in baptifm, as to renounce the devil and his angels, from what. scripture have we it? is it not from this private and fecret tradition?" Origen before the middle of the third century relates the ufage of his times; "let every "one of the faithful remember when he first came to the waters of baptifm; when "he received the first feals of faith, and came to the fountain of falvation; what words there he then used; and what he denounced to the devil, non fe ufurum pompis ejus, "that he would not ufe his pomps, nor his works, nor any of his fervice, nor obey his pleasures:" and Tertullian before him; "when we "enter into the water, we profess the faith of Chrift, in the words of his law ; "we proteft with our mouth that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and bis 66 angels," and in another place, in proof of unwritten tradition, and that it ought to be allowed of in fome cafes, he fays; "to begin with baptifm; when. "we come to the water, we do there, and fometimes in the congregation under "the hand of the pastor, proteft that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and "angels; and then we are thrice immerfed; answering fomething more than "the Lord has enjoined in the gofpel :" now this is as early as any thing can be. produced in favour of infant-baptifm.. 4. Exorcifms and exfufflations are reprefented by Austin, as rites in baptism, prifce traditionis, "of ancient tradition," as used by the church every where, throughout the whole world. He frequently preffes the Pelagians with the argument taken from thence, and fuggefts, that they were pinched with it, and knew not how to answer it; he observes, that things the most impious and abfurd, were the confequences of their principles, and among the reft thefe": "that they (infants) are baptized into a Saviour, but not faved; redeemed by a deli De Baptifmo. c. 18. De fpectaculis, c. 4. 66 verer • Homil. 12. in Numeros, fol. 114. D.. De corona, c. 3. 2. Ut fupra. • De peccato, originali, 1. 2. c. 40. de nupt. & concup. 1. 1. c. 20. & l. 2, c. 18. • Contr. Julian. 1. 3. c.5. |