=.3 Ancient & Modern Library

-=^rt> I ;*^'

OL IL

Ctieolodtcal Collection,

THE HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM.

The Ancient and Modern Library of 'Theological Literature. II. a

THE HISTORY

OF

INFANT BAPTISM

In

THE FIRST,

BEING AN IMPARTIAL COLLECTION OF ALL SUCH PASSAGES IN

THE WRITERS OF THE FOUR FIRST CENTURIES

AS DO MAKE FOR, OR AGAINST IT.

THE SECOND,

CONTAINING SEVERAL THINGS THAT DO HELP TO ILLUSTRATE THE SAID HISTORY

BY W. WALL, VICAR OF SHOREHAM, IN KENT

LONDON GRIFFITH, FARRAN, OKEDEN & WELSH

(SUCCESSORS TO NEWBERY AND HARRIS) AND SYDNEY

JUL ' 4 2003

THE HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM,

CONTAINING

SEVERAL THINGS THAT DO HELP TO ILLUSTRATE THE SAID HISTORY.

PART II.

viii The. Contents of 'the Second Part.

infant baptism to have been either not from the beginning, or not universal, have been brought to this concession by the instances of several ancients, who are pretended to have been born of Christian parents, and yet not baptised in infancy, p. 24.

CHAPTER III.

OF THOSE WHO ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN IJORN OF CHRISTIAN PARENTS, AND YET NOT BAPTISED TILL OF MAN'S AGE, p. 25.

Sect, i, p. 25.

An account of the persons, and state of their case. Sect. 2. Of Constantine, and Constantius, his son, p. 27.

That were not born of baptised parents.

§ i. Constantine was not baptised till just before his death, p. 27. § 2. His father was not a Christian, p. 28. Nor his mother, when he was born, P- 3°- § 3- Constantius's parents were not baptised Christians when he was born, nor a long time after, p. 30.

Sect. 3. Of Gratian and Valentinian the Second, p. 32.

There is no proof that their father was a baptised Christian when they

were born.

S i. The history of their father, p. 32. § 2. The time of the birth and death of each of them, p. 33. § 3. Valentinian desired baptism before his death, but missed of it, p. 35. § 4. Gratian probably was baptised, but not in infancy, p. 36. § 5. Their father does not appear to have been baptised himself till a little before his death, when the youngest of them was eight years »ld, p. 37.

Sect. 4. Of Theodosius the First, p. 37.

§ i. He was not baptised till after he was Emperor, p. 37. § 2. His father was not a baptised Christian till he (the son) was twenty-five years old, p. 38.

Sect. 5. Of St Basil, p. 39.

There is no proof to the contrary but that he was baptised in infancy. § i. The quotations brought by Mr Danvers for his baptism at his adult age are some of them forged, others unfairly recited, p. 39. §2. Arrphi- lochius's Life of St Basil, from whence this story is fetched, is a forged piece, P- 39- § 3- Nazianzen, Nyssen, and Ephraim Syrus, writing the passages of his life, have no such thing, p. 40. § 4. The same man that baptised him, did afterwards give him ordination, p. 40.

The Contents of the Second Part. ix

Sect. 6. Of St Gregory Nazianzen, p. 41. He was not baptised in infancy, though probably born of baptised parents.

§ i. An account of when he was baptised, p. 41. § 2. His father was not a Christian till the year 325, p. 41. § 3. The old account is, that the son was born anno 300, which is contradicted by Baronius, p. 42. § 4. Pape- brochius resettles the old account, and answers Baronius, p. 42. § 5. A quotation out of Gregory himself, that he was born after that his father was in orders, p. 44. § 6. Some other reasons on each side examined, p. 45. § 7. An inquiry when his sister Gorgonia and brother Caesarius were baptised, p. 46.

Sect. 7. Of Nectarius, p. 48.

§ i. He was elected Bishop before he was baptised, p. 48. § 2. There is not the least pretence that his parents were Christians, p. 48.

Sect. 8. Of St Chrysostom, p. 49. His parents were probably heathens at the time of his birth.

§ i. Ancient historians do say they were, p. 49. § 2. Grotius, without giving any reason, affirms the contrary, p. 49. § 3. Proof out of Sozomen, that Chrysostom himself was for some time a heathen, p. 51. § 4. M. du Pin's quotations on this subject examined, p. 51.

Sect. 9. Of St Ambrose, p. 52. There is no account of his parents being Christians at the time of his birth.

§ i. He was chosen for Bishop before he was baptised, p. 52. § 2. There is no proof that his parents were Christians at the time of his birth, p. 52. § 3. There is very probable proof from his own words of the contrary, p. 53.

Sect. 10, p. 54.

There is no proof to the contrary, but that St Hierom was baptised in infancy.

§ i. Erasmus thought he was baptised at Rome, because he says he there took on him " the garment of Christ," p. 54. § 2. St Hierom by that phrase means the monKs Jiabit, p. 55. § 3. Baronius's reason to the contrary con sidered, p. 56. § 4. The objection from his ordination answered, p. 58. § 5. The state of the monastic life at that time, p. 60. § 6. St Hierom's excessive value for it, p. 61.

x The Contents of the Second Part.

Sect. ii. Of St Austin, p. 61.

His father was a heathen when he was born, and a long time after. § i. He was thirty-three years old when he was baptised, p. 61. § 2. His father did not turn Christian till he [St Austin] was seventeen years old, p. 62. § 3. St Austin was a Manichee, and then a Deist, before he was a Christian, p. 64.

Sect. 12. Of Monica, Adeodatus, Alipius, and some others, p. 65.

They do none of them make instances to this purpose. § I. It is not known whether Monica were born of Christian parents, and baptised in infancy, or of heathens, and baptised at years of discretion, p. 65. § 2. St Austin was no Christian when his son Adeodatus was born : as soon as he was baptised himself, he got his son baptised, p. 65. § 3. Alipius was a heathen first, and then a Christian, p. 65. § 4. A reflection on Mr Delaun's quotations against infant baptism, taken out of Danvcrs, p. 86, p. 66.

CHAPTER IV.

OF THE CHURCH OF THE ANCIENT BRITONS ; AND OF THE SECTS OF THE NOVATIANS AND DONATISTS, WHICH ARE BY SOME THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ANTIPjEDOBAPTISTS. AND OF THE ARIANS, p. 67.

§ I. Danvers's Proof from Fabian's Chronicle, that the ancient Britons were against infant baptism, is grounded on the misprinting of two or three words in one edition of that book ; the contrary proved, p. 67. § 2. The pretence that the Novatians and Donatists denied infants' baptism, has no proof ; there is proof to the contrary, p. 69. § 3. The Arians called Ana baptists : not that they disliked infant baptism, but because they rebaptised all that had been baptised by the Catholics, p. 71.

CHAPTER V.

OF SOME HERETICS THAT DENIED ALL WATER-BAPTISM : AND OF OTHERS THAT GAVE BAPTISM SEVERAL TIMES TO THE SAME PERSON. THE DISPUTE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ABOUT REBAPTISING. OF THE PAULIANISTS, WHOM THE NICENE FATHERS ORDERED TO BE BAPTISED ANEW, IF THEY WOULD COME INTO THE CHURCH. THE REVENGE WHICH THE MODERN PAULIANISTS TAKE ON THOSE FATHERS, BY ACCUSING THEM OF TRITHEISM. THE FALSENESS OF THAT ACCUSA TION, p. 72.

§ I. The Valentinians, some of them, renounced all external baptism ; others profaned it by their alterations of the form, &c. Their several tenets concerning it out of Irenaeus, p. 72. § 2. Quintilla preached at Carthage in

T/ie Contents of the Second Part. xi

the second century, that water-baptism is needless ; faith alone is enough, P- 73- § 3- The Manichees held that baptism in water does nobody any good, p. 73. § 4. The Messalians held the same, being a distracted sort of people. And so did the Ascodryti, Archontici, and Seleucians or Hermians, P- 74- § 5- The Marcionites of old, and the Muscovites of late, the only persons in the world that ever owned formal anabaptism, or rebaptisation of the same person several times, p. 75. § 6. The dispute among the Catholics, whether baptism given by heretics be valid, or must be reiterated. Baptism given in the right form of words, though by heretics, adjudged valid, p. 76. § 7. The Paulianists excepted by the Council of Nice from the number of heretics that were to have this privilege, p. 77. §8. The modern Paulianists, do, in revenge, accuse the Nicene and other Fathers of Tritheism : and that they held not a numerical, but only a specifical, unity of the Divine essence, P- 77- § 9- They persist in affirming this as proved by Curcellasus, after that all the instances produced by Curcellaeus had been by Bishop Stilling- fleet shown to be mistakes. The open affront given by M. le Clerc to all the" Churches that own the Nicene Creed, p. 79. § 10. The new instances they bring from Tertullian, answered, p. 80. § 11. And those they bring from Gregory Nazianzen, p. 82. § 12. The heresies of Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius on one side, and Philoponus on the other, and the way the church men take to refute them, -do plainly show that the Church held the numerical unity, p. 85. § 13. St Austin, St Hierom, St Ambrose, &c., do express fully the numerical unity of the essence : but these are blackened on other accounts, p. 89. § 14. The mischief brought on the credit of Christian religion, by vilifying the ancient professors of it, because their sayings can not be brought to serve a turn, p. 90. P.S. — St Austin also in a late piece is made a tritheist. § 15. St Hilary vindicated from the same imputation, p. 92.

CHAPTER VI.

THE OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING THE FUTURE STATE OF INFANTS, AND OTHER PERSONS THAT HAPPENED TO DIE UNBAPTISED, p. 95.

§ i. They do all understand that rule of our Saviour (John iii. 5), "Except one be born again," &c., of water-baptism. Calvin's new interpretation of that text, and the advantage which the antipaedobaptists do take of it, p. 95. Also they do all by the Kingdom of God in that text, understand the kingdom of glory. The inconsistency of some later interpretations with the words of the text, p. 95. § 2. Their opinion of the case of martyrs dying unbaptised, that they went to heaven, p. 100. § 3. The case of converts believing, but being unbaptised. Those that had contemned or neglected baptism, con-

xii The Contents of the Second Part.

demned. Those that had fully resolved to take it, but missed of it, went, as some thought, to a middle state; as others thought to heaven, p. 101. § 4. Of infants dying unbaptised. All agree that they miss of the Kingdom of Heaven. They go, as the Greek Fathers think, into a middle state ; as others, into some degree of punishment, p. 105. § 5. Of the degree of their punishment. St Austin thinks it to be a very moderate one ; a state better than no being at all. The books in which the more rigid opinion is held, are Fulgentius's, and not his, p. 107. § 6. The opinions of the following ages. Fulgentius, anno 500 ; Pope Gregory, 600 ; Anselm, 1000 ; do speak of their being tormented. The schoolmen, anno 1200, go over to the opinion of the Greek Church, that they shall be in a middle state. The Council of Trent were about to determine the opinion of their being tormented to be a heresy, p. 1 10. § 7. Some in the Middle Age have conceived hopes of some unbaptised infants going to heaven. Hincmarus Rhemensis, Wickliff, the Lollards, Hussites, &c. (and the schoolmen for infants dying in the womb), and in the latter times Cajetan and Cassander, p. 112. § 8. The opinions of the Pro testants, Lutherans, Calvinists, Church of England, English Presbyterians, antipasdobaptists, concerning the possibility of salvation of unbaptised infants, p. 117. § 9. That all baptised infants dying such are saved; the generality of the Christian world has agreed. The ancient Praedestinarians and Semipelagians consented in this. Of the modern Praedestinarians some few have doubted or denied it, p. 119. § 10. The ancients never refused to baptise a child on account of the parents' wickedness, as some Calvinists now do, p. 122.

CHAPTER VII.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE STATE OF THIS PRACTICE FROM THE YEAR 400 TILL THE RISE OF THE GERMAN ANTIPJEDOBAPTISTS. OF THE WALDENSES, AND THEIR CHIEF ACCUSERS, ST BERNARD, PETRUS CLUNIACENSIS, REYNERIUS, PILICHDORF, ETC., THE CONFESSIONS OF THE WALDENSES THEMSELVES, p. 122

§ i. There are no pretences of anyone in this period before the time of the Waldenses being against infant baptism, but what are proved to be mistakes. The instance of Hincmarus, Bishop of Laudun, shown to be such, p. 122. § 2. Of Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and of Berengarius, Archdeacon of the same Church, there are reports that they held doctrines that do overthrow infant baptism ; but they never owned any such, p. 125. § 3. A general account of the Waldenses, A.D. 1 1 50. What the Popish historians do say of their tenets. What the present remainders of them do say of their ancestors. Some of their old confessions. The present debate, whether they were anciently paedobaptists or antipaedobaptists, p. 126.

The Contents of the Second Part. xiii

•

§ 4. That there were several sects of those men whom we now call by that general name Waldenses ; and that some of them denied all water-baptism. The distinct account of their several tenets about baptism given by Reynerius, &c., p. 131.^ § 5. That one sect of them, viz., the Petrobrusians, otherwise called Henricians, did own water-baptism, and yet deny infant baptism. Four witnesses of this. The Lateran Councils under Innocent the Second and Innocent the Third. Mr Stennet's pretence to the disciples of Gundulphus, anno 1025, examined, p. 135. § 6. That all the rest of them owned infant baptism, p. 141. § 7. Those that denied it quickly dwindled away, or came over to those that owned it, p. 142. § 8. The life of Peter Bruis and Henry, the two first antipaedobaptist preachers in the world, p. 144.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE PRESENT STATE OF THIS CONTROVERSY. THAT ALL THE NATIONAL CHURCHES IN THE WORLD ARE P^EDOBAPTIST. OF THE ANTIP^DO- BAPTISTS THAT ARE IN GERMANY, HOLLAND, ENGLAND, POLAND, AND TRANSYLVANIA, p. 147.

§ i. All the national Churches in Europe are paedobaptists, p. 147. § 2. So are those in Asia. A disquisition concerning the Georgians, of whom Sir Paul Ricaut had heard that they held formerly, " That children ought not to be baptised till the age of fourteen," and that they now hold, " That they are not to be baptised till eight years old." The mistake of this report shown from Sir John Chardin, who travelled in that country. Of the Armenians, Jacobites, Maronites, Christians of St Thomas, &c. They do all baptise infants, p. 148. § 3. The two sorts of Christians that are in Africa, viz., the Cophti and Abassens, do both of them baptise their infants forty days after their birth or circumcision. A mistake in the print of Mr Thevenot concern ing what he heard by the relation of an ambassador from the Abassens, that before the Jesuits came there, they did not use to baptise till forty years, putting years for days, p. 154. § 4. Of the antipasdobaptists in Germany, anno 1522. An enquiry whether that opinion was then set up anew, or had been continued from the time of the Petrobrusians. A letter written to Erasmus, anno 1519, concerning the Phyghards, p. 154. § 5. Of those in Holland and the Low Countries ; their insurrection at Amsterdam. Of Menno, and the present Minnists; their tenets, &c., p. 158. § 6. Of the English antipaadobaptists. Some Dutchmen in England, but no Englishmen, of this way in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth. No considerable number of English till the times of the Rebellion,

xiv The Contents of tJic Second Part.

p. 161. The great encouragement given them by Oliver Cromwell. Their great increase at that time. The present state of them. Their tenets con cerning, i. Separation. 2. Immersion. Their reasons for the necessity of it The word Bairrtfw does not include dipping in its signification, p. 174. 3. Baptising naked. 4. The form of baptism. 5. The flesh of Christ. 6. The Millennium. 7. Eating of blood. 8. Sleep of the soul. The opinion of the ancients concerning Hades, and the state of souls in it, p. 181. 9. Singing of Psalms. 10. The use of the Lord's Prayer, n. Extreme unc tion. 12. Way of marriage. 13. Posture in receiving the Lord's Supper. 14. The Saturday Sabbath. 15. Confirmation, or laying on of hands. 16. Pre destination. 17. Original sin. 1 8. The divinity of Christ. 19. Their disputes with the Quakers. 20. Their Church officers. 21. Their way of adjusting differences in money matters. 22. Church discipline against scandalous members. 23. Of the Jesuits creeping in among them. Bishop Stillingfleet's sagacity in discovering Hallingham, Coleman, and Benson to have been Jesuits. Of one Everard a papist, who, having got in Cromwell's time a commission for a troop of horse, set up for a preacher against Infant Baptism. All the papists do of late years industriously put it into their books, " That Infant Baptism cannot be proved from Scripture." The weakness of some late antipaedobaptists in valuing themselves on the papists thus siding with them in the dispute, p. 161 &c. to p. 201. § 7. Of the antipaedobaptists in Poland, Hungary, Transylvania, &c. Those that were formerly in Poland were mostly Socinians, and so are they that are at present in Transylvania, p. 201.

CHAPTER IX.

^

THE ANCIENT RITES OF BAPTISM, p. 2O2.

§ i. The adult used prayer and fasting before it, p. 202. § 2. The ordinary way of baptising was by immersion, but in case of sickness, &c., they gave it by affusion of water on the face. Some ancient proofs of this from a letter of St Cyprian. The examples of Novatian, St Lawrence, Basilides, the jailor in Acts xvi., &c. An account of the times when immersion was left off in the Latin Church : France was the first country in Christendom that left it off, then Italy, Germany, &c., and, last of all, England, not till the time of Queen Elizabeth. The Directory forbids dipping. The Church of England at the Restoration re-established it, in case the child be able to bear it. The opinion of Mr Mede, Bishop Taylor, Mr Rogers, Sir Norton Knatchbul, Mr Walker, Dr Towerson, Dr Whitby, Sir John Floyer, &c., that the general use of it ought to be restored. All nations of Christians in the world, except those that are or have been under the Pope, do dip their

T/te Contents of the Second Part. xv

infants if in health, p. 203 to p. 219. § 3. The ancient Christians baptised naked. The care that was taken to preserve the modesty of women, p. 219. § 4. The head of the baptised was thrice put under water ; once at the nam ing each name of the holy Trinity, p. 220. § 5. The forehead was signed with the sign of the cross, p. 223. § 6. A mixture of milk and honey given to the new-baptised person. A quotation out of the Epistle of Barnabas to that purpose, p. 224. § 7. The white garment put on after baptism, p. 225. § 8. Of the two anointings ; one with oil before the baptism, the other with a rich ointment or chrism after baptism, together with the laying on of hands of the bishop, p. 225. § 9. The professions made at baptism, both of the adult and infants ; and first, the promise of renouncing the devil and all wickedness, p. 228. § 10. The Profession of Faith : the form of it at first, only to say, " I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit." It was afterwards made in the words of the creed that was in use in each Church. The copies of the most ancient creeds are lost. The substance of them collected from rules of faith delivered by Justin Martyr, Irenasus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, &c., p. 230. § u. The Nicene Creed the eldest copy of any public creed that is extant. Eusebius's Creed, the Creed of Alexander, of Arius, of some Arian Councils at Antioch, of Eunomius. Julian the Apostate's applause of Photinus's belief; the abhorrence expressed by the Arians, as well as Catholics, against it. All the Catholic Christians of the East used the Nicene Creed at Baptism, p. 237. § 12. The Constan- tinopolitan Creed ; what is added to the Nicene. Of the sense of those words, 2 Cor. iii. 17, 6 Ktptos rb Hvev/j.a e<m, p. 242. § 13. The Roman Creed ; no copy of it extant older than the year 400 ; what clauses have been added to it since that time ; the descent into hell, &c. And how it came to be called the Apostolic Creed, or, the Apostle's Creed, p. 245. § 14. The baptismal professions made twice by the adult ; but once in the case of infants. Infants never ordinarily baptised without godfathers making profession in their name, p. 250. § 15. The Eucharist given quickly after baptism ; always to the adult, and in some places and ages of the Church, to infants. Mr Daille's charge against the ancients for doing this examined. No proof of it being given to mere infants till after the year 400. The mis take of those that say St Austin calls it an Apostolical tradition, p. 251. § 16. This custom continued in the Church of Rome from 400 to 1000. It was then dropped on account of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation coming up. The contrary determinations of Pope Innocent and Pope Pius about the necessity of it. The Greeks in later times took it from the Latins, and not being disturbed by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation do practise it still, p. 256. § 17. The argument of the Antipaedobaptists against any regard to be given to the practice of the ancients in other matters, because they were in an error in this matter, proposed and considered, p. 258.

xvi Tlie Contents of the Second Part.

CHAPTER X.

A SUMMING-UP OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HERE HAS BEEN GIVEN ON BOTH SIDES, p. 259.

§ i. Evidence for Infants' Baptism, p. 259. § 2. Evidence against In fants' Baptism, p. 264. § 3. Evidence that seems to make against Infant Baptism, but does not really, p. 267.

CHAPTER XI.

A DISSUASIVE FROM SEPARATION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT THE AGE OR TIME OF RECEIVING BAPTISM, p. 274.

§ i. The great guilt and mischief of the sin of schism, p. 274. § 2. Different opinions in points not fundamental, no just cause of separation. The fault of the Romish way of bringing all men to unity, by forcing them to subscribe to the same opinions ; and of the way in the opposite extreme of setting up several Churches for the several opinions, p. 276. § 3. He that likes some other way of ordering the public worship, ceremonies, &c., better than that which is established in the Church where he lives, is not therefore to separate, p. 280. § 4. He that thinks some error, not fundamental, to be expressed in some of the prayers, collects, &c., ought to join in the other service, though he cannot join in those particular prayers ; provided there be no idolatry in any part of the worship, p. 285. § 5. In the Scripture command of holding communion with the Church where we live, there are but four cases excepted : — I. Idolatry ; 2. False Doctrine in Fundamentals ; 3. The Churches requiring some condition of communion that is sinful ; 4. If that Church herself be schismatical. He that adds any more exceptions, adds to the Scripture, p. 286. § 6. An error in opinion about the age or manner of receiving baptism is not a fundamental one, 287. § 7. Some difficulties on the part of the Church of England in receiving Antipaxlo- baptists to communion ; and some on the Antiptedobaptists' side, in accept ing communion with the said Church, considered. They are none of them such as to render the said communion impracticable, p. 296. An Alphabetical Table of some few matters, p. 303.

1bi8toi-£ of Jnfant Baptism.

PART II.

CHAPTER I.

OF SOME OTHER PASSAGES WHICH ARE CITED, AND PRETENDED TO BE TO THIS PURPOSE, BUT ARE NOT.

§. i. HPHE passages produced in the First Part are all that I have met with in authors that wrote in the four first centuries ; saving that in St Austin's works there are, as I said, a great many more, but all to the same purpose.

In some collections of this nature I have seen several other quotations pretended to be out of authors within the said term. But they are either —

1. Out of such books as are now discovered to be forgeries of late years. Or,

2. They are nothing to the purpose. Or,

3. Wrested and altered by those that cite them to another sense than what they carry in the authors themselves. Or,

4. Such wherein the author does not say that for which he is cited ; but he says something from whence the other does draw it as a con sequence, and then sets down that consequence, as if it were the author's own words. Or,

5. Quotations absolutely false.

First. Out of such books as are now discovered to be no true works of the authors whose name they bear, but forgeries of later years.

So there are quotations for infant baptism, taken out of the Decretal Epistles, which have been set out under the name of the most ancient Bishops of Rome, but were, as I showed before,1 really forged long after 1 Pt. I. ch. xvi. §§ i, 2.

II. A

2 The History of Infant Baptism.

that time. As for the spurious quotations that are of any tolerable credit for antiquity, I gave before some account of them.2

§ 2. Secondly. Many that are produced are nothing to the purpose.

As when the antipsedobaptists do fill their collections of this nature with passages out of the ancient Fathers that relate to the baptising of adult persons. There is no paedobaptist but does grant that there are innumerable such places ; for in the first 300 or 400 years of Christianity (in which space of time it was that the greatest part of the heathen world, being converted, came into the Church) the baptisms of grown persons converted were more in number than the baptisms of the children of Christians : as it must needs be, since the Apostles, at their death, left the world in such a state, as that there were probably a hundred heathens left for one Christian, even in the Roman Empire, where they spent most of their pains : but at the end of 300 or 400 years there were probably ten Christians for one heathen. Now in that space of time there are recorded a great many sermons and other discourses, persuading people to come in and be baptised ; and in those discourses they instruct them in what is necessary thereto — as that they must first understand and believe the principles of Christian religion, and resolve to forsake their wicked courses and idolatrous worships. And com monly when they are upon this theme, they speak of baptism just as the Church of England does in the Catechism — that there is required of persons to be baptised, repentance and faith. There are also extant many sermons made to the persons newly baptised, putting them in mind of their vow and covenant. And it is common for the antipaedo- baptists to cite some passages out of such discourses, which, taken by themselves, look as if those authors were against infant baptism, and allowed it only to grown persons ; but the contrary appears in that the same authors, in other places, when they speak of the case of infants, do show their opinion and practice to have been otherwise, and that they looked upon that as a particular and excepted case. For this sort of quotations is often made out of Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, and even St Austin himself.

In short, they have in this matter dealt with those ancient authors just as they did lately with Mr Baxter ; who being busy in writing some thing in defence of infant baptism, heard the hawkers cry under his window, " Baxter's Arguments for Believer's Baptism : being a pam phlet of collections taken out of some of Mr Baxter's works, wherein he, speaking of the terms of the baptismal covenant, had shown the neces sity of a justifying faith in order to baptism ; though in the same books he had declared he spoke in reference to adult persons only." On which occasion Mr Baxter says, " The men that cite authors at this rate, cite me against myself with the like confidence." 3 8 Pt. I. ch. xxiii. 3 Baxter, More Proofs for Infant Baptism, page 414.

Quotations Impertinent. 3

Indeed, Mr Tombs wrote a piece against Mr Baxter called Felo dc se, or, " The Self Destroyer," in which he endeavoured to show, that though Mr Baxter intended these proofs of the necessity of faith only in the case of the baptism of adult persons, yet " his arguments prove more ; and that the middle terms of his arguments do beat down his own tenet of infant baptism." If the antipsedobaptists had dealt only thus in their quotations out of the ancients ; and had declared their purpose to be, to improve these sayings of the Fathers to confute the opinion and practice of the said Fathers themselves, none could deny them the liberty of making their best of such a course. And they may, if they think fit, indite the Fathers of being felones de se. But it is common with them to cite such passages as evidences that the authors were against infant baptism ; or, that there was no baptism of infants practised in those ages, or those churches, because they find such passages concerning the baptising of grown persons, and concerning the qualifications required in them.

Such places as these I have left out, inasmuch as they only prove that there were frequent baptisms of adult persons in those times ; which nobody denies.

Yet I shall here set down for instance two of them, which do in appearance, the most of any that I have met with, make for the purpose of the antipaedobaptists.

Basil, contra Eunomium, 1. iii.

Higrevffat 'yap fit? irponpov g/Va rw /Sacrr/o/iar/ sTifftppayiffaadai. ' For one must believe first : and then be sealed with baptism.'

Hieronym. in Matt, xxviii.

" Primum decent omnes gentes, deinde doctas intinguunt aqua : Non enim potest fieri ut corpus recipiat baptismi sacramentum, nisi ante anima susceperit fidei veritatem."

1 They first teach all the nations, then when they are taught they baptise them with water ; for it cannot be that ;the body should receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have before received the true faith.'

St Hierom here commenting on the commission given by our Saviour to the Apostles4 of carrying the Gospel to the nations that were heathens, explains the method they were to use: viz., first, to teach those nations the Christian religion, and then to baptise them ; which all pajdobaptists grant to be the method that ought ever to be used. For if there be any nation of Indians to be converted nowadays, they use the same ; and yet when they have converted and baptised the parents, they do also at the parents' desire, baptise what children they

4 Matt, xxviii. 19.

4 The History of Infant Baptism.

have. And it is of such heathen people or nations that St Hierom here speaks, that their minds must be instructed before their bodies be baptised.

St Basil is there proving against the heretic Eunomius the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit by this argument, that we are baptised in the name of them as well as of the Father, and consequently are to believe in them — for that baptism supposes faith in that deity in whose name the baptism is ; and applying this to the case of one that learns the faith of the Christians, shows that he must be taught to believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (viz., that each of these persons is God), or else ought not to be baptised with those words ; and that consequently the Eunomians did in effect renounce their baptism by renouncing this faith. As there was no dispute between the Catholics and Eunomians about infant baptism, so St Basil will appear to anyone that reads him not to have had any thought pro or contra at that place about it.

But it happens very unluckily for the purpose of those that produce these sayings, that both of these Fathers are known by other passages to have owned infant baptism, as I have shown plainly in the first part of this work.8

§ 3. Thirdly. Some quotations that are brought, are wrested and altered, by those that bring them, to another sense than that which they carry in the authors themselves.

As for example : Danvers 6 cites out of Eusebius 7 that Dionysius Alexandrinus, writing to Sextus, Bishop of Rome, testifies, " That it was their custom to baptise upon profession of faith ; and that one who had been baptised by heretics, not upon profession of faith, did desire to be so baptised, accounting his former for no baptism."

This, as it is here by Mr Danvers brought in and worded, would seem to be an instance of a man that having been baptised in infancy desired now to be baptised again. But that which Dionysius does there write, is in these words, and no other :

" The man being present when some were baptised, and hearing the interrogatories and answers, came to me weeping ; and falling down at my feet, confessed and declared that the baptism wherewith he had been baptised by the heretics, was not this [or, this sort of] baptism, nor had any likeness to this of ours, but was full of impieties and blas phemies. He said he was sore troubled in conscience, and durst not presume to lift up his eyes to God, for that he was baptised with those profane words and ceremonies." 8

Now this is clearly the case of a man that had been baptised by'the Valentinians (or some such heretics), who, as Irenseus tells us,9 did not baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; but with e Ch. xii., xv., xix. 6 Treatise of Baptism, page 50. Second edition.

7 H. E., L vii. c. ix. 8 Apud Eusebium loc. citat. B Lib. i. c. xviii.

Quotations impertinent, or Altered. 5

strange and profane forms of words which he there recites, and some of which I do hereafter recite.10 All which is nothing relating to the case of infant baptism ; and he that compares the words, will observe how foully they are quoted.

§ 4. Fourthly. Some quotations are yet more unfair ; as, when the author cited does not say that for which he is cited, but he says some thing from whence the other does draw it as a consequence, and then sets down that consequence as if it were the author's own words.

Thus Danvers, in the foresaid treatise,11 says that St Hierom, in his Epistle against the errors of John, Bishop of Jerusalem, says, " That in the Eastern Churches the adults were only baptised ; " and again, in his Epistle to Pammachius, says, " That they are to be admitted to baptism to whom it does properly belong, viz., those only who have been in structed in the faith."

Now if one read over that Epistle of St Hierom's to Pammachius against the errors of John, Bishop of Jerusalem, and all the other epistles of his to Pammachius (for such work one has with quotations set down after such a blundering manner), there is no such thing.

But this there is : 12 the said bishop having said that " in a certain sermon of his he had fully discoursed of the faith and all the doctrines of the Church," St Hierom takes occasion to reprove this as a con fident saying, that he should pretend to do all that in one sermon ; and then adds, " We have a custom to discourse for forty days together, to those that are to be baptised, concerning the Holy Trinity, &c. If you on that text could in one hour discourse of all the doctrinal points, what need is there to continue such discourses for forty days ? But if you did recapitulate all that you used to preach in the whole Lent," &c.

There is also another passage towards the end of the epistle, where he thus expostulates with the said bishop — " Do we divide the Church, who but a few months ago, about Whitsuntide (when the sun being eclipsed, people thought the Day of Judgment was coming), did present forty persons of both sexes, and several ages, to your presbyters to be baptised ? And yet we had five presbyters then in the monastery, who might have done it by their own right ; but they would do nothing to anger you. Or do you rather divide the Church, who ordered your presbyters at Bethlehem, that they should not give baptism to our can didates at Easter, whom we therefore sent to Diospolis to Bishop Dionysius to be baptised."

Here is indeed a plain account of adult persons baptised in those times ; and that they used to be catechised all the Lent before their baptism. But he that shall conclude from hence, that they only were baptised, and then shall quote the place and set it down as St Hierom's 10 ch. v. § I. n Treat, of Bapt., p. 56.

12 Epist. 6 1 ad Pammachium de erroribus, &c., props medium.

6 The History of Infant Baptism.

words, "That in the Eastern Churches they only were admitted to baptism," is by no means to be trusted with the quoting of authors.

§ 5. Fifthly. Some of the quotations brought in this case are absolutely false ; and neither the words cited, nor any like them, are at all to be found in the books mentioned.

So Danvers in his said treatise 13 cites St Hilary for three several say ings. The first whereof is found in the book mentioned : the second is not; but there is a sentence to the same purpose in another book. These two are not so material as to need reciting here. The third (which is very material, if it were true) is, that St Hilary should say, "That all the Eastern Churches did only baptise the adult." The book he seems to refer to is St Hilary's Second Book de Trinitate ; for that only is mentioned. But neither there nor, as I am very confident, anywhere else does St Hilary say any such thing.

Both these last quotations out of St Hierom and Hilary are amended in a postscript by Danvers;14 and for Eastern he says we must read Western. But this mends not the matter, but makes it worse, for there is no such thing said of either of them. Indeed, if either Hierom or Hilary, or any other author of those times, had said that it was the custom either of the Eastern Church or Western Church, or any Church at all, to baptise only the adult, and the places where they said so could be pro duced, it would be a quotation more for the purpose of the antipsedo- baptists than any they have yet brought.

And for Mr Danvers (after that Mr Baxter and Mr Wills had so pub licly challenged him for a forger of quotations, and Wills had put in an appeal to his own party against him) to amend in a postscript to the answer to the said appeal these quotations by putting WESTERN for EASTERN, as if the authors had really said so of one of them : this, if joined with a great many other instances in the said book, was the boldest attempt upon the belief of a reader that ever I knew made.

It would have been a very tedious thing both to me and the reader to recite all such quotations, and then to show the falseness or mistake of them. But instead of doing that, I do declare that all that I have seen that seemed to be to the purpose, I have searched ; and the search after such as have proved false, spurious, &c., has cost me as much pains as the collecting of these true ones. And of those that I have so seen or searched, I have left out none in this collection that make for or against the baptism of infants, but such as are (and, I think, plainly) of some of the five sorts before mentioned. And if anyone that meets with any other which I have not met with, will be so kind as to inform me of it, by word or letter, I will (if I live to see any more editions of

18 Part I. cent. iv.

14 Postscript to the Baptist's Answer to Wills's Appeal against Danvers.

The Moderns' Opinion of Pcedobaptism. 7

this mean work) add it to the rest ; and that indifferently, as I said, whether it make for or against paedobaptism : provided it be genuine, and to the purpose, and out of authors within the time limited.

CHAPTER II.

THE OPINIONS OF MODERN LEARNED MEN CONCERNING THE ANCIENT PRACTICE OR OMISSION OF P^DOBAPTISM.

§ i. A S for what later authors have said concerning the practice of -fV. these primitive times, it would be a voluminous work to collect all their opinions or verdicts. Neither would it answer so much pains to have the account of the modern writers, as to what they judge may be collected from the ancient writings, when we, ourselves, have the writings themselves to recur to. Yet it may be worth the while to spend a few words on that matter in general.

1. And first, it is notorious] that almost all the learned men in the world that have occasion to mention this matter, do conclude from what they read, that it has been the general practice of the Christian Church from the beginning to baptise infants. To name any par ticulars were endless and frivolous.

2. Some few (as it happens in all matters) are of a different opinion concerning the ancient practice. And they are of two sorts.

Some have thought that there was a time in the Christian Church when no infants were baptised, but that psedobaptism was brought in after a certain term of years.

Others, that baptism of infants was practised from the beginning, but not universally, but that some Christians would baptise their infant children and others would not. And that it was counted indifferent.

Of the first sort, viz., of those that have thought that there was a time when no baptism of infants was used, I know of none (beside Mr Tombs himself) but Walafridus Strabo and Ludovicus Vives : unless we are to add to them Curcellaaus and Rigaltius.

§ 2. Strabo has some favour shown him, when he is reckoned among learned men. He lived in a very ignorant age, and for those times might pass for a learned man. He had read St Austin's book of Con fessions, and finding it mentioned there that St Austin was baptised when he was of man's age, he seems to have concluded from thence that it was in old time the general use for Christians to defer their children's baptism till they were grown up : though he might with a little more advertency have found by the same book that St Austin's father was a heathen when St Austin was born, and for many years after ; and

8 The History of Infant Baptism.

did not turn Christian, nor was baptised himself till a little before he died.

Of that instance of St Austin, and some others, I shall speak in the 'next chapter. Strabo's words are these, Libra de exordiis et incrementis rerum Ecclesiasticarum, cap. 26 :

" It is to be noted that in the primitive times the grace of baptism was wont to be given to those only who were arrived to that maturity of body and mind, that they could know and understand what were the benefits of baptism, what was to be confessed and believed, and, in a word, what was to be observed of those that are regenerated in Christ. For the Reverend Father Austin relates of himself in his book of Con fessions, that he continued a catechumen till he was almost twenty-five years old : which he did with that intention, that during that space being instructed in all particulars he might be led by his own free-will to choose what he thought fit ; and that the heat of his youth being now abated, he might better observe that which he had purposed.

"But when the diligence about our divine religion increased, the Christians understanding that the original sin of Adam did involve in guilt, not only those who had added to it by their own wicked works, but those also who having done no wickedness themselves, yet because (as the Psalmist says) 'they were conceived and born in iniquity,' cannot be free from sin, since they spring from a polluted root ; so that the Apostle had reason to say concerning all persons, ' all have sinned, and have need of the Glory of God, being justified freely by His Grace ;' and to say of Adam, ' in whom all have sinned.' The orthodox Christians, I say, understanding this, lest children should perish if they died without the remedy of the grace of regeneration, appointed them to be baptised for the forgiveness of sins.

" Not as some heretics, enemies of God's free grace, maintained, that there was no necessity for infants' baptism, because they had never sinned. If that doctrine were true, either they would not be baptised at all; or, if they were baptised without having any need of it, the sacrament of baptism would be imperfect in them, and not the true baptism which we in the Creed confess to be given for the forgiveness of sins.

" Therefore since all persons do perish by original sin, whom the Grace of God does not free (even such as have added no increase of their own wickedness), infants are of necessity to be baptised. Which both St Austin shows in his book de Baptismo parvulorum, and the African Councils testify, and is manifested by a great many other proofs from the other Fathers."

This man, with his little reading, seems to have supposed that both the doctrine of paedobaptism, and also that of original sin, had their beginning but about St Austin's time. His mistake in the first may

Ludovicus Vives, and Curcellaus. 9

appear by the quotations here produced ; and in the other, by those mentioned by Vossius in his Pelagian History, He also invents a reason for St Austin's delay of his baptism after he was grown up, which is utterly contrary to St Austin's own account, who relates at large in that his book of Confessions, that it was because he was in suspense whether he should be a Christian or a Manichee. He miserably mis takes the doctrine of the Pelagians, as if they had denied infants' baptism to- be necessary. He himself owns it to be necessary, and yet says that the ancients used it not.

But, indeed, there appears through all his book an affectation to show how all the doctrines and mysteries of the Christian religion have come to more and more perfection by process "of time ; as he makes the title of his book to be, Of the Beginning and Advancement of Ecclesiastical Matters. And he was willing to say some such thing of baptism, that this chapter might be like the rest.

§ 3. What Ludovicus Vives says of the matter, is in his Commentaries upon St Austin's book de civitate Dei, 1. i. c. xxvii. :

" In former times no person was admitted to the holy font, till he were of age, and did understand what that mystical water meant, and did himself desire to be washed with it, and did express this desire more than once. A resemblance of which custom we see still in our baptisms of infants. For an infant born that day, or the day before, is asked the question, whether he will be baptised? And that question they ask three times over. In whose name the godfathers answer, that he does desire it. I hear that in some cities of Italy the old custom is still in great measure preserved."

Since this Vives lived so little while ago, and produces no proof out of any author to confirm his opinion, his affirming anything concerning any old custom is of no more authority than if anyone now living should say the same without producing his proof. Especially since he was but a young man when he wrote these commentaries, and, though learned in philology and secular history, yet confessing himself in his preface to them, that as for divinity, which was none of his pro fession, he minded it only so far as his other studies would give him leave.

It is certain that the occasion given him, from St Austin's words, on which he there comments, to say any such thing is, very slender. For St Austin is only speaking of some baptised at the age of under standing, without the least intimation that they were children of Christian parents.

And for the cities of Italy that he mentions, I think nobody ever heard of them before nor since : unless we suppose that some remainders of the Petrobrusians, who are said about four hundred years before Vives's time to have been antipasdobaptists, and of whom I shall by-

io The History of Infant Baptism.

and-by give some account,1 might continue that practice in some of the Valleys of Piedmont. But if it were so, these men were too late for any opinion concerning the ancient practice to be founded on what they did.

§ 4. Curcellaeus says the same thing as Vives does. And there is to be said of him not only what was said of Vives, that affirming a thing of antiquity, he produces no quotation for proof, but also that he brings it in to maintain another tenet as paradoxical as this itself is. He has a dissertation concerning original sin. He denies that there is any such thing — as most that are inclined to Socinianism do. He brings as an objection against his own doctrine, the custom of baptis ing infants for forgiveness of sin. He answers, that "the custom of baptising infants did not begin before the third century after Christ's birth ; that in the two first there appears no footsteps of it"2

Whether that be true or no, will be partly judged by what I have here produced. It is best for anyone that cannot prove what he says, to affirm it Dictator-like.

§ 5. It is doubtful in which of the two fore-mentioned sorts of those that have thought the practice of infant baptism to have been — either not from the beginning, or not universal — one is to place Rigaltius. He, in his annotations on those places of St Cyprian which I recited in the former part of this work,3 seems willing to have it believed that in the Apostles' time there was no paedobaptism, but not willing to speak this plainly.

His discourse of this matter from texts of Scripture is too large to repeat here : he uses no arguments but those that are common, and have their answers as common.

But what he speaks plainly of the matter of fact, as he takes it to have been, is this : — " From the age of the Apostles to the time of Ter- tullian, the matter continued in ambiguo, doubtful [or various]. And there were some, who on occasion of our Lord's saying, ' Suffer little children to come to Me ' (though He gave no order to baptise them), did baptise even new-born infants ; and, as if they were transacting some secular bargain with God Almighty, brought sponsors and bondsmen to be bound for them, that when they were grown up they should not depart from the Christian faith. Which custom Tertullian did not like. For, 'what need is there,' says he, 'that the godfathers should be brought into danger,' &c.," and so he recites at large the place of Ter tullian, which I produced above,4 and proceeds : " Most men thinking this opinion of Tertullian unsafe, were of St Cyprian's mind, that even new-born children ought to be made partakers of the laver of salvation : which was also pitched upon in the decree of this Synod ; and so the doubt was taken away." 5

1 Ch. vii. § 5. ' § 56. 3 Pt L ch vi §§ j and „

4 Pt. I. ch. iv. § 5. 5 Annot. in Cypriani Epistolam ad Fidum.

Rigaltius. 1 1

And in his annotations on the other place of St Cyprian,6 he passes this censure upon the practice of those times : " They gave the sign of faith to a person before he was capable of faith itself : they made the sign without the thing, to stand instead of the thing itself."

The zealous Bishop of Oxford, who since wrote annotations on the same Father's works, and who generally treats Rigaltius with that respect which his great learning deserves, yet on this account spares not to say, "-That he has in this matter acted the part, not of an annotator on St Cyprian, but a prevaricator with him ; and that what he says here is no other sort of stuff than what some fanatic of the anabaptist crew would have said."

Indeed, it is a wonder that since he knew that which he would insinu ate (that there was no baptism of infants in the Apostles' time) to be contrary to the sentiments of all the learned men in the world, he should so take it for granted on the ordinary pretences, without taking notice of what they say in answer. And that he should conclude that in the next century of years which passed from the Apostles' to Tertullian's time, it was held and practised variously or indifferently, only because Tertullian spake against what was then done about it, when almost all learned men do take that opposition of his for no evidence that the delay of infants' baptism, or virgins' baptism, or widows' baptism, was then practised by anybody (neither does Tertullian pretend it was), but only for an evidence that Tertullian was a man of a singular opinion in this as well as in forty other things that were then practised or taught. Neither can Tertullian himself be well understood to have advised that delay, but only when there is no danger of death,7 which in the case of infants is very seldom.

This annotator is also partial in the account he gives of the writers of this century, in that he mentions Tertullian, who wrote at the latter end of it, and gives his opinion against the ordinary practice of psedobaptism, without taking any notice of Irenseus, who wrote in the middle of it, and speaks of infants as being ordinarily baptised or regenerated. Or, of Origen, who was contemporary with Tertullian, and wrote but a little after him, and who, having travelled in all the noted churches then in the world, speaks of their baptism both as being generally practised, and also appointed by the Apostles.

It is plain that the place on which he there comments does show that the baptism of infants was then looked on as undoubted, and not, as he would represent, that the doubt about it was then taken away, or solved. For Fidus, who doubted whether they might be baptised before the eighth day, and St Cyprian and his fellow-bishops who resolved that doubt, had both of them taken it for undoubted that they are to be baptised in infancy.8

b Lib. de Lapsis. 7 See the place Ft. I. ch. iv. §§ 5, 7.

8 See the place Ft. I. ch. vi. § i, £c.

12 The History of Infant Baptism.

This partiality shown by him for the antipaedobaptists' side, makes one have the less opinion of his fidelity in that alteration which he has made in their favour in the text of Tertullian's book of baptism, in his edition thereof, which does much alter the sense, and of which I gave an account when I recited the place.9 I, though I knew it was other wise in Pamelius's edition, and that Pamelius testifies his edition to agree with Gaigneus's — who first published this book of Tertullian — in that place, yet was of opinion that so learned a man would not have altered the words without some good authority from the manuscripts, and I set them down accordingly. But since he quotes no manuscripts to confirm that alteration, and, besides, shows himself otherwise to have such a bias, I do now think it were proper for learned men to examine better how much credit is to be given to that amendment, which makes Tertullian advise the delay of baptism absolutely, which in the first and some following editions was expressed, except in case of necessity. P.S. — And I find already that Mr Stennet, a learned antipaedobaptist, is convinced that no credit is to be given to it. For he quotes the place as it stood in the former editions, "Quid enim necesse, si non tarn necesse, sponsores," &c. — ' For what need is there, except in case of necessity, that godfathers,' &c., is his answer to Mr Russen, ch. iv. p. 76.

§ 6. There were no need of mentioning Bishop Taylor among these, were it not for some importunate antipaedobaptists, who cite him in this controversy against his will. He, in the times of the Rebellion in England, when the Parliamentarians, though divided among themselves into several sects, did all join in oppressing those of the Church of England, wrote a treatise called The Liberty of Prophesying, in which he pleaded that they, how earnest soever they were in maintaining the truth of their opinions, yet ought to grant a toleration to those that differed from them, because many other opinions had at least a proba bility such as might well sway the conscience of a great many honest inquirers after truth.

And among the rest, he undertook to show how much might be said for two sorts of dissenters, the antipaedobaptists, and the papists, saying thus : " These two are the most troublesome and the most disliked, and by an account of these we may make a judgment what may be done towards others whose errors are not apprehended of so deep malignity." 10

And in his plea for the antipaedobaptists, though he there declares himself well satisfied with the principles of paedobaptism, of which he gives a summary account, and says, that he takes the other opinion to be an errorj yet under pretence "of reciting what may be said for that error, he draws up so elaborate a system of arguments against infant baptism, and sets them forth to the utmost by such advantage of style, that he is judged to have said more for the antipaedobaptists than 9 Pt. I. ch. iv. § 8. 10 sects. 17, 18.

Bishop Taylor and Dr Hammond. 13

they were ever before able to say for themselves. And Dr Hammond says, " It is the most diligent collection, and the most exact scheme of the arguments against infant baptism, that he had ever met with." n And that "he has therein in such manner represented the arguments for and against it, that the latter have seemed to many to be successful and victorious." 12

It is generally supposed that he did this with a politic intention (commonly practised by those of the Church of Rome) to divide the adversaries of the Church of England among themselves, and to that end put arguments into the mouths of one sect, in order to puzzte the others— a sort of prevaricating in the things of God which few Pro testants or sincere Christians will account justifiable on any account whatever. Therefore Dr Hammond, who was too great a lover of sincerity to approve of such a method, quickly wrote an answer to this piece, solving each objection particularly.18

And afterwards, Bishop Taylor himself, having premised that he was sorry if anyone had been so weak as to be misled by such mean objec tions, and that he counted it great charity and condescension in Dr Hammond to bestow an answer on them, wrote also his own answers to his own objections, and inserted them in a later edition of the said treatise ; and in another treatise, called The Consideration of the Church in baptising the Children of Believers. He does also in his Great Exemplar, and in his Ductor Dubitantium expressly declare his opinion, and affirm that "it is necessary that infants be baptised;" and reckons " infant baptism, and the keeping the Lord's Day, among those things that are confirmed by this rule : u

" Whatsoever the Catholic Church has kept in all ages bygone, may rightly be believed to have descended from the Apostles.

" Which," he says, " is a good rule for rituals [among which he reckons baptism] though not for matter of doctrine." The reason of which distinction he had given before.15 "Because there is no doctrine so delivered but what is in Scripture : indeed some practices and rituals are. Because the public exercises and usages of the Church being united and notorious, public and acted, might make the rule evident as the light."

Notwithstanding all which, it is a common thing with the antipaedo- baptists to cite the passages in that treatise of the Liberty of Pro phecy that make for them, as if they had been spoken by the author from his own judgment, and had never been answered by him.

There is not much said either in the objections or answers about this point of antiquity ; they being chiefly taken from Scripture. What he has is mostly from Grotius.

11 Six Queries, Infant Baptism, § 49. 12 Ibid., § 139. ls Six Queries.

14 L. ii. c. iii., R. 14, n. 41, it R. 18. n. I. 1J Rule 14, n. 38.

14 The History of Infant Baptism.

He objects that "all arguments from tradition are much decried by Protestants in other cases, and therefore ought not to be made use of in this." 16

To which Dr Hammond and he answer, that " Protestants did never renounce the arguments from tradition in general : but on the contrary, whatever appears to be the tradition of the Apostles, or to be the prac tice of the Christians in those first times, they willingly own. And that what they decry, is either the traditions of later times, or else the false pretences to the elder ones."

He had objected likewise, that there is but a weak proof of any such tradition, and that "whereas Origen says that the Apostles gave order to the Churches that they should baptise their infants, and St Austin says the same ; yet that probably St Austin took this from Origen's writings : and so it depends on Origen's single testimony."

At which rate of arguing, if forty had said it, one might pretend that probably thirty-nine of them had it from the first ; and so there were but one single evidence.

But he, as well as Dr Hammond, answers, that Irenaeus, and the author of the questions in the name of Justin Martyr, and abundance of others (though they do not speak expressly of the Apostles appointing it, yet) do confirm it to have been the practice in those times. To which I have added a testimony of St Ambrose, that speaks expressly of the Apostles' times.17

The bishop also knew, or might have known, that St Austin was no reader of Origen's works.

He objected, moreover, that psedobaptism was first established by canon of the Milevitan Council (as he calls it ; meaning that canon of the Council of Carthage, which I recited part i. ch. xix. § 37) in the year of Christ 416. So he dates it.

But both he and Hammond answer that, to this effect : that since it was the known custom of the Primitive Church to make canons only about points that had been questioned by heretics ; it is a great proof that this had never been questioned (as St Austin concludes it was from the beginning, because not instituted by Councils), for none can deny that it was a common practice long before.

And I think I have shown it also to be a mistake to think that it was then decreed that infants " should be baptised ;" whereas the decree was, that they are in a true meaning baptised " for forgiveness of original sin" (which the Pelagians denied; but their baptism they denied not), and that they may be baptised before the eighth day, when new born ; of which some in Africa doubted.18

He had also in his plea for the antipjedobaptists cited the canon of the Neocassarean Council, which I recited, part i. ch. xiii. § i, and

16 N. 25. " Part L ch< xiii § j is See the canon> Part L ch xix § 37>

Bishop Barlow. \ 5

had drawn from it reasons against infant baptism, such as are there rehearsed.

And the answer which he and Dr Hammond make, is in substance the same that is there also given.

Yet after all this, this bishop is to be reckoned among the second sort, that I mentioned — of those that have denied the practice of infant baptism to have been general or universal in the primitive times ; as appears by his later works, which I shall have occasion to cite when I speak of that second sort of men.

§ 7. It is tedious to spend time in speaking of Dr Barlow, the late Bishop of Lincoln. What he had said on this subject (of which the antipaedobaptists do so serve themselves that one shall see his name brought in twenty times by some one of their writers) he himself fairly recanted.

He had, in those hopeful times that were in England in the year 1656, written a letter to Mr Tombs, wherein he had said thus : " I do believe paedobaptism (how, or by whom I know not) came into the world in the second century ; and in the third and fourth began to be practised (though not generally) and defended as lawful from that text grossly misunderstood (John iii. 5). Upon the like gross mistake of John vi. 53 they did for many centuries, both in the Greek and Latin Church, communicate infants, and give them the Lord's Supper. And I confess they might do both as well as either."

This letter being handed among the antipsedobaptists came after ward to be printed,19 to the said Doctor's great discredit, who was now Margaret Professor in the University of Oxford, and accounted a very learned man.

Therefore in the year 1675 he wrote a letter to Mr Wills, with consent that it should be published, in which he says thus : " I acknowledge that such words as are cited by Mr D. (and such others, spoken and written then with more confidence than judgment or discretion) are in that letter ; which had been secret still, if some had not betrayed that trust which was reposed in them. . . . Lastly, it is to be considered, that that letter was wrote about twenty years ago (when I talked more and understood less), and yet whatever doubts and objections I had then against infant baptism, I never thought them so considerable as to war rant any division,^or schismatical disturbance of the peace of my Mother the Church of England. And therefore I did then, and since, and (when I have a just call, God willing) ever shall, baptise infants."20

§ 8. I am unwilling to name Bilius among these : because I believe that was not his steady opinion, which may seem to be the most obvious sense of an expression of his in his Commentary on the Nineteenth Ora-

19 In Danvers's Treatise of Baptism, cent. 4.

20 Wills's Infant Baptism farther vindicated, p. 87.

1 6 The History of Infant Baptism.

tion of Gregory Nazianzen ; where there is an account of the baptism of the said Gregory's father, which was after his marriage. And Bilius, there speaking of the danger of sinning after baptism, says, " I mention this because in those times persons came later to baptism than nowadays ; when by a commendable custom they are baptised in infancy, lest delay should bring danger with it."

What a word did that learned abbot suffer to escape the hedge of his lips? Was not that Gregory the Father a heathen till that time, and his parents before him ? I believe if one were to look over Bilius's writings, one should find that this was not his settled opinion. But I have not time to do that at present.

Since the first edition of this book, one Antony van Dale, a Dutch Minnist or antipasdobaptist, has written a tract called, The History of Baptisms, wherein he has one chapter on infant baptism. And in that [at p. 375] a quotation of a letter of Salmasius, written to Justus Pacius under the name of Simplicius Verinus. Where Salmasius says, " In the first two centuries none received baptism, but such as being in structed in the faith, and made acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, could declare their belief of it ; because of those words, ' He that be- lieveth and is baptised :' so that believing is to be the first. Thence was the order of catechumens in the Church. There was then also a constant custom, that to those catechumens, presently after their bap tism, the Eucharist should be given. Afterwards there came in an opinion, that none could be saved that was not baptised. And so there grew a custom of giving baptism to infants. And because the adult catechumens, as soon as they were baptised, had the Eucharist given them without any space of time passing between, it was, after that infant baptism was brought in, ordered that this should be done also with infants."

Having not any copy of Salmasius's letters, I can judge nothing of the authenticalness of th is quotation ; nor can give any guess (if Salmasius did write such a letter) what age he might be of when he wrote it, or whether he published it himself. I know that many learned men have suffered much in their memory by having all their letters and posthumous pieces printed after their death : some whereof were such, as being written in their youth, they themselves would have been ashamed of afterwards, and would, upon better information and reading, have recanted — an instance whereof I gave just now in one that in his youth wrote a letter so like this, that one may seem to be drawn from the other. And I have also known several persons who have owned that before their reading the ancient books they have been inclined to such an opinion against the antiquity of infant baptism, as is expressed in these two letters, but afterwards found their own mistake. And this is the more probable in the case of Salmasius, for that he never did in his conversation or books

Dr Field and Hugo Grotius. \ 7

(;hat I ever heard of) show any inclination to antipsedobaptism. But if tiis were his steady opinion concerning the beginning of psedobaptism, then we must add to him those three or four men that have said this without giving any proof from antiquity of their saying.

I find this very passage quoted by Mr Stennet [answer to Russen, p. 66] as from Suicerus's Thesaurus, sub voce 2uv«£/g, who, it seems, took it from Salmasius.

§ 9. There is, as I said, another sort of learned men, who, though they think with the rest of the world, that infant baptism was ever prac tised in the Church of Christ, yet think that it was not general or uni versal ; but that in the elder times some Christian parents baptised their children in infancy, and others not, and that it was counted indifferent. I take Grotius to be the author of this opinion. For though some before him did observe that many persons of note in the primitive times were baptised at man's age, some of whom they took to be born of Christian parents (which last, whether they did not take to be so with out due examination, shall be discoursed afterward), yet they supposed them to be not enow to make any considerable exception to the general rule and practice of the Church.

So, though Dr Field in his treatise Of the Chiirch?1 do say that " besides those who were converted from paganism, many that were born of Christian parents put off their baptism a long time" — an instance of which he makes St Ambrose, yet these (whom he calls many) he takes to be so few in comparison, that he still speaks of the other as a continued practice or tradition. As where he treats purposely of tradi tion, he says —

" The fourth kind of tradition is the continued practice of such things as neither are contained in the Scripture expressly, nor the example of such practice expressly there delivered ; though the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of such practice be there contained, and the benefit or good that follows of it. Of this sort is the baptism of infants," &c.22

But Grotius from this and some other arguments frames an hypothesis of the indifferency (libertas, he calls it) of the ancient Church in this matter.23 And though Rivet do suppose that Grotius was a convert of Cardinal Perron in this point — for the said Cardinal, in his Reply to King James, had (as Rivet observes 24) " pleaded the cause of the ana baptists with all his might;" "and I see," says Rivet, "that he has brought over Hugo Grotius." Yet I count it proper to reckon Grotius as the author, because what the Cardinal had said was very probably not from his real opinion, but from a design to embroil the Protestants by giving strength to the schism of the antipaedobaptists, who then began to grow rife in Holland and other places — a design which the 21 Page 719. 22 Lib. iv. c. xx. a Annot. in Matt. xix. 14. M Apology.

1 8 The History of Infant Baptism.

Papists have since earnestly promoted; industriously putting it int« their books, that infant baptism cannot be proved from Scripture, but only from the practice of the Church ; and as some of them will have i:, not from any evidence of the practice of the ancient Church neither, but only from the authority of the present Church.

I am not willing to think that Grotius had so ill a design. But he being naturally inclined to trim all controversies in religion that came in his way, and using that vast stock of learning which he had (as princes that would hold the balance, do their power) to help the weakest side, he maintains (not that there was ever any Church or any time in which infant baptism was not used, but) that in the Greek Churches " many persons from the beginning to this day do observe the custom of delay ing the baptism of their infants till they are able to make confession of their own faith."25

The mistake that he is here guilty of in reference to the modern practice of the Greek Churches, in which (as all men are now sure) there neither is, nor lately has been any such thing known as the delay of infants' baptism (especially if he mean the Greek Churches properly so- called, for what dispute is raised concerning the Georgian Christians I do mention hereafter 26) makes one take less notice of what he affirms concerning the ancient practice thereof. As he produces no proof at all of what he says of the late times, so what he urges for this indifferency of the elder times consists in these particulars.

He cites the canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, mentioned above,27 and expounds it to make against infant baptism.

But this, if it proves anything, proves too much, not a liberty, but an unlawfulness of infant baptism in the opinion of those seventeen bishops. He himself says that " it is plain that in St Austin's time psedobaptism was received in all Churches, because the Pelagians being pressed with that as an argument never could deny it." And was it not obvious like wise for him to observe, that the Pelagians being pressed with this argu ment, " That no Christian ever was against psedobaptism," could not deny it, but expressly granted it ? 28 And could Pelagius and St Austin too have forgot that a Council of seventeen bishops had determined against it but eighty years before, if they or anybody else had at that time gathered any such meaning out of their words ? The paedobap- tists say that this meaning lay hid for thirteen hundred years after the men were dead, till he picked it out. But of this, and of the use that he makes of the words of Balsamon and Zonaras thereupon, was dis coursed before.29

He observes also that " in the Councils one shall find no earlier men tion of psedobaptism than in the Council of Carthage." From*whence

28 Annot. in Matt. xix. 14. * Ch. viii. § 2. * Pt.LI. ch. viii. § i."

28 See Ft. I. ch. xix. § 30. » Pt/L ch> viii §§ 6> ;

Grotius and Bishop Taylor. 19

he would infer that " it did not universally obtain, but was more fre quent in Africa than anywhere else."

And St Austin, as was above cited,30 proves that it must have been instituted by the Apostles; because it did and ever had universally obtained, and yet was not instituted by any Council. Mentioned it was by a Council under St Cyprian,31 which did not enact it, but take it for granted.

I mentioned before 32 his other argument, which is nothing else but the perverting of the sense of a few words of Greg. Nazianzen (where he, speaking of several sorts of persons that die without baptism, names among the rest " those that are not baptised 5/a wjw/oYjjra, by reason of infancy "), as if Nazianzen had thereby intimated his opinion to be, that infancy did incapacitate one for baptism. Whereas, if the reader please to turn back to Pt. I. ch. xi. § 6, where I have cited the place at large, he will see that Nazianzen there reckons " those who are not baptised [or have missed of baptism] by reason of their infancy," among those whose own fault it is not that they are not baptised ; and therefore their punishment shall be less in the world to come. Whoever has an opinion of Grotius's sincerity must blush to read that place, together with his annotations on Matt. xix. 14. There can no excuse be made for him except this, that possibly he might take the quotation from somebody at second hand.

The most material thing that he brings, is the instance of Gregory Nazianzen and St Chrysostom, born, as he takes, of Christian parents, and yet not baptised till of age. Which shall be discussed in the next chapter.

He concludes, " That all that he has brought, is of no force to prove that infant baptism should be denied; but only to show libertatem vetustatem, et consuetudinis differentiam, 'the liberty, antiquity, and difference of the custom.' "

§ 10. I said before that Bishop Taylor is to be reckoned in this rank ; if one knows where to reckon him, or can reconcile what I have quoted from him with that which I am going to quote.

He, in his Dissuasive from Popery, one of his latest works, being busy in defending the Protestant doctrine against the Papists, who plead the necessity of tradition to prove infant baptism, and having _ answered that it is proved enough from Scripture as to the lawfulness of it, goes on to show that tradition does not do so much service in the matter ; for that it delivers it to us as the custom of some Christians in all times, but not of all. His words are these :

" In the first age they did, or they did not, according as they pleased ; for there is no pretence of tradition that the Church in all its ages did

30 Part I. ch. xv. sect. 4, § 3. 31 Cypriani Ep. ad Fidum.

32 Part I. ch. xi. § 9.

2O The History of Infant Baptism.

baptise all the infants of Christian parents. It is more certain that did not do it always, than that they did it in the first age. St Ambrose, St Hierom, and St Austin were born of Christian parents, and yet not baptised until the full age of a man, and more." 33

And a little after, "That it was the custom so to do in some churches, and at some times, is without all question ; but that there is a tradition from the Apostles so to do relies but on two witnesses, Origen and Austin : and the latter having received it from the former, it relies wholly on one single testimony, which is but a pitiful argument to prove a tradition apostolical. He is the first that spoke it : but Tertullian, that was before him, seems to speak against it, which he would not have done if it had been a tradition apostolical. And that it was not so is but too certain, if there be any truth in the words of Ludovicus Vives." 3* And then he recites what was above cited out of Lud. Vives.35

The most of this is what he said before,36 and on which I did before make what remarks are necessary, as I shall do in the next chapter on what he says of Ambrose, Hierom, Austin, born of Christian parents, and yet not baptised in infancy. From the whole, one may here see some of the workings of that singular fancy that this bishop had about original sin. I forgot when I saw his Dissuasive from Popery, to look the date of the edition of it, and to see if it were not a posthumous one : which I suspect, because what he says in it of this indifferency is contrary to what I quoted before, § 6, out of his Great Exemplar and Ductor Dubitantium ; and is more agreeable to what he had said in his youth, but afterwards recanted.

§ ii. Mr Thorndyke also in the third book of his epilogue (which is of the Laws of the Church) yields, that the Eastern Church, though they held infant baptism necessary in case of the danger of death, yet did sometimes defer it when there was no such danger. But that the Western Church enjoined it, as the present Church does, to be given presently.

He, as well as Grotius, Taylor, etc., seems to be moved to this concession by the instances of Nazianzen, Nectarius, etc., baptised at man's age ; of which I shall speak in the next chapter, and show the most of them to be mistakes.

§ 12. Monsieur Daille has also something to this purpose. He says, " In ancient times they often deferred the baptising, both of infants and of other people, as appears by the history of the Emperors, Constantine the Great, of Constantius, of Theodosius, of Valentinian and Gratian out of St Ambrose.37 And also by the orations and homilies of Gregory Nazianzen 38 and of St Basil on this subject.39 And some of the Fathers,

33 Part II. lib. ii. sect 2, page 117. M Page 118. K § 3.

36 § 6. ^ De usu Patrum, 1. ii. c. vi. M Orat. 40.

39 et's

Mr Baxter and F. Garner. 21

too, have been of opinion that it is fit it should be deferred ; as namely, Tertullian, as we have formerly noted out of him."

I shall have occasion in the next chapter to discourse concerning those instances of the emperors. And whereas he speaks of the delay of the baptism of infants and other people, it is fit for the reader to observe that the orations which he cites are indeed a proof that many grown people converted did put off their baptism a long time, because those orations or sermons are made on purpose to convince people of their sin and danger in so doing. But there is nothing in them that gives any evidence that those who were once baptised themselves did ever delay the baptising of their children, save that in one of them Gregory Nazianzen gives his opinion, that in case the children are in good health, and there be no fear of their death, one may do well to defer their baptism till they be about three years old, but otherwise to baptise them out of hand. The place I have set down at large, Pt. I. ch. xi. § 7.

§ 13. Mr Baxter also, who has shown a great deal of zeal, and spent a great deal of pains in maintaining the cause of paedobaptism, yet when he is in a complying humour allows thus much : " that in the days of Tertullian, Nazianzen, and Austin, men had liberty to be baptised, or to bring their children, when and at what age they pleased, and none were forced to go against their consciences therein. And that he knows not that our rule or religion is changed, or that we are grown any wiser or better than they." 40

The days of Tertullian and Nazianzen are pitched on, I suppose, because of their sayings which have been mentioned. The days of Austin have no reason to be brought in here, but only because Mr Baxter thought that his parents were Christians (a mistake common to him with many others), and that they not baptising him in infancy, it was probable that many other Christians omitted it likewise.

The same thing, as I hear, is maintained by those remonstrants that are authors of Centura Censura in their twenty-third chapter.

§ 14. Since the writing of the rest, I find that Garner the Jesuit is, or would seem to be, of this opinion, by what he says in his notes upon a sermon of Nestorius published with Mercator's works : ^ In those old times baptism was not given presently after the birth, as it is now, but was many times deferred a great while not only by the adult, who came to it at their own time, but also by the parents of infants, till they were grown up."41 .

This race of men at first pretended to no more than this— that mtant

baptism cannot be proved from Scripture without having recourse to

the proof that is taken from the practice of the ancient Church. And

this they did, that they might force the Protestants to own the traditions

*> Defence of Principles of Love, p. 7- " Pa£e 79, Ed. 1673-

22 The History of Infant Baptism.

of the ancient Church to be necessary in determining points of religion, for that without them the Protestants could not defend their cause against the antipsedobaptists. But now that the Protestants have largely shown that that recourse to the traditions of the ancient Church does turn the scale on the Protestants' side against the Papists, and that they find it necessary for their cause to decry both Scripture and the traditions of the ancient Church as being both of them together insufficient, and that we must throw ourselves on the authority of the present Church, i.e., the Church of Rome. They do, in order to force this down, set their wits to maintain that infant baptism cannot be proved neither from Scripture nor from the primitive practice, but only by the infallibility of the present Church.

But as such subtle men do sometimes forget themselves, especially if they be voluminous authors, this same Jesuit in his notes on another book says : " When the Apostle writes to the Romans, of whom several had been baptised in infancy, and yet says, ' So many of us as have been baptised into Christ Jesus, have been baptised into His death,' &c., under those general words he comprehends those that were baptised before the use of reason." 42 By making some that were grown men at the time of this epistle, viz., twenty-three years after Christ's death, to have been baptised at Rome in their infancy, he supposes infant baptism there practised as soon as the Gospel can be reckoned to have been preached there, and perhaps, if we compute the times, sooner.

Mr Danvers, Book I. ch. vii., produces one Boemus, who should say that in the Christian Church, and Mr Stennet, Answer to Russen, page 85, one Macaire, who should say that in the Church of Alexandria, no infants were in the first ages baptised. It is the unhappiness of vulgar readers, that if they see a strange name quoted, they think it a great authority ; but it is a very disingenuous thing to take advantage of this their weakness. It is like putting off bad wares upon ignorant chap men. For Boemus, I could never hear who he was, nor when he lived. Macaire, as Mr Stennet says, was Bishop of Memphis in Egypt, anno 756. But we have no account from him how or when this new-found book of his came to light, or how it appears to be genuine. This is certain, that at that time there was no such place as Memphis, and that the Saracens had above a hundred years before that over-run all Egypt, whose custom was to destroy all Christian books and learning. And can we think that this unknown man, in such a time of ignorance, is able to tell us any news of the primitive practice, which Origen, who lived in Alexandria five or six hundred years before that, and the other Fathers who had a clear light of history to their own times, had never heard of? Such authors serve only to fill up a crowd of names, and to put an abuse upon a plain honest reader, the prevention of which is my *• Notes on the gth chapter of Mercator's Subnotations, page 63.

Mr Tombs, Colonel Danvers, and Mr Wilh. 23

Dnly excuse for mentioning these, who are by no means to be reckoned among learned men.

There is also a passage in the former English editions of Camden's Britannia, which, if every reader knew who is the author of it, would for the same reason have no need of being mentioned here. But many readers take all that is there put into the text for Camden's own : whereas Dr Holland, the translator, has inserted abundance of his own additions. And, among the rest, he has in Cumberland in terpolated among Camden's words, a fancy of his own against the antiquity of infant baptism. Camden is there speaking of the font at Bridekirk in that county, "Which is," he says, "a large open vessel of greenish stone, with several little images curiously engraven on it," having also an inscription which he could not read. He guesses it to have been made originally for a font (to which use it is still employed), and [(to account for the images engraven on it) he says : — " We read that 'the [fonts were anciently adorned with the pictures of holy men, whose lives were proposed as a pattern to such as were baptised : " for which he quotes in the margin Paulinus. Then follows in the text this addition of Dr Holland's : — " For in the first plantation of Chris tianity amongst the Gentiles, such only as were of full age, after they were instructed in the principles of Christian religion, were admitted to baptism."

Camden's words quoted from Paulinus, do intimate no more than this, that there were in ancient times many baptisms of adult persons ; but that such only were admitted, is said only by Dr Holland, who seems to have concluded it too hastily from what Camden quoted.

But it appears since by a more accurate view taken by the present Bishop of Carlisle of the inscription, and of those which Camden calls images, on the said font-stone, that the contrary to what Dr Holland thought, is proved from them. . For he, in a letter to Sir William Dug- dale (printed in the additions to the last edition of that book), explains both the inscription and the images : by which latter, he says :— -" We have there fairly represented a person in a long sacerdotal habit dipping a child into the water, and a dove (the emblem, no doubt, of the Holy Ghost) hovering over the infant," &c.

§ 15. Of the professed antipa;dobaptists (for all that I have yet mentioned were-psedobaptists, notwithstanding some of their sayings concerning the ancient use), Mr Tombs was a man of the best parts in our nation, and perhaps in any : but his talent did not lie much in ancient history or reading. All that I have seen of his of this nature, has been considered in speaking of the authors to whom he refers.43

Mr Danvers has heaped together a vast rhapsody of quotations ; 48 Pt. I., ch. iv. § 8 ; ch. v. § 7 ; ch. vi. § I, 2, &c. ; ch. xxi. § 5, &c. 44 Treatise of Baptism.

24 The History of Infant Baptism.

but having seldom consulted the authors themselves, but taken them at second hand, and out of any sort of writers, such as he calls by the names of Twisk, Frank, &c., and a book called Dutch Martyrology, 6-v., books of no kind of credit, he has for the most part strangely misrepresented them.

He was publicly accused by Mr Baxter 45 and Mr Wills for a wilful forger of quotations ; and the book would tempt one to think so. But, upon second thoughts, I hope it was partly his authors, and partly want of good heed or skill that misled him. Mr Wills went so far as to put in an appeal to his own party against him, that they ought to renounce him; and he printed it But he and they answered as well as they could, and made the best of a bad matter. And, indeed, Mr Wills in that appeal (for want of books, I suppose) made not his best advantage of the charge that might have been brought against him : for he instanced in some of his false quotations that were of the least conse quence ; omitting those of greater, and such as it had been impossible for him or them to reconcile : and also in some of them was mistaken himself.

Most of the rest of them do, as much as may be, avoid speaking of the practice of the Primitive Church, and do except against any argument brought from thence as a human authority — a method which, if they be resolved to continue in their opinion, is much for their pur pose ; provided they meet with adversaries so weak as to let it so pass over.

§ 1 6. I have produced all the modern learned men that I know of, that have thought that infant baptism either was not from the beginning, or was not universal. And though I proposed to manage impartially, yet I hope no reader that is a psedobaptist will expect that I should do the like with those learned men that give their verdict for it. Instead of that I must declare that all the rest that I have seen that have occasion to speak of this matter, are of opinion that the sayings of the Fathers are a sufficient evidence that it was always in use, and that as the general practice of the Church of Christ.

Indeed, they will many of them say thus : that there may, perhaps, be produced here and there a singular instance of a person that did omit it through carelessness, or some accident, &c., and that Tertullian also is an instance of one man that advised the delay of it till the age of reason, in case there appeared no danger of death in the meantime ; and that this is ordinary in all customs, however allowed and established, that some one in an age happens to speak or act against them ; and that a few. such straggling instances are not to be esteemed of force sufficient to weaken the authority of a general rule.

But] it seems to me that the instances which the antipaedobaptists 46 Confutation of the strange forgeries of H. Danvers.

Christians not baptised in Infancy. 25

give of persons not baptised in infancy, though born of Christians, are not (if the matter of fact be true) so inconsiderable as this last plea would represent.

On the contrary, the persons they mention are so many, and such noted persons, that (if they be all allowed) it is an argument that leaving children unbaptised was no unusual, but a frequent and ordinary thing. For it is obvious to conclude that if we can in so remote an age trace the practice of so many that did this, it is probable that a great many more, of whose birth and baptism we do not read, did the like. This I will own, that it seems to me the argument of greatest weight of any that is brought on the antipsedobaptists' side in this dispute about antiquity. And I believe the reader has observed in the places I have last quoted, that it is that which has most prevailed, both with Strabo and Vives, to think it was once the general practice to leave infants unbaptised ; and with Grotius, Bishop Taylor, and the others, to think it was once counted indifferent. It deserves, therefore, not to be so slightly passed over, but, if one had time and opportunity, to be thoroughly examined.

The worst is, it is a business of a great deal of dust and tediousness to search after the birth and parentage of so many men (who, though they were conspicuous persons, yet many of them sprang from obscure originals), and not to be well done by any who has not a good library at hand. I have in my reading taken some observations of this matter, which I shall communicate in the next chapter.

CHAPTER III.

OF THOSE WHO ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORN OF CHRISTIAN PARENTS AND YET NOT BAPTISED TILL OF MAN'S AGE.

SECT. i. An account of the persons, and state of their case. § i. The instances of this that are commonly given, are the five emperors mentioned before by Mr Daille, viz., Constantme, Constantius, Gratian, Valentinian the II., and Theodosius the I., and also four noted persons of the Greek Church, viz., St Basil, St Gregory Nazianzen, Nectarius, and St Chrysostom ; and three of the Latin, S Ambrose, St Hierom, and St Austin. Mr Tombs mentions also Alypiu and Adeodatus ; one the friend, and the other the base son of St Austin; and both baptised at the same time with him.

Many of the psedobaptists make but weak answers to the argurr that is drawn from the example of these men. They content them selves to say, that it was from some erroneous or corrupt principles that many in those times thought fit to defer baptism a great while ; and

26 The History of Infant Baptism.

some till just before death : either that they might gain a longer time for their lusts, or because they thought that wilful sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven.

That many new converts did do this, is too plain, and is a thing grievously complained of by the preachers of those times; and the granting of it to be true does not at all affect the question in hand ; which is, not whether adult persons did defer their own baptism, but whether such adult persons as were come to a full resolution of being Christians, and were accordingly baptised themselves, did use to baptise their children in infancy or not. And to grant this latter, that they who were once baptised did frequently use to let their children grow up without baptism, is to weaken in great measure the argument for infant baptism that is drawn from the practice of these ancients. For if many did omit it, though upon erroneous grounds, the argument from the general practice is lost.

But some others have attempted a better answer, by showing these instances, or some of them, to be mistakes ; and that not all the persons mentioned were born of Christian parents, particularly Constantine and Austin have been excepted ; as it was indeed easy to show that those two ought to be. I shall make some particular search concerning each of them.

And the thing to be inquired concerning each of them is,

i st. Whether his baptism were delayed till years of age. And if so, then,

zdly. Whether his parents were baptised Christians at the time of his birth. I say, baptised : because it was, as I said before, a very common thing for men in those times to be Christians in their intention and in their conscience, i.e., they were convinced that that was the truth, and did resolve sometime or other to be baptised into it ; and yet did put this off from time to time (as lukewarm men do nowadays their repent ance, or their receiving the other sacrament), knowing that baptism would engage them to a very strict course of life. And in this state many lived for a long time after their conversion : being, in some sense Christians, i.e., they declared for that religion as the truth, they favoured it, they spoke for it, and in many things lived according to the rules of it ; but for all that, were not as yet baptised, and so not accounted in the phrase of those times, fideles, faithful, or brethren.

These men, while they were in this state, had oftentimes children born to them : and for such, it cannot be expected that they should bring their children to baptism before they could find in their heart to be baptised themselves.

Also many such children (being not baptised in their infancy, because their parents, though believers, were not yet baptised), when they grew up, delayed their baptism as their fathers had done ; and so the mischief

Some Ancient Christians not baptised in Infancy 27

was continued. To these it often happened that they were instructed from their youth in Christian religion, and yet not baptised. Of such St Basil speaks in the place cited — Pt. I. ch. xii. §§ 3, 4.

Therefore you see I had reason to say that our inquiry is of infants born of parents that were at that time baptised Christians. And that is all that any psedobaptist would have to be done now, viz., that when any man is baptised himself, he should baptise his infant children.

Mr Walker, endeavouring to show that the instances brought by the antipsedobaptists do them no service, because the ancients that delayed their children's baptism did it not on the same principles that they do now, viz., of the unlawfulness of it ; reckons up several reasons which moved some formerly to delay the baptism of their children : whereof the first is doubtless a plain and true one, viz., " That some were as yet heathens themselves when their children were born ; and no marvel if they would not make' their children Christians, &c. And the same is the case of such as though in heart and purpose Christians when their children were born, yet kept off from being baptised." l But he gives three reasons more, for which some that were baptised themselves might delay the baptising of their children.

Any reader would from what he says conclude or suspect that many did this ; at least that for these three reasons there were an account of three persons that had done it. But upon search, I believe, it will appear that there is no proof of so many as three ; and that there is but one, viz., the father of Gregory Nazianzen, that makes an instance for this : and he not a plain one ; for it depends on an obscure point in chronology, whether the son were born before his father's Christianity, or after ?

In making this inquiry I shall begin with the emperors. Of whom it is proper to note, that whereas Mr Daille, having, as I cited before, spoken of the frequent deferring the baptism of children and of other people, names the emperors, I suppose he means them among the other people, not among the children whose baptism was deferred. For all take him to be a man of another pitch of reading, than that he should think Constantine's father, for example, to have been a Christian. But the antipasdobaptists take this from him ; and they understand it so, and do very tenaciously maintain that it was so.

Sect. 2. Of Constantine and Constantius, his son ; that they were not born of baptised parents.

§ i. That Constantine was not baptised in infancy, but, on the con trary, in his old age, is a plain case. Eusebius, who was familiar with him, tells us 2 when and how it was, viz., that when he thought himself

1 Preface to Modest Plea. J De Vita Constantini, 1. iv. c. 62.

28 The History of Infant Baptism.

near death, he went to Nicomedia, and having assembled the bishops in the suburbs, he spoke thus to them :

" This is the time which I have long expected with earnest desire and prayers, to obtain the salvation of God. It is time that I also should enjoy the badge of immortality ; time that I should be made partaker of the seal of salvation. I purposed once to receive it in the waters of the river Jordan, in which our Saviour is recorded to have been baptised for our example. But God, who knows what is fittest for me, is pleased to grant it me ndw in this place. Therefore let me not be delayed : for if He that is Lord both of life and death, be pleased to continue my life in this world, and if He have determined that I shall any longer hold assemblies with the people of God, and shall once in the church com municate in the prayers together with the congregation ; I will hence forward keep myself to such courses of life as become a servant of God.

" This he spake. And they performing the ceremonies, put in execu tion the Divine ordinance, and made him partaker of the unspeakable gift, requiring of him the professions that are usual. And so Constan- tine, the only man of all the emperors that ever were, being regenerated by Christ's ordinance, was initiated ; and being made partaker of the Divine seal, he rejoiced in spirit, and was renewed and filled with the divine light," &c.

It is not material to mention the story which Nicephorus,5 a thousand years after, sets on foot, that he was baptised at Rome, by Pope Syl vester, near the beginning of his reign : because it is all one to our pur pose. Baronius4 greedily embraces this latter account; I suppose, because it makes for the credit of the Church of Rome, and helps to dress up the fable of the Donation. But Perron, Petavius, and others forsake him in this, as being too improbable, since it was so lately invented.

§ 2. But since both by the one and the other of these accounts he was not baptised in infancy ; we must inquire of the religion of his parents ; and first of his father Constantius Chlorus.

To think that Constantine, whose name all people, both learned and unlearned, remember by the token that he was the first Christian em peror (at least of his race), should have a Christian emperor to his father, does appear so great and so palpable a blunder, that anyone would pass a severe censure on it, were it not that the learned Camden has let drop an expression sounding that way. He having occasion, in his account of the city of York, to speak of Constantius, the father of Constantine, calls him " an excellent emperor, endowed with all moral and Christian virtues — after his death deified, as appears by the old coins."

8 Hist. Eccl. 1. vii. c. 33. « Ad annum 324.

Constantine the Great. 29

The latter part of this sentence does not suffer one to think that Camden did in the former part of it mean that Constantius was really a Christian (but only that he favoured the Christians, and had himself virtues something like those of a good Christian), for no Christian emperor was ever deified by the heathens. And accordingly, when Fuller had, in his Church History, at the year 305, reflected on this saying of Camden, as "going too far ; " since Constantius was no other wise a Christian than by that rule, " he that is not against us, is on our side : " Heylin in his animadversions on that book, though he rebuked Fuller as being too tart upon so great a man as Camden, yet grants the thing — viz., that Constantius was not a thorough-paced Christian.

What Camden spoke, he spoke only by-the-by. But some antipsedo- baptists do go about seriously to justify this, and make an argument of it for their tenet. And if only Danvers had done so, I should not have taken any notice of it, for he is used to such arguments. But Mr Stennet also has not shown the candour to throw away such a false prop to their cause ; but reckons Constantine among those whose " not sub mitting to this ordinance till they were adult, though born of Christian parents, shows," he says, " that infant baptism was not universally re ceived." — Answ. to Russen, p. 47. Of the rest that he there reckons up, I must speak in the following sections ; but Constantine they ought of their own accord to have left out : for it does but hurt their cause to build on a supposal which almost everyone knows to be a mistake in matter of fact.

Yet something Mr Danvers has to say for this too, that Constantius was a Christian. He takes out of the Magdeburgenses a piece of a sentence of Eusebius, where, speaking of Constantine, he, says he, was " bonus a bono ; pius a pio," ' a good man, son of a good man ; a pious man, son of a pious man.' It is not worth the while to look whether this be truly quoted or not. It is certain that Eusebius, out of his desire to honour Constantine, and all that belonged to him, did stretch his expressions to farther reaches than this : as where he says, " Con stantine became a follower of his father's piety [or pious favour, or res pect] towards our religion." 5 And at another place, " He considered unto what God he should address," &c., " and so he resolved _to reverence his father's God only." 6

These places being picked out by themselves, would make one think that Constantius had professed Christianity. Butwhoever reads the whole account will (whether he be prejudiced for one or the other side of this controversy) agree that all that is meant by these compliments amounts but to this : that at the time when his fellow- emperors did bitterly per secute the Christians, he on the other side favoured them, and screened them as much as he could, and on all occasions showed a good opinion B Hist., 1. viii. c. xiii. 6 De vita Const., 1. i. c. xxi.

The History of Infant Baptism.

of them and their religion. And so it is in the places themselves plained, not that he ever made it his own religion. He died a heathen, and that he was by the heathens deified after his death, appears not only by the coins, but also by Eusebius's words.

And besides, Eusebius himself determines this matter clearly and fully (as far as concerns our purpose) in the place before recited, when having related Constantine's baptism, he adds, " That he was the first of all the emperors that ever were, that being regenerated," 7 &c. And again, " That he only of all that had been, did profess the Gospel of Jesus Christ with great liberty of speech,"8 i.e., did make open profes sion of it.

So little do some scraps of sentences picked here and there out of authors for one's purpose signify to give an account of their true meaning.

Beside that, if Constantius had embraced the Christian religion when he was emperor, yet there is no appearance that he had any inclina tion to it when his son Constantine was born, which was thirty years before.

As for Helena, Constantine's mother, though the inquiry concerning her religion be not very material, because not many, especially great men, suffer their wives to choose what religion their sons shall be entered into ; yet I made some inquiry. And after I had, in order to discover her religion, searched into the accounts of her condition and parentage, which are so variously given (some making her a Bithynian, others a Briton (but these last mar their own story by relating her to be a king's daughter ; whereas all about that time speak of her as one of a mean quality, she being in scorn called Stabularia), some taking her for a wife, others for a concubine,9 others for an absolute harlot to Constan tius ; 10 and those that call her a wife, must consequently grant that he had two at a time, or else that Helena was divorced when he married Theodora), I found it was needless to inquire any farther, when I saw that Eusebius, a witness unquestionable in this matter, says that " her son Constantine first brought her to be a godly woman [or Christian] which she was not before." u In her old age all agree that she proved a very zealous Christian. And it does something excuse her former way of living, that it was before her Christianity.

§ 3. And as for Constantius, the son of Constantine, what has been said of Constantine's late baptism does without more ado satisfy us of the reason why his son Constantius was not baptised in infancy. Con stantine probably was not resolved what religion to be of, but certainly was not baptised when Constantius was born, nor a long time after.

And concerning Fausta, the mother of this Constantius, the daugh-

7 De vita Const., 1. iv. c. Ixii. 8 Ibid. c. Ixxv. 9 Oros., 1. vii. c. xxv.

10 Nicephorus, 1. vii. c. xviii. u L. iii. de vita Const., c. xlvii.

Constantine the Great. 31

ter of Maximianus Herculius (the bloodiest enemy the Christians ever had) whom Constantine was forced to marry for reason of State : there is no probability that she was a Christian when this son was born, and very little that she was ever so at all ; for Constantine put her to death not long after. On the contrary, some histories speak of her endeavours to alienate her husband's mind from that religion.12

So Constantius not having been baptised into the Christian religion in infancy (as it was impossible he should), but coming afterwards to the knowledge of it, and approving it, yet he did as his father had done before, i.e., he deferred his baptism to the end of his life, for it was just before his death that he was baptised by Euzoius, the Arian Bishop of Antioch.13

About five or six years before, Lucifer, Bishop of Caralis, had wrote his mind very plainly and bluntly to him in defence of Athanasius, whom he grievously persecuted ; and told him that instead of abusing Athan asius, he had " great need to desire that holy priest of God to pray to God for him for the forgiveness of his impieties, as Job's friends desired Job ; and to procure himself to be baptised by him or some of his fellow bishops." u And St Hilary had complained that he, " credendi formam ecclesiis nondum regeneratus imponeret " — ' should pretend to prescribe a form of Faith to the Churches, when he was not yet regenerated [i.e., baptised] himself.' 15

Indeed, both he and his father Constantine were guilty of such wickedness, even after their declaring for Christian religion (Constantine in murdering so many of his kindred ; and he in doing the like, and also in persecuting the Catholic Christians), that it is no wonder if a guilty conscience kept them from baptism till they could find in their heart to repent of such barbarities. And when the papists object to us, our reformation begun under such a king as Henry VIII., they may reflect that Constantine, by whose means the allowed profession ot Christianity itself was brought into the world, has not a much better character ; and that it does not please God always to choose good men, but sometimes to make wicked kings instruments of bringing His purposes to pass.

But yet there is, I think, no Christian writer that presses so hard upon the credit of Constantine in this matter as Baronius, and they of the Church of Rome that follow him. They strike in with that scandalous story which the heathen writers of that time did dress up on a purpose of spite and slander to the Christian religion, and to Constantine for embracing it. Which was that he, after the murder of his son Crispus, and his wife Fausta, and his sister's son Licinius, &c., was terrified in conscience, and sought among the heathen priests for somebody that

12 Mic. Glycas, 1. iv. Hist. 1S Athanas. de Synodis Socrat., H.E. 1. ii. c. ult. 14 Lucifer pro Athanasio, 1. i. 15 De Synodis prope finem.

32 The History of Infant Baptism.

would expiate him, and give him hopes of pardon. But that these told him that they had rites of expiation for very great sins, and for ordinary murders, but none for such parricide as his was, and so left him in despair. And that then it was that he was informed what large offers of pardon the Christian religion made to all comers that would be baptised ; and embraced that, not out of any liking to its doctrines, but because no other would receive him.

It is questionless no discredit to any religion (but the excellence of it) to have such sacraments to which is annexed the promise of forgiveness of the greatest sins, provided it does lay severe injunctions against practis ing the same for the future. Yet since this story is set on foot by Zosimus16 and other heathens out of spite to Constantine and the Christian religion; and is false ; and is showed to be so by Sozomen,17 and other Christian historians (for Constantine favoured Christianity, and made laws in favour of it before this time), it discovers an ill bias in Baronius, who (to make the fable of his baptism at Rome more probable) embraces it. But the men of that Court make no scruple to advance the repute and pride of it, by treading not only on the necks of present emperors, but also on the credit of the most ancient ones. For, according to this character, what difference is there between Constantine and Julian ; save that the one did actually go over to heathenism, and was willingly received by the pagan priests ; the other would have done the same, but was not admitted by them ?

Sect. 3. Of Gratian and Valentinian the Second.

There is no proof that their father, Valentinian the First, was a baptised Christian when they were born.

§ i. The import of some sayings of the authors which I shall have occasion to produce in the case of these two emperors will not be so well understood by the ordinary reader, unless I first give a short history of their father and them, as far as concerns this matter.

Valentinian the First came from a mean original18 to the imperial dignity. He gained his preferment by degrees in the army. He is not taken notice of by the historians till such time as being an officer in the guards, when Julian came to the crown, he lost his place for his religion. For Julian being resolved to set up the old religion again, gave order that none should serve (especially in those places nigh his person) but such as would go to the heathen sacrifices and partake of them.

There were a great many in the army, by this time well instructed in the Christian religion, who rather than go to this sort of mass, would leave their places. Among the rest, this Valentinian and Valens his

16 Zos., 1. ii. " H< Et> ], }, c- y is Socrat, 1. iv. c. i.

Valentinian the First. 33

brother, threw away their sword belts.19 Three years after, both these brothers came to be emperors. For Valentinian being chosen by the army, chose his brother his partner ; and leaving him to govern the east, went himself to govern Rome and the western parts.

A reader that is not well acquainted with the custom, that persons converted in those times had, of delaying their baptism, would think by the zeal for Christianity that they showed under Julian, that they both had been at that time baptised. But it is certain they were not both ; for 'we find Valens baptised afterwards. His baptism is mentioned by the historians because of an unusual and wicked circumstance of it. He was by his wife, who was an Arian, persuaded to be baptised by Eudoxius, the Arian Bishop of Constantinople ; and they together pre vailed on him to swear at his baptism,20 that he would always continue to be on the Arian side, and expel the Catholics out of the churches. An impious practice ! Instead of baptising into the Christian religion, as Christian, to baptise into a sect.

But Valentinian's baptism is not mentioned at all by the historians : neither should we be sure whether he was ever baptised, were it not for a passage in a letter of St Ambrose, which I shall have occasion to cite by-and-by. He was born in Pannonia, a country where Christianity had at that time but little footing ; and probably of heathen parents. Who, or what they were, we hear no more than that his father's name had been Gratian, that he was nicknamed Funarius, and that he had been an officer in Britain, in the time of Constantine.

§ 2. Now as to his sons : Gratian was born to him before he was emperor,21 and in the fourth year of his reign was taken by him into partnership. But Valentinian, his younger son, was born to him the third year of his reign ; so that he was nine years old when his father died. Ammianus Marcellinus says he was but four. But it must be a mistake, both because Socrates 22 names the consuls of the year in which he was born, which were Gratian and Dagalaiphus, for the year of Christ 366 ; and also because the third year after, 369, this young Valentinian was consul himself (according to the custom of those times), which was before the year in which Ammianus makes him to be born.

When Valentinian the Elder died, the army proclaimed this young Valentinian emperor together with his brother. So they ruled the West, and their uncle Valens the East. And when Valens died, Gratian quickly afterwards chose Theodosius to govern the East._

Four years after, the usurper Maximus set up in Britain for emperor. And when Gratian marched against him, his army deserting, he was overcome by Maximus, and slain. Valentinian kept Italy and some other countries for a few years ; during which time being ruled by his

19 Socrat., 1. Hi. c. xiii. " Theodoret Hist., 1. iv. c. xi. xii.

21 Socrat., 1. iv. c. x. ^ L. iv. c. ix.

II. B

34 The History of Infant Baptism.

mother Justina, a bitter Arian, he favoured the Arians, and persecuted the Catholics, particularly St Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.

Among other indignities, he summoned St Ambrose to come and dispute before him concerning the faith with Auxentius the Arian ; and he with his courtiers would judge between them. To which summons St Ambrose answers in a letter to him ; K which has this passage in it to our purpose :

" When did you hear, most gracious emperor, that laymen have passed judgment on a bishop in a matter of faith? Do we then by a sort of fawning so debase ourselves, as to forget what is the privilege of the sacerdotal office? And that I should commit that into the hands of another, which God has intrusted with me myself? If a bishop must be taught by a layman, what will follow ? Then let a layman preach, and the bishop give attention ; let a bishop learn of a layman.

" This is unquestionable, that if we search either into the tenor of the Holy Scriptures, or into the account of past times, there is none can deny that in matters of faith, / say in matters of faith, bishops are wont to judge of emperors that are Christians, and not emperors of bishops.

" You will, by the grace of God, arrive to a better ripeness of age ; and then you yourself will pass an estimate, what sort of man for a bishop he must be, that will put the sacerdotal right under the judgment of laymen.

" Your father, a man, by God's mercy, of a more advanced age, said, ' It does not belong to me to judge between bishops.' Does your Grace now say, ' It does belong to me to judge ' ? And he, though at that time baptised in Christ, yet thought himself unable to bear the weight of so great a judgment. Does your Grace, for whom the Sacrament of Baptism is yet reserved to be obtained by you, take upon you the deter mination of -matters of faith, when as yet you are not partaker of the sacrament of faith ? "

This scuffle between the court on one side standing for the Arians, and the major part of the people on the other for their religion, their Church and their bishop, increased so far (the emperor demanding the Church for the Arians, the people continuing day and night in it ; the court giving out that Bishop Ambrose meant to set up for an usurper,24 St Ambrose declaring, that as he abhorred the thoughts of resistance 25 or of stirring up the people, so he could not on the other side run away from his Church and flock in that danger of their souls, but was ready to suffer death quietly, that Maximus the Usurper, who had already, since the defeat and death of Gratian, settled himself in Britain and •ance and gaped for an opportunity of invading Italy, took his ad vantage of these discontents ; and he published a DECLARATION in be- 83 Epist. xxxii. « Ambrosii, Epist. xxxiii. » Idem Oratione in Auxentium.

Valentinian the Second. 35

half of the true religion, and threatening war to Valentinian if he did not forbear to persecute the Catholics.26

The court, for all their anger against St Ambrose, yet could not find a fitter man to avert this storm than he, because of the influence which they thought he might have upon Maximus. They sent him therefore on an embassy of peace, which he performed with all that fidelity that became a good Christian who would show himself loyal to his prince that had despitefully used him and his religion.

But as to his errand, he could do no good ; for usurpers, when they find their advantage, do not use to be kept back by reasons of conscience. On the contrary, when Maximus saw that St Ambrose would not com municate with him, nor with the bishops that communicated with him, he commanded him to be gone. And St Ambrose sent an account of his embassy to Valentinian,27 advising him to look to his safety : " Adversus hominem pacis involucre bellum tegentem," ' Against a man that under pretence of peace [or doing good offices] covered his design of war,' [or invasion].

And so it proved ; Maximus invaded Italy, and Valentinian had nothing to do but to fly.

But Theodosius, who had, ever since he heard of the death of Gratian, resolved to revenge it, having now his army ready, came from the east ; and though the usurper had strengthened himself by humouring all parties of Christians, Jews, and Pagans, yet he overcame him, slew him, and resettled Valentinian, and brought him off from his fondness to the Arians (his foolish mother being now dead), and reconciled him to St Ambrose, whom he ever after honoured as a father.

This quietness had lasted but three years when a new usurper, Eugenius, started up, with whom Argobastes, one of the greatest men at court, traitorously joined. Valentinian being then in France, was seized by Argobastes, and, after a while, murdered by him. This was in the year 392, so that he was, when he died, twenty-six years old.

§ 3. He had, a little before this treason broke out, resolved to be baptised before he went for Italy. He had a particular desire to receive it from the hands of St Ambrose, and had lately sent to Milan to him to desire him to come and give it him. St Ambrose was on his way to France when he heard the fatal news, which rendered his journey now too late.

One shall hardly read a more compassionate lamentation than St Ambrose makes on this account in his funeral sermon for Valentinian. What with the object that was present, and what with the occasion it gave to remember Gratian, he says all that could be said by a man that had lost his own children by a like fate. He persuades himself that, if he could have arrived before the murderous blow was given, he might 36 Theodoret, Hist., 1. v. c. xiv. 27 Ambrose, Epist. 27.

B 2

36 The History of Infant Baptism.

have prevailed with the tyrants to spare his life at least. I doubt he was mistaken in that, for who ever read of an Oliver that did that ?

But as to Valentinian's dying unbaptised, he comforts his sisters that were present at the sermon by assuring them that in such a case God accepts of a sincere faith joined with a hearty desire of baptism, as if the person had been actually baptised, which saying of his is often cited for the resolution of like cases. " I hear," says he, " you are troubled that he did not receive the holy rites of baptism. Tell me, what is there in our power but the will and desire? And he both a good while ago had a purpose of being baptised before he returned into Italy, and also lately expressed his desire of being baptised by me, and it was for that reason especially that he would have me sent for.

" Hath he not then that grace which he desired, and which he en deavoured to have ? Inasmuch as he desired it, he has received it."

Upon the news of this rebellion and murder, Theodosius came once more from the east, and obtained a victory over Eugenius, (which, count ing the numbers that sided with Eugenius, the historians count almost miraculous), and slew him. As for the traitor Argobastes, he saved the hangman a labour.

And this was one of the last good acts of that noble emperor. He died quickly after. And St Ambrose had the sorrow of preaching his funeral sermon too.

I cannot but observe from that sermon the different grounds on which St Ambrose, from those on which Baronius does condemn Maximus. Baronius's way is when any great man in history comes to an ill end, or other calamity, to find something in his life which may be supposed to be the cause for which that judgment fell on him, and it is commonly something done against the Church of Rome. And speaking of the ill end of Maximus, when he looks backward for the cause of it, he takes no notice of his rebellion and usurpation, and murder of his prince — like the man, who, pretending to tell the faults of a horse that he sold, forgot to mention that he was blind — and observes how once on a time, a great while before, being appealed to by some bishops, he had meddled in ecclesiastical matters more than became him.28

But St Ambrose, in the foresaid sermon,29 having spoken of Gratian and Theodosius as being then in heaven, adds, " Contra autem Maximus et Eugenius in inferno, docentes exemplo miserabili quam durum sit arma suis principibus irrogare." ' But Maximus and Eugenius are now in hell, teaching by their dreadful example how heinous a thing it is for men to bear arms against their sovereigns.' § 4. From this whole relation it appears —

1. That Valentinian the younger was never baptised.

2. That Gratian probably was baptised some time of his life, or other.

28 Ad Annum 385. & Qrat. in funere Theodosii.

Valentinian the First. 37

Because St Ambrose, in Valentinian's funeral sermon, makes frequent comparisons between the two brothers, and often mentions Valentinian's want of baptism, but observes no such thing of Gratian. Besides, he calls him there J&&//V, which is a term never given by the ancients but to a baptised person.

But yet it is probable his baptism was not in infancy. For what should make Valentinian, the father, baptise his eldest son in infancy, and not his youngest? Unless we may judge that Justina, the mother of the youngest, being an Arian (for the mother of the eldest was not so), and the father himself being a Catholic, they could not agree into which faith he should be baptised. For the Arians were like the Donatists for that ; that they had so ill an opinion of baptism given by the Catholics, that they baptised such over again, as may be seen by St Ambrose's discourse against Auxentius.30 And therefore,

§ 5. 3rdly. The chief question is, whether Valentinian, the father, were baptised himself at the time when his youngest son was born? We have heard already,31 that he was a baptised Christian at a certain time, when he said, that "he did not think himself fit to judge between bishops." But what time of his reign this refers to, we have no way to know certainly. The passage that looks most like it in all that we read, is that which happened at the election of St Ambrose himself to the bishopric of Milan ; "and St Ambrose was more likely to know that, and to refer to that, than any other. For then, as Theodoret tell us,32 the Bishop of Milan being dead, the people were much divided about the choice of a new one, some setting up one, and some another : so that to avoid confusion, Valentinian ordered the neighbouring bishops that were in that city to choose one for them. The bishops desired that he himself would pitch upon some person. But he answered, " This is a thing too great for me to undertake. You that are filled with the grace of God, and illuminated by the light thereof, may much better do this office of choosing a man for a bishop."

If this were the time that St Ambrose means, at which he was then " a baptised person," this was but a year, or thereabouts, before his death : for St Ambrose was made bishop in the year of Christ 374, as Baronius, or the beginning of 375, as Petavius, computes; and Valentinian died November the i7th, 375.

So that he might for all that be unbaptised when his son Valentinian was born, which was, as we said,33 nine years before, viz., A.D. 366.

Sect. 4. Of Theodosius the First

His father was not a baptised Christian when he was lorn. § i. Theodosius (of whom we had occasion to speak in the last section), who was chosen by Gratian to be his fellow-emperor, is another 30 Orat. in Auxentium, in fine. 31 § 2. 32 Hist., 1. iv. c. vi. 33 § 2.

38 The History of Infant Baptism.

of the instances of persons not baptised in infancy. What I have to say of him, may be despatched in a few words. He was baptised quickly after he was chosen emperor,34 and in a fit of sickness, by Acholius (or, as the Greeks write his name, Ascholius), Bishop of Thessalonica : being then thirty-four years old, as Victor counts; forty-four, as Socrates reckons; or about fifty, if the Chronicom Alexandrimim be to be relied on.

§ 2. His father, who .was also named Theodosius, had been put to death by order of Valens nine years before. Whether he [the father] had ever been baptised, I think we should not have known but for Orosius, who (because he was a Spaniard, his countryman) speaks more particularly of his concerns. So that we know by him that he was baptised before he died : but not till twenty-five years (by the lowest account) after this, his son, was born. And whether he was, at that time of his son's birth, a Christian in intention, or an unbeliever, is not to be known.

Orosius's account is this,35 that he, being a commander in the army, had done good and faithful services : but yet that on a sudden, and, for what reason nobody knew, there came an order that he must be put to death. Which, when he understood, "he desired to be baptised first, for the forgiveness of his sins. And when he was made partaker of that sacrament of Christ, as he desired, being, after a laudable life in this world, secure also of an eternal life, he willingly offered his neck to the executioner."

Other authors, though not mentioning his baptism, give the same account of his death. And the occasion of it they relate to be such as gives us an idea of the mischief that superstitious jealousies do, when they get into the head of a cowardly prince. Valens had had some attempts made to dethrone him. And there was a report ran up and down that some that used curious arts had found that he should quickly have a successor : and the first letters of his name should be T H E o D. The names of Theodorus, Theodoret, Theodosius, Theodulus, &c., were then very common names. And this fancy cost a great many of them their lives ; and this captain among the rest. His son Theodosius was not, it seems, at that time a man noted enough to come into danger. When he came to the throne, he managed his affairs so well both in peace and war, that none that went before, or that came after, did ever excel him.

The reason why he was not baptised in infancy, must have been because his father was not then baptised, and perhaps not a believer. I know that Socrates (at the forecited place, 1. v. c. vi.) says, that he (the said emperor) had Christian parents [or ancestors] i* vpoywuv vbg lirdp^uv. But this was a phrase commonly used in the case 34 Socrates, 1. v. c. vi. ™ Hist., 1. vii.

St Basil. 39

of those whose parents became Christians at any time before their death, though they were not so at the time of the birth of those their children : as I shall, out of many instances that might be given, have occasion to give some presently.

Sect. 5. Of St Basil.

There is no proof to the contrary but that he was baptised in infancy.

§ i. I did in the tenth chapter of the first part of this work produce the evidences that are in antiquity, that St Basil was baptised in infancy. But it is necessary to consider those also that are brought to the con trary.

I know of but one man of the antipaedobaptists that does pretend him for an instance of one baptised in his adult age, though born of Christian parents : and he does it very unfairly. He found in Osiander's epitome of the Magdeburgenses,36 that Vincentius in his Speculum tells a story of St Basil's going to Jerusalem", and being baptised in Jordan by Maximus, the bishop there. But though Osiander and the Magde burgenses 37 too do, when they mention this, declare that this is a story of no credit ; and that Vincentius's collection, being of late years, is of no repute ; and that there is no historian of credit or antiquity that speaks of any such thing ; yet Mr Danvers,38 sets down the quotation in such manner and words as if they had recited it as a credible history : whereas they do both of them at the places cited, declare, that it seems to them that he was baptised in infancy by his father (of which I also have in the chapter fore-mentioned, given some confirmation) or by some other minister.

He quotes also at the same place and for the same thing, Socrates, 1. iv. c. xxvi., and Sozomen, 1. vi. c. xxxiv., who neither there nor any where else have any word tending that way.

§ 2. As Vincentius made his collections of historical matters without any judgment, taking them out of any sort of books, genuine or spurious ; so the author, out of whom he 39 owns to have this, is Amphilochius's Life of St Basil. And that is known by all to be a Grub Street paper, a gross forgery; and is sufficiently detected to be such by Rivet,40 Baronius,41 Bellarmin,42 Possevin, and before them all by Bishop Jewel.43

The author thereof had, I suppose, read or heard that Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, had wrote an account of St Basil's life (as he did indeed, and Greg. Nazianzen and Greg. Nyssen did the like ; but that which was written by him is lost, as are most or all his other works). He therefore put forth his stuff under the name of that great man. But

38 Cent. IV., 1. iii. c. xlii. 37 Cent. IV., c. x. 38 Treatise, Part I. c. vii.

89 Vincent, spec. Hist., 1. xiv. c. xxviii. 40 Crit. Sac., 1. iii. c. xxvii.

41 A.D. 363. 42 De Script. Eccl. 43 Apolog. Eccl. Angl. Artie. I. Div. xxxni.

4O The History of Infant Baptism.

it betrays itself by many tokens of fabulous miracles, incongruities in history, &c. And in that fable which he gives of his baptism there are such silly monkish quibbles and witticisms put into the discourse that passed between Basil and Maximus, who is made to be his baptiser (as one asks, " Quis est mundus ? " The other answers, " Qui fecit mundum, &c. ? "), that one might guess from what shop they come.

F. Combesis has published this piece in Greek and Latin, and en deavoured to vindicate it by saying the main part of it might be genuine, though it be interpolated and mixed with some fabulous additions : but as M. du Pin observes,44 he brings no kind of proof of his opinion.

§ 3. The true account written by Nazianzen, Orat. 30, in laudem Basilii, nor that by Nyssen, have no mention of any such thing ; nor that under the name of Ephrsem Syrus. On the contrary, Nazianzen seems plainly to refer to his baptism in infancy by his own father, as I showed before.

Their reciting all the remarkable passages of his life after he came to age, without mentioning anything of his baptism, is a strong argument that there was no such thing : since in all that are baptised at age, their baptism makes a considerable circumstance for a writer, whose chief subject is their Christianity. And therefore the monk who framed a life for him that might sell well would not omit it : and to dress it up the better, made it to be in Jordan where Christ was baptised, and Constantine desired to be.

§ 4. If the ZQth chapter of St Basil's book de Spiritu Sancto be genuine (which is questioned by Erasmus and others), then it is certain that the same man that baptised him did also put him into the ministry. For so he says in that chapter. He is there showing that the custom used by him and some churches of saying the Doxology, thus, " Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, with the Holy Spirit (instead whereof others said, and to the Holy Spirit ") was no innovation. He quotes several ancient authors that had spoke so, and begins thus :

" I myself, if it be proper to say anything of myself in this case, do keep the use of this expression uawsp nva. x^pov irarptiov, as an inheritance left me by my father, having received it from a man who lived a long time in the ministry of God, by whom I was both baptised, and also put into the ministry of the church."

This could not be Meletius (whom Dr Cave reckons to be the man by whom he was ordained deacon), because he afterwards reckons Meletius as another of his authors for the same usage ; and says, " That the famous Meletius is of the same sentiment, they that have conversed with him do affirm."

That St Basil himself did use to baptise children, I showed before in the first part of this work, ch. xii. §§ 9, TO.

-" Nouv. Bib., t. ii. Amphiloch.

St Gregory Nazianzen.

Sect. 6. Of St Gregory Nazianzen. He was not baptised in infancy, though probably born of baptised parents.

§ i. When fourteen instances are produced to prove anything, and one can show that thirteen of them are mistakes, he is apt to suspect that there is some mistake in the other too, though he cannot find it out. Yet here can be none in this matter, if this Gregory's Carmen de vita sua be a genuine piece (as I never heard of any that questioned it), and if there be no mistake in the reading of it.

I shall represent impartially, and as briefly as I can, the proofs that are brought of his being born before his father's Christianity, and those to the contrary.

That he was not baptised in infancy is plain, both from the foresaid poem de vita sud, and also from the sermon that he made at his father's funeral,45 and also from the history of his life by Gregorius Presbyter. For in all these a full relation is given how he, in a voyage by sea from Alexandria to Athens, was in great danger of shipwreck by a storm ; "and whereas all the rest in the ship were terrified with the fear of their bodily death ; I," says he, "did more dreadfully fear the death of my soul. For I was in great hazard of departing this life unbaptised : amidst the sea waters that were to be my death, wanting that spiritual water. And therefore I cried out, intreated, besought, that some space of life might be granted to me." He goes on to show how his lamentation and dread on that account were so great and so moving, that the people in the ship forgot their own danger in compassion to those terrors which they saw were upon his soul. And how he then vowed to God, that if he were delivered from that danger, he would offer himself up to God ; and did so accordingly.

§ 2. That his father was not a Christian when he married, nor for some time after, is plain from the said funeral oration.46 He was of the religion called Hypsistarian. These men, as is there related, did so renounce the worship of idols and sacrifices, as that they retained nevertheless the worship of fire and torches.

M. Le Clerc,47 being busied in finding contradictions in the Fathers, thinks he has found one here, because Gregory in another place48 says, his father W J/SwXo/g vdpog riiv ^u>uv which he translates, was sub ject to the idols of animals, not minding that £wwv there is the par ticiple of the poetical verb £ww and not the genitive of ^uor though Bilius had noted that criticism.

He continued in that superstition till the year of the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, his wife had before used her persuasions and prayers for his conversion. But then, when Leontius, Bishop of Caesarea, and some

45 Orat. 19. *" Orat. 19. 47 Life of Naz. Bibliot., t. x.

43 Carm. i de rebus suis.

42 The History of Infant Baptism.

other bishops were going by that place for Nice to the Council, she got them to instruct him in the grounds of Christian religion ; and he was baptised into it quickly after: and not long after that took priest's orders. And when the Bishop of Nazianzum died, became his successor. In which office he lived forty-five years, and died nearly one hundred years old. All this is clear in the oration aforesaid.

§ 3. Now the question is whether our Gregory, his son, were born before that his father's conversion in the said year 325, or after?

And the solution of it must be collected by knowing, if one could, how old he [the son] was when he died. For we know justly the year on which he died by St Hierom, who wrote the de Scriptortbus Ecdesiast® the fourteenth year of Theodosius, A.D. 392, and says there 50 that Gregory Nazianzen had been dead but three years. He died therefore in the year 389.

The difficulty is to know what age he was of when he died.

Gregorius Presbyter, who wrote his life, says he died very old. And Suidas (who mistakes the time of his death two years, making him to live till the thirteenth year of Theodosius) says 51 that he was then ninety years old. By that account he must have been born in the year 300, which is twenty-five years before his father was a Christian.

But Baronius 52 finds reason, as he thinks, to correct this chronology from a passage out of Gregory himself; who in the aforesaid Carmen de vitd sua, speaking of his studying at Athens, and of his resolution to leave that place, says, it was then his thirtieth year [or, the thirtieth year]. This Baronius concludes to be the year 354, by Julian the Apos tate's being a student there at the same time (for he was made Cassar, and sent into France the next year). From whence he infers that Gregory was born in the year 324 (which was the year before his father's conversion), and that he was but sixty-five years old when he died.

§ 4. But Papebrochius, in his Ada Sanctorum Mali 8w,53 corrects this correction, and sets the time of his birth back to the old account : bringing a great many probable evidences that Gregory's age must be greater than sixty-five years ; since he himself so often speaks of his being unfit for business by reason of his great age.

When Maximus the Cynic opposed his being made Bishop of Con stantinople; Gregory, in his oration on that subject,54 brings in his adversaries objecting to him his sickliness and old age.

When he desired to resign the said bishopric (which was eight years before he died), and persuaded the bishops then present at the Council to consent to his so doing; he used this argument, "Let these my

49 Verb. Hieronymus. M Verb. Gregor. n Verb Fo^-yon

w Ad arm. 354 and 389. M Chronologia vitoe Sancti Greg, expensa et emendate.

w Oral. 28.

5/ Gregory Nasianzen. 43

grey hairs prevail with you:"56 which looks as if he were then more than fifty-seven years old.

This learned man does also answer the reason that Baronius brings to the contrary, by endeavouring to show that the foresaid mention of the thirtieth year is not meant for the thirtieth year of his life (of which it was the fifty-fourth, as he thinks) but the thirtieth of his studies. And indeed the words, as they stand, do bear that sense very well : They are these :

x«/ ydp TroXuj rsrpiKTO 70?$ Xoyotg ^povog" tfdq rptaxoarbv /J.oi ff%edbv TOUT yv erog.

" For I had already spent a long time in the study of learning : This was almost the thirtieth year [or, my thirtieth year]."

Gregorius Presbyter, who wrote the life of St Gregory, and took it for the most part out of his foresaid poem, seems to understand it so : and yet his words are capable of the other construction too. He expresses it thus, rpiaxoarbv j$5?j 7rXj)pw<ra£ STOS sv roTs pMtyuMn' ' Having now com pleted thirty years [or else, his thirtieth year] in the study of learning.' 56

Moreover Rufinus, who was contemporary with him, says, " He died fessajam estate" ' being spent with age.'57 Which can hardly be said of one that was but sixty-five years old.

These reasons, joined with some others of less weight, prevailed with Papebrochius to embrace the old account as the truest, viz., that he was ninety years old when he died ; and consequently that he was born A.D. 300. And that was twenty-five years before his father was a Christian.

M. Le Clerc, who writes a sort of life of this saint,58 manages this argument of his age, after a heedless and absurd manner. For first, he, following Pagi, who had followed Papebrochius, says, that he was born anno 300, which is twenty-five years before his father's conversion : and accordingly supposes with the foresaid authors, that the year in which he left Athens was the fifty-fourth year of his age. And the use he makes of this, is, to " wonder that he would spend so great a part of his life in studying rhetoric, forgetting in the meantime all care of his aged parents, and of the Church of God." And yet afterwards in the same Life, he " wonders why, since it was the opinion of that age, that those that die unbaptised are damned, his father and mother being such zealous Christians did not get him baptised in infancy." Which is to sup pose that he was born after his father's conversion, which he and every body place at the year 325 ; or else it is the wonder of a man that dotes. One of these suppositions helps a man that would expose Gregory to censure ; which seems to be the design of this writer of Lives for this and some other Fathers. And the other serves to raise objections against the

53 Orat. 32. 56 In vita Gregorii. 57 Hist., 1. ii. c. ix.

58 Bibliot., t. 10.

44 The History of Infant Baptism.

universality of the then practice of paedobaptism. But it is very unfair to serve both these intentions from this instance : because one of them supposes him to be born after his father was a Christian, and the other twenty-five years before.

There is another reason to make one believe that he was born before his father's conversion : which is this. In the foresaid oration at his father's funeral, he tells how his mother, being desirous of a son, had begged one of God in her prayers, and that in answer to those prayers, he was born to her. And afterwards he comes to speak of those prayers that she made for her husband's conversion : in which prayers she was encouraged to the greater hope of being heard, " as having," says he, " already made trial of the Divine liberality." On which words Bilius makes this comment, " namely, when she obtained her son Gregory of God, by her prayers, as he had said a little before."59 And indeed that is the only instance mentioned before in that oration, to which one. can suppose him to refer.

Also this reason : he often mentions his mother's pious and Christian care and dedication of him to God in his infancy and from the womb,60 but never any such thing of his father.

§ 5. These reasons would be sufficient to sway a man to believe that he was born before his father was a Christian, were it not for one very plain one to the contrary. And that is a passage in the foresaid poem, where Gregory the elder earnestly persuades his son, who had more mind to a private life, to become his assistant in the office of Bishop of Nazianzum. He uses all the force of paternal authority, requiring him upon pain of the loss of his blessing, to comply with his desire, and to relieve his old age. And, among the rest, has these words61:—

'Oinru rogourov sxfjM/Aqrprixas f3iov}

dir)\0s duetuo l/zo/' rqv

" So many years of life you have not seen, As I, your father, have in orders been. Do me the kindness, do."

Papebrochius does take notice of this place, and says it has puzzled everybody that has read it. He goes about to answer it by supposing the word turiut is misprinted, and that it should be «Vjj<r/w». But as he produces no manuscript in favour of his amendment, it appears too licentious to go down with anyone.

Unless somebody else have more to say of it than I can think of, it seems so plain and full as to over-sway all the other reasons to the contrary ; and to prove that Gregory was born not only after his father's baptism, » Annot. in loc. ^ w Orat Apo]oget et alibi

Larmen de vita sua, vers. 520, circiter p. 6, Ed. Paris, 1610.

,SV Gregory Nazianzen. 45

but even after he was in priest's orders, which were conferred upon him quickly after his baptism.

Bishop Hall had found out this place 62 when he sought for instances of clergymen that had made use of the marriage-bed after they were in holy orders (of which this is the plainest that he can find). And the antipsedo- baptists have taken it from him, and made use of it for their purpose.

§ 6. If this pass for current, then we must say that Baronius's account of his age is the truest ; and farther, that he was yet two or three years younger than he makes him. For if he had been full thirty years old at the year 354, he would still have been born a little before his father's baptism, and two years before his ordination. But the words are ff^t^v rpiaxogTbv, almost the thirtieth, which in a poem may pass well enough, though he were but twenty-seven or twenty-eight.

We must say likewise that all that he himself, and Rufinus, and Gre- gorius Presbyter do speak of his old age, must be understood of z.prama- tura senectus, caused by his sickliness, which he often mentions. And that Suidas, when he makes him live to ninety years old, mistakes at least twenty-seven years, which might well enough be, since he wrote six hun dred years after Gregory was dead. And that what he himself says of his mother's experience of the divine liberality, before her husband's conver sion, must refer to something else. And that Gregorius Presbyter (who also lived near six hundred years after St Gregory), if his meaning be to speak of the time when he left Athens and went home, as the thirtieth year of his studies, must be mistaken by taking what Gregory himself had said of the thirtieth year, for the thirtieth of his studies (as others have since done), which, according to this supposition, must be but almost the thirtieth (viz., the twenty-seventh or twenty-eighth) of his life. And that M. Du Pin (who has gone a middle-way,63 making him to be born anno 183, which falls seven years before his father's baptism) does yet place his birth eight or nine years too soon. For if he was born after his father's priesthood, it must be anno 327 or 326 at soonest. And possibly the numerical figure in the text of M. Du Pin is mistaken by the printer ; for in the index at the end of the tome it is printed 328. And according to this account he was but sixty-one or sixty-two when he died. And his father and mother (for they were much of one age) were about fifty when he, the son, was born. Which is old for a woman to have children; and yet she had one, if not more children, after her son Gregory.

And then also we must say that this Gregory the Elder was as singular in this practice of keeping his children unbaptised, as Mr Johnson64 has shown him to be in the point of passive obedience ; and as the papists will say, he was in getting children after his being in holy orders.

I hope the reader will pardon the length of this disquisition, and the

62 Honour of the married clergy, 1. ii. § 8. 63 Nouvelle Bibliot, t. ii.

64 Julian the Apostate.

48 The History of Infant Baptism.

time of danger." " God's judgments come upon us ; let us baptise our children out of hand."

Sect 7. Of Nectarius.

There is no appearance of his parents being Christians, nor knowing who they were.

§ i. Though St Gregory Nazianzen, who, after his father's death, was Bishop of Constantinople, had done more for the restoring the Catholic faith there, than had been done by any man in so short a time ; yet he found a necessity of resigning the place. Partly by reason of his age and infirmity, and partly for that there was such a contention in the Council of bishops about him. Some said it was not canonical that he having once accepted another bishopric formerly should remove from it. Others, that he living as a hermit wholly given to study and prayers, was not at all dexterous in making his court with the emperor for the good of the Church ; neither had he any good mien, but a contemptible presence.

To ally these heats, he did what St Clement 71 had advised in such a case to be done. He willingly abdicated, and said, " If this contention be upon my account, I am ready to depart : only let the flock of Christ be in peace." 72

And when they were in consultation about another to be chosen, who should they light on but one Nectarius, a layman of Tarsus, of a sena tor's rank, remarkable for a grave and comely presence, but of no learning or skill in divinity ? The emperor liked this man so well, that he was finally chosen. They did the gentleman a great unkindness, for of a creditable and graceful alderman, they made of him a very insipid bishop.

But what is to our purpose is this : Nectarius, though he was by belief and profession a Christian, yet had not been as yet baptised.73 They were forced, having baptised him, to give him ordination a few days after, notwithstanding the apostolical canon against choosing a novice for a bishop.

§ 2. The antipsedobaptists would make an argument from hence that his parents must have been of their persuasion since they had not baptised him in infancy. But first they ought to show that his parents were Christians, since, as I said before, half the world at this time were such as had been since they came to age, converted from heathenism and liked Christianity ; but the greater part of them did put off their baptism from time to time for a long while. And one might name several beside this man that were pitched on by the people for bishops

71 Clemens Romanus, Epist. i. ad Corinth, c. liv. « Naz. Orat. 150 ad Episcopos. "Socrat., 1. v. ; Soz., 1. vii.

St John Chrysostom. 49

before they were baptised. Some, whose parents are known to be heathens, and some whose parents are not at all mentioned in history ; so that it is impossible to know what religion they were of. But they do not make instances for this purpose, unless they are proved, at least by probable arguments, to have been born of Christians.

AS for Nectarius's parents, we know nothing of their religion. And I believe it is as hard to find who- they were, as it is to know who was Homer's or Job's father.

Sect. 8. Of St John Chrysostom.

His parents were probably heathens at the time of his birth.

§ i. Among all the ancient Fathers there is none that has had so many to write his life as St Chrysostom. For, besides that Palladius, who lived together with him, has written his Dialog purposely on that subject, the ancient historians who lived nigh this time — Socrates,74 Sozomen,75 Theodoret,76 &c. — have given a larger account of him than of any other man. And in the Middle Ages there are abundance that have written tracts of the same ; but these later have intermixed several fables which are disproved by the elder.

Of these, Palladius says " that he was baptised by Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, after he had been instructed by him three years in the Christian religion. And though none of the other ancient writers do mention this his baptism at man's age, yet it is very probable, since, as far as we can learn, his parents were heathens at the time of his birth. Georgius, patriarch of Alexandria,78 and Metaphrastes, do say they were, and they are not in this contradicted by those elder.

§. 2. His father, Secundus, died presently after he was born, as he himself intimates, Lib. i. de sacerdotio. His mother, Anthusa, was a Christian when this her son was twenty years old ; but that is no argu ment that she or her husband were so at the time of his birth. At that time the heathens turned Christians as fast as the Papists in England turned Protestants in the time of the Reformation. And even at that time when her son was twenty years old, though she was then a Chris tian in belief, yet the aforesaid historians, Georgius and Metaphrastes, say, that she was not baptised till her son was baptised first. They say it of his parents in the foresaid life, that they were baptised by Meletius after their son. But it could be true only of his mother, his father being dead long before.

I believe the antipsedobaptists would not have conceived that they had ground enough to make Chrysostom one of their instances, if they had not been encouraged thereto by Grotius. And what he says,79 is, that

™ Lib. vi. 73 Lib. viii. 76 Lib. v.

77 Dial, de vita Chrysostom. 78 Vita Chrysostom. "9 Annot. in Matt. xix.

5o TJie History of Infant Baptism.

" he being born of Christian parents, as the truer opinion is, and edu cated by Meletius, yet was not baptised till the twenty-first year of his

age."

That he was born of Christian parents he brings no proof at all. And it is little to the purpose that he was educated by Meletius. As bishops do not use to take infants to nurse (though lads or young men to educate they may), so in this case it appears that Chrysostom was twenty, or at least eighteen years old, before he came to Meletius. And then Meletius did with him as any bishop now would do with a young man that had been brought up in heathenism : he instructed him, and when he had continued a catechumen three years, baptised him.

That he was so old as I say before he came to Meletius, is plain ; because, by all the accounts, he came not to him till he forsook the school of Libanius, the heathen master of rhetoric. And that he con tinued his hearer till that age, appears by what he himself writes, Ora- tione i, ad viduam juniorem ; where, speaking in praise of those women that continue widows, and how they are valued even among heathens, he tells this story : " For I formerly, when I was young, took notice that my master, who was one of the most superstitious men that ever lived, did much admire my mother. For as he asked some that were about him who I was, and one made answer that I was a widow-woman's son, he asked me how old my mother was, and how long she had been a widow : and when I told him she was forty years old, and that it was twenty years since she buried my father, he was much affected at it, and speak ing aloud to those that were present, ' Strange,' says he, ' what brave women there are among the Christians ! ' "

Some chronologers find it more agreeable with the computation of time to suppose that it was not full twenty, but eighteen, which, by a round number he here calls twenty. But it is much one to this purpose.

The saying of Libanius seems to suppose that Anthusa had been a Christian now for a considerable time ; or, at least, that he took it so. But as he knew nothing of her concerns till that moment, her profess ing of Christianity at that time was enough to make him say what he did, without making any inquiry how long she had been of that profession.

Some readers also will be apt to conclude that Chrysostom had been at that time but a little while a hearer of Libanius (from whence it would follow probably that Anthusa was a Christian when she first sent her son to this school), because Libanius did not at this time know who he was. But the nature of those auditories or lectures was, that one from one part of the city, and another from another, came on the weekly lecture days to hear, and sent their contributions : so that a lad or a man might be a hearer for a long time before the master had any personal know-

St John Chrysostom. 5 1

ledge of him. The word school being otherwise used in our time might be apt to make this mistake. _But it is to be taken in the ancient sense, as in Acts xix. 9. The school of Tyrannus was not a college of lads under his care, but a place of public lectures that he kept.

§ 3. There is, on the contrary, reason to think that she was not a Christian when she consented that her son should hear this master, who was a spiteful enemy to the Christian religion. And as this is probable of itself, so it is made more than probable that not only she, but her son himself also was a heathen when he came first to hear him, by what Sozomen affirms,80 viz., that " On a time when Libanius was like to die, some of his friends asked him who he thought fit should be his succes sor ? And he answered : ' John [meaning this John who came afterward to be called Chrysostom] should have been the man, if the Christians had not stole him away from us.' " The word is sffuXqaav ' robbed us of him.' Which argues that he was a heathen before.

§ 4. M. Du Pin, in the notes he gives upon what he had said of Chry sostom, says, that " Some writers make his parents to be heathens ; but that he himself in the first sermon against the ' AVO/AOIQI, says, 'That he was bred up and nourished in the Church ; ' and that it appears out of his first book de Sacerdotio, c. i., that his mother was a Christian when his father died, which was quickly after she was delivered of him." 81

Having a great regard to everything that this excellent author says, I read over on purpose both those tracts ; and in the sermon found no thing that seemed to relate anything at all to this matter, so that I believe there must be some mistake. Also in the first chapter of the book cited there is nothing at all of the matter. That which I guess the most probable to be meant is chapter ii., where Chrysostom's mother, earnestly intreating him not to leave her, recounts to him the great troubles she had undergone about his estate and education in her widowhood ; and yet that she had kept herself a widow, and had gone through the brunt of all these fatigues. " In the first place," says she, " being assisted by the help [or, influence] that is from above, vvo rijs civudzv jSorjdovfievq POKES' and then also the comfort which I had by the continual sight and company of you, my son, did not a little contribute to it."

But here is nothing but what might be properly said by a Christian woman in reference to those times in which she had been a heathen : since God Almighty employs His Providence in relieving the necessities not only of Christians, but of all men and other creatures that know Him not. She does not mention, in all that long speech, any praying to God, or use of His Word, that she had made in those days, which to me is a greater proof that she was not at that time a Christian, than the foresaid words are that she was.

80 Hist., 1. viii. c. ii, 81 Nouvelle Bibliot., t. iii. in Chryso.

52 The History of Infant Baptism.

At least here is nothing that can nigh counterveil the argument from the foresaid words of Libanius concerning this John's heathen profession at first rehearsed by Sozomen. And Sozomen is a good witness in this case, having lived part of his time together with Chrysostom. For he had written several books before that history, and he had completed that history in 440. So that he must have been born before St Chrysostom died, which was anno 407.

Sect. 9. Of St Ambrose.

There is no account of his parents being Christians at the time of his birth.

§ i. St Ambrose's case is just the same with that of Nectarius. And he himself, after he had heard how Nectarius was chosen Bishop of Constantinople, said, " I was utterly unwilling to be ordained ; and, when there was no remedy, desired that at least my ordination might be delayed for a longer time. But the rule of the Church could not prevail; the force of the people prevailed. Yet the western bishops have approved of my ordination by their consent ; and the eastern by their doing the same thing." 82 The rule or prescription that he speaks of, is that mentioned by St Paul (i Tim. iii. 6), which canon it seems the people would by force have to be dispensed with, when they had an extraordinary opinion of a man.

He was a layman, and was Governor under Valentinian, the emperor, of some provinces of Gallia Cisalpina ; and when the people of Milan (which was one of the cities under his government) were, after the death of Auxentius their bishop, in a tumult about choosing another, he came to keep the peace, and persuaded them to quietness and concord. He spoke to them so handsomely and so gravely, that all parties agreed on a sudden to pitch upon him for bishop.83 He opposed it what he could : but they sent to the Emperor for his consent, because he was at that time the Emperor's minister. And he said, " He was very glad that the men he chose for governors were so well liked by the people, that they would choose the same for bishops." So he gave his consent, but yet he would not determine the choice, as being a thing out of his sphere. He ordered the bishops then present in or about that city to direct the choice of the people, who continued resolute for Ambrose But Ambrose was not as yet baptised. He received baptism at the hands of Simplicianus,84 and within eight days was ordained bishop.

§ 2. Our business being to inquire why he was not baptised in infancy ; the antipsedobaptists would have it that he was born of Chris tian parents : and some of them stick not to say, that Paulinus in his

** Epist. 82, ad Vercellens. Eccl.

83 Paulinus in vita Rufinus,J. ii. c. xi. ; Socr., 1. iv. c. xxx. ; Sozomen, Theodoret, '• lv- c- V1- M Augustin. Confess., 1. viii. c. ii.

St Ambrose. 53

Life says he was. But Paulinus does not say so. What he says of his father is this, that he was a nobleman of Rome, and Governor of Gallia. But he was the less likely to be a Christian for that : the Senate and great men of Rome being the last body of men in the empire that came over to the Christian faith. Insomuch that a long time after this, when St Ambrose was an old man, Valentinian the Second had much ado to withstand the attempt made by the Senate to bring again into fashion the heathen worship. So says St Ambrose at his funeral : " Before his death he refused to grant the privileges of the temples, when such men stood up for them, of whom he might well be afraid. Whole crowds of heathen men came about him ; the Senate petitioned. He was not afraid for the sake of Christ to incur the dis pleasure of men." s5 And if one may guess by circumstances, he lost the empire and his life in this quarrel ; Eugenius, the usurper that prevailed against him, having all the heathen party on his side : who restored those heathen altars which Valentinian had denied, and set up temples of Jupiter.86 And Argobastes had threatened, if he overcame Theodosius, to make the great church87 at Milan (the St Paul's of that city) a stable for his horses, because they would not communicate with Eugenius, nor receive his offering, as being an usurper. But better news came to town quickly, as I showed before 88 in the history of Valentinian.

I bring in this to show that when Paulinus makes St Ambrose's father to have been a great man at Rome, that is no argument that he was a Christian. But, indeed, Paulinus, or whoever wrote that life (for Erasmus 89 takes it^to be a forgery of some late monk, as I observed before), knew so little of his father's concerns, that he did not know his name. He makes his name to be Ambrosius, because the son's was so : but his name, if his son knew better,90 was Symmachus, though the Life-writers, copying one out of another, do to this day call him Ambrosius. He seems to have died while St Ambrose was young.

But at the time when St Ambrose was come to man's estate, Paulinus does indeed say, that his mother was a widow, and dwelt at Rome, and was then a Christian : if that would avail anything to prove that her husband or she were so formerly, when he was born.

§ 3. On the contrary, a strong proof that they were not, is that which he says of himself, that he was not brought up in the bosom of the Church. For in his second book de Po&nitentia, c. viii., speaking of his own unworthiness and unfitness to be a bishop, he says it will be said of him, " Ecce ille, non in ecclesise nutritus sinu," &c. ' Lo ! this man that was not brought up in the bosom of the Church,' &c.

As for what St Ambrose's own thoughts were of the necessity of

85 Orat. in obitum Valentiniani. ^ Paulinus in vita Ambrosii.

87 Aug. de Civ. Dei., 1. v. c. xxvi. * Sect. 3, § 3.

89 Censura prefixa operibus Ambrosii. 90 Ambros. Orat. in obitum Satyri.

54 The History of Infant Baptism.

infant baptism, it appears by his words cited before,91 that he made it a great question " whether a child could be saved without it."

Sect. 10. Of St Hierom. There is no proof to the contrary, but that he was baptised in infancy,

§ i. St Hierom, who wrote the lives of several persons of note that had been before him, found none of the ancients that came after him, so kind as to write his : for that life which was formerly published with his works, is a mere fable. Yet he having wrote a great many occasional letters, which for the goodness of the style, and the learning contained in them, are preserved, many of the chief passages of his life may be picked out of them.

In all that he has said of himself, or the anonymous author of the life aforesaid, or anybody else has said of him, there is no ground to question his baptism in infancy, except an obscure passage mentioned twice in the same words, and those ambiguous ones in two letters that he wrote to Pope Damasus.

The occasion was this : — St Hierom being retired from Rome into Syria, in order to lead a monk's life there, found the people of those parts much divided, not so much in opinions of religion, as in disputing which of several that were set up was the lawful Bishop of Antioch with whom they ought to hold communion. Some acknowledged Meletius, others refusing him followed Paulinus, and others adhered to Vitalis.

And another difficulty was, they thereabouts expressed their faith in the Trinity by acknowledging three hypostases. Being asked by the Latins what they meant by hypostases, they answered, " Personas sub- sistentes," ' Persons subsisting.' St Hierom and the other Latins answered that they had the same faith, and owned three Persons subsisting. This was not enough ; they would have them express the word itself " three hypostases." St Hierom scrupled the doing that, because hypostasis among secular authors had signified substance or essence, and " who," says he, " will with a sacrilegious mouth preach up three substances ? " And again, " If anyone by hypostasis, meaning ousiam, essence [or being] does not confess that there is but one hypostasis in three persons, he is estranged from Christ."

About these things he writes to Damasus, who had in the meantime been made Bishop of Rome,92 desiring to know whether he and the Church of Rome (for he is resolved to go by their example) do allow of this word hypostasis for person. And also which of the aforesaid parties, viz., of Meletius, Paulinus, or Vitalis, they would communicate with, for he would do the same. " And this I do," says he, " Inde nunc meae animae postulans cibum, unde olim Christi vestimenta suscepi : " 91 Ft. I. ch. xiii. § 2. 92 Epist J7

St Hierom. 5 5

' desiring now food [or instruction] for my soul from that place where I formerly took upon me the garments of Christ.'

This letter not procuring, as it seems, an answer so soon as he ex pected, he writes another, Epist. 58, to the same purpose, desiring him with greater importunity to give him his answer, in which he uses the same motive, but expressed in words so just the same, that one gives no light to the other : " Ego igitur, ut ante jam scripsi, Christi vestem in Romana Urbe suscipiens," &c., 'I therefore, who, as I wrote before, took on me the garment of Christ in the City of Rome,' &c.

From this place Erasmus93 raised a conjecture that he was baptised at Rome. And if so, he could not be baptised in infancy ; for he was born at Stridon in Dalmatia, and did not come to Rome till he was big enough to go to the grammar school.

And what Erasmus spoke doubtfully, other following writers of this Father's life, Baronius, Du Pin, Dr Cave, &c., have, as it happens in relating matters, told as an absolute unquestioned thing.

That which Erasmus says is this : " He means his baptism by that taking on him Christ's garments, for I think he does not mean it of his receiving priest's orders ; but in baptism there was a white garment given them."

He might have been sure enough that he did not mean it of the habit of a priest, for St Hierom was not as yet ordained priest when the letter was writ ; and when he was ordained, it was not at Rome but at Antioch, by Paulinus, to whose communion Damasus had, it seems, advised him.

§ 2. But there was another sort of habit, or garment, which he had then already put on, and which he knew to be very much valued by Damasus, whose acquaintance he now sought, and which he probably took upon him at Rome (for he took it on him in his younger years,94 and it was at Rome that he spent those), and that was the habit of a monk, which he then wore when he wrote that letter. And it is a great deal more likely that he means that, than the albes, which were worn but a few days. Especially since neither he, nor, I think, any other author, among all that variety of expressions which they use for denoting bap tism, do ever use that phrase of " receiving the garments of Christ," because the ordinary Christians did not use for constant wearing any particular garment as a badge of their religion. But the monks and virgins that had professed perpetual virginity did at that time, as has been usual ever since, wear a peculiar habit as a token of their profession.

Of which, if any one doubt, it must be one that has never read any thing in St Hierom ; for he, being given to an overweaning opinion of that way, mentions it with great eulogiums on every turn. And as he calls the persons, " Servos Christi," and " Christo sacratos," ' servants of Christ,' and ' consecrated to Christ ; ' and the virgins, " Virgines Dei," 93 In vita Hieronymi. y4 See § 5.

56 T/ie History of Infant Baptism.

' God's virgins,' as if married people did not belong to God or Christ at all— so, what is most to our purpose, he commonly calls that peculiar sort of coat that the virgins or nuns wore, " Christi tunicam," ' the coat,' or garment, ' of Christ.' And the veil, " Flammeum Christi," ' the veil of Christ' Of each of which I will give one instance.

In his Epitaphium, or funeral oration, in praise of Paulla,95 he re counts how desirous she had been in her life-time that her children and those that belonged to her should take on them that habit and profession, of renouncing the world, and leading a single life, as she had done that of a widow ; and how she had in great measure her desire, for, besides that Eustochium her daughter was then a professed virgin, her grand daughter also by her only son Toxotius, being then a child, was, by her parents, " Christi flammeo reservata," * designed to wear the veil of Christ.'

And in his letter to Eustochium,96 the subject whereof is, " de virgini- tate servanda," to export her to continue constant and unstained in her purpose of perpetual virginity ; he says, ' It is not fitting, when one has taken hold of the plow, to look back ; nor being in the field, to return home : ' " Nee post Christi tunicam ad tollendum aliud vesti- mentum tecto descendere : " ' Nor after one has put on the coat of Christ, to come down from the roof to take any other garment.'

Since these expressions are the very same with those that he used before of himself ; it is probable that those also are to be understood of the monk's habit : or at least, it is not at all necessary that they must be understood of his baptism at Rome. And if they be not, then there remains no kind of ground to doubt of his being baptised at Stridon, in infancy, as other Christian children were. For neither Erasmus nor any of those that have followed him, have brought any other proof but these words ; and had it not been for them no man had ever had such a surmise.

§ 3. Baronius does indeed say,97 that " after he was baptised, he pre sently reformed his life, which before he had led in some lewdness : and whereas he had lost the first virginity, he kept undefiled that which he calls the second, which is after baptism."

If this were true or could be proved, the question were at an end. But there seems to be no more ground for it than that Baronius, having first taken for granted from Erasmus's conjecture that he was baptised at man's age, thought it more decent to lay that fornication of which he is known to be guilty, rather before his baptism than after.

The tract of St Hierom to which he refers for the proof of this, is his " apology made for his books that he had wrote against Jovinian." In which there is indeed mention of those two sorts of virginity, and there is also a confession of his own loss of virginity. But it is in several clauses or paragraphs that he mentions these two things, and not so as 96 Epist. 27. M Epist. xxii. w A.D. 372.

to affirm or intimate that he could claim either of the said sorts of virginity himself. I think not, yet it may be proper to lay before the reader the places themselves.

He had been accused by a great many, that in the said books against Jovinian he had so excessively commended virginity, that he had in some expressions represented all marriage as sinful, for which accusa tion he had indeed given too much occasion. Yet he vindicates and explains the places excepted against as well as he can. And then says,

" This therefore I protest, and make it my last declaration ; that I did not then condemn marriage, nor do now condemn it Virginity I do extol to the sky ; not that I am possessed of it, but that I the more admire a thing that I myself have not. It is an ingenuous and modest confession to commend highly that in others which one has not one's self. Must not I, because being of a gross body I am fain to go on the ground, admire that faculty that the birds have of flying in the air, and envy the pigeon which

" ' Radit iter liquidum, celeres neque commovet alas.'

" ' With stretched-out wings glides through the yielding sky? '

" Let no man deceive himself: nor let him undo himself by hearken ing to a soothing flatterer. The first virginity is that which is from one's birth : the second is that which is from one's second birth. It is none of my saying, it is an old rule. ' No man can serve two masters, the flesh and the spirit. The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. These are contrary one to the other, that we cannot do the things we would.' When anything in my book seems severe, regard not my words, but the Scripture from which the words are taken. Christ is a virgin. The mother of our virgin Lord is a virgin," &c.

Here after he had confessed and apologised for himself, he passes to the other theme of commending virginity, and showing the incon veniences of an encumbered and secular state. Here is nothing affirmed that he himself had either of the two sorts of virginity. And if anyone judge, as Baronius seems to have done, that the chain of thought leads one to think he meant so ; that conjecture will be much overbalanced by what he says plainly and expressly of his own case in another place,98 where he speaks of his ill life, and aggravates the guilt of it as being the defiling of his baptism. For commenting on that expression of Isaiah concerning himself, that he was ' a man of unclean lips,' he says, ' He, as being a just man, had sinned only in word, and therefore had only unclean lips, not a foul conscience. But I, as using my eyes to lust, and being offended by my hand, and sinning by my foot and all my limbs, have everything unclean. And because having 98 Explanatio Visionis Isaise, Epist. cxlii.

56 Tlie History of Infant Baptism.

' God's virgins,' as if married people did not belong to God or Christ at all — so, what is most to our purpose, he commonly calls that peculiar sort of coat that the virgins or nuns wore, " Christi tunicam," 'the coat,' or garment, ' of Christ.' And the veil, " Flammeum Christi," ' the veil of Christ' Of each of which I will give one instance.

In his Epitaphium, or funeral oration, in praise of Paulla,95 he re counts how desirous she had been in her life-time that her children and those that belonged to her should take on them that habit and profession, of renouncing the world, and leading a single life, as she had done that of a widow ; and how she had in great measure her desire, for, besides that Eustochium her daughter was then a professed virgin, her grand daughter also by her only son Toxotius, being then a child, was, by her parents, " Christi flammeo reservata," ' designed to wear the veil of Christ.'

And in his letter to Eustochium,96 the subject whereof is, " de virgini- tate servanda," to exjiort her to continue constant and unstained in her purpose of perpetual virginity ; he says, ' It is not fitting, when one has taken hold of the plow, to look back ; nor being in the field, to return home : ' " Nee post Christi tunicam ad tollendum aliud vesti- mentum tecto descendere : " ' Nor after one has put on the coat of Christ, to come down from the roof to take any other garment.'

Since these expressions are the very same with those that he used before of himself; it is probable that those also are to be understood of the monk's habit : or at least, it is not at all necessary that they must be understood of his baptism at Rome. And if they be not, then there remains no kind of ground to doubt of his being baptised at Stridon, in infancy, as other Christian children were. For neither Erasmus nor any of those that have followed him, have brought any other proof but these words ; and had it not been for them no man had ever had such a surmise.

§ 3. Baronius does indeed say,97 that " after he was baptised, he pre sently reformed his life, which before he had led in some lewdness : and whereas he had lost the first virginity, he kept undefiled that which he calls the second, which is after baptism."

If this were true or could be proved, the question were at an end. But there seems to be no more ground for it than that Baronius, having first taken for granted from Erasmus's conjecture that he was baptised at man's age, thought it more decent to lay that fornication of which he is known to be guilty, rather before his baptism than after.

The tract of St Hierom to which he refers for the proof of this, is his " apology made for his books that he had wrote against Jovinian." In which there is indeed mention of those two sorts of virginity, and there is also a confession of his own loss of virginity. But it is in several clauses or paragraphs that he mentions these two things, and not so as * Epist. 27. "o Epist. xxii. w A_D 2.

vS/ Hicrom. 57

to affirm or intimate that he could claim either of the said sorts of virginity himself. I think not, yet it may be proper to lay before the reader the places themselves.

He had been accused by a great many, that in the said books against Jovinian he had so excessively commended virginity, that he had in some expressions represented all marriage as sinful, for which accusa tion he had indeed given too much occasion. Yet he vindicates and explains the places excepted against as well as he can. And then says,

" This therefore I protest, and make it my last declaration ; that I did not then condemn marriage, nor do now condemn it. Virginity I do extol to the sky ; not that I am possessed of it, but that I the more admire a thing that I myself have not. It is an ingenuous and modest confession to commend highly that in others which one has not one's self. Must not I, because being of a gross body I am fain to go on the ground, admire that faculty that the birds have of flying in the air, and envy the pigeon which

" ' Radit iter liquidum, celeres neque commovet alas.'

" ' With stretched-out wings glides through the yielding sky? '

" Let no man deceive himself: nor let him undo himself by hearken ing to a soothing flatterer. The first virginity is that which is from one's birth : the second is that which is from one's second birth. It is none of my saying, it is an old rule. ' No man can serve two masters, the flesh and the spirit. The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. These are contrary one to the other, that we cannot do the things we would.' When anything in my book seems severe, regard not my words, but the Scripture from which the words are taken. Christ is a virgin. The mother of our virgin Lord is a virgin," &c.

Here after he had confessed and apologised for himself, he passes to the other theme of commending virginity, and showing the incon veniences of an encumbered and secular state. Here is nothing affirmed that he himself had either of the two sorts of virginity. And if anyone judge, as Baronius seems to have done, that the chain of thought leads one to think he meant so ; that conjecture will be much overbalanced by what he says plainly and expressly of his own case in another place,98 where he speaks of his ill life, and aggravates the guilt of it as being the defiling of his baptism. For commenting on that expression of Isaiah concerning himself, that he was ' a man of unclean lips,' he says, ' He, as being a just man, had sinned only in word, and therefore had only unclean lips, not a foul conscience. But I, as using my eyes to lust, and being offended by my hand, and sinning by my foot and all my limbs, have everything unclean. And because having 98 Explanatio Visionis Isaiae, Epist. cxlii.

58 The History of Infant Baptism.

been once baptised with the spirit, I have defiled my garments again, I deserve the second baptism, which is that otfire"

It was some great and mortal sin that he speaks of (for they do not use to speak so of sins of daily incursion), and we read of no such that he was guilty of but his fornication. His words also are such as to particularise that

And besides, he professes in a great many places " (in the foresaid letter to Damasus for one) that he undertook the monk's life as a state of voluntary penance for his sins; whereas they that in those times were baptised in their adult age, would have been counted greatly to undervalue the grace of baptism, if they had thought any such thing necessary for the sins they had committed before. They always speak of baptism as giving a person a free, total, and absolute discharge from all guilt of sin, original or actual, before that time.

§ 4. One thing that will stick as an objection in the minds of those that are acquainted with the ecclesiastical discipline of that age, is this : that if he had been baptised in infancy, or any time before his forni cation, that sin being after his baptism, would have rendered him incapable of holy orders. Because the canons of that time, those of Nice,100 those of Eliberis,1 and those of Neocsesarea,2 do enact that if anyone after his baptism did fall into fornication, or any other of the great crimes, such a man, though he might by penance be restored to lay communion, must never be ordained to the holy functions. And so strict it was, that if such an one were ordained by mistake, his crimes not being known, when they came afterwards to be known, he was to be de posed by the Nicene canon ; but the Neocaesarean admits him to con tinue in the name, and some part of the office, but not to offer, as they called it, i.e., to consecrate the holy elements. And this they will have to be observed, " because (as the words of the Nicene canon are) the holy Church does in all things keep to that which is blameless," or, without scandal. But as for heathens, or men unbaptised, they judged that no sin whatever committed in that state was to be an impediment of their promotion after they came to be baptised. In a word, they reckoned that penance, or, a long course of repentance, would cure a mortal sin, but so as to leave a scar ; but that baptism did perfectly wash off all the stain and discredit of sins committed before it. So that St Hierom's being ordained presbyter (as we said before he was) by Paulinus, will make an argument that his baptism was after his fornication.

But then they that know that the canons ran thus, know also that the practice was not always so strict and regular as the canon ; but that on the contrary these and some other such strict rules were frequently dis pensed with in the case of such men as came afterwards to be of great merit or abilities, which the Church could not well want : and that St 99 F.pist. 61, 58, &c. 100 Can. 9, 10. 1 Can. 30. 2Can. 9, 10.

St Hieront. 59

Hierom was, without controversy, the most learned and best skilled in interpreting the Scripture of any man then living ; and also was a great favourite of Pope Damasus, whose interest was great in all the Church.

And besides, an observation which retorts the force of this argument strongly to the other side, is this ; that these canons had in great mea sure their force upon St Hierom. For he not only protested, when he was made presbyter, as he tells us himself,3 that if Paulinus, who or dained him, " meant thereby to take him out of his state of monachism [or, penance] that he would not so accept it ; " but also, after he was ordained, refused, out of a deep humility and sense of his sin, to execute the priestly office, at least in the principal parts thereof. Of which there are these proofs.

1. That in all his letters and works one finds no mention or instance of his acting in that office. Of this I am no farther confident, than that having taken notice as I read, I remember none.

2. That Epiphanius affirms this of him and of Vincentius, another monk that had been ordained. The occasion was this. Epiphanius had in a case which he judged to be of necessity, ordained Paulinianus, St Hierom's younger brother, priest ; though the place in which he did it was out of his own diocese. Being blamed for this encroachment by John, Bishop of Jerusalem, he makes this apology, " Though no man ought to go beyond his own measure, yet Christian charity, in which there is no guile, is to be preferred before all. Nor should you consider what is done, but at what time, and in what manner, and for what rea sons, and upon whom the thing was done. For when I saw that there was a great number of holy brethren in the monastery, and the holy presbyters Hierom and Vincent, by reason of their modes ty and humility, would not execute the offices proper for their title, nor labour in that part of the ministry in which consists the chief salvation of Christians," 4 &c.

His being made priest after his sin is not so great a proof of his bap tism coming between, as those severe censures of himself are that his sin was after his baptism. He that in that age should have spoken of his sins committed before baptism, as he does of his, " I came into the fields and wilderness, that there bewailing, durescentia peccata, ' my sins that lie so hard upon me,' I might move the pity of Christ towards me, •would have been censured to derogate from that article of the creed, I believe one baptism for the remission of sins." '° And he himself says in other places, " All fornications and lewdnesses of the most scandalous nature, impiety against God, parricide or incest, &c., are washed away in this Christian fountain or laver." 6

In how different a strain does St Austin confess his sins, which, though

8 Epist. 61. contra errores Joannis Hierosol. 4 Epist. ad. Joann. Hierosol.

5 Epist. 6l. 6 Epist. ad Oceanum de unius uxoris viro.

60 The History of Infant Baptism.

much greater than St Hierom's, viz., a continued course of fornication with several harlots, yet because his baptism came after them, he says thus of them, " What praise ought I to give to the Lord that my memory recounts these things, and yet my soul is in no terror for them?"7

§ 5. I said he entered into a monk's life young (when I was showing that it was probable he took the habit at Rome). He himself says so in several places.8

The vulgar reader is not to imagine, that this monastic life was then of the same sort with that which is now for the most part in use in the Church of Rome. On the contrary, the first institution and primitive practice of it was commendable. It is time, and the corruption of the age, and superstitions added to it, and the great revenues that have been settled on the monasteries, that have perverted it. They professed virginity ; and they did accordingly with wonderful hardships of diet, lodging, &c., keep under the body. They sold all they had, and gave it to the poor. They renounced all the affairs of secular life, but at the same time used daily labour for their living : they had not then the fat of the land, nor one politic head, whose interest they were to promote. If anyone endeavoured to live at ease, or indulge himself, he was not counted a monk. St Hierom speaks of some few that he had seen of this sort. " I have seen," says he, " some that after they have re nounced the world, vestimentis duntaxat, 'in their garments or habit only,' and by a verbal profession, not in deeds, have altered nothing of their former way of living. They are richer, rather than poorer, than before. They have as much attendance of servants," 9 &c. So that we see all monks, good or bad, wore the garments of a monk.

Yet, as commendable as it was in the practice then, St Hierom has been under some censure for his excessive urging it on people, not only in his own time but ever since ; and not only among Protestants, but among those of the Church of Rome, that are anything impartial. M. Du Pin, who is highly to be valued for that quality, says of him, " Concerning virginity and the monks' life, he often speaks so, as if he would have one think they are necessary for salvation." 10

Where shall one meet, even among the late monks, an expression in praise of this sort of life more exorbitant than one that he has in his letter to Eustochium, a lady that professed that state ? Where, address ing himself to Paulla, her mother, he says, " Your daughter has procured you a great benefit. You are now become God's mother-in-law, Socrus Dei esse coepisti." This is something worse than calling the habit " the garments of Christ." He means that the daughter, by professing a ehgious virginity, was become the spouse of Christ, and so the mother must be His mother-in-law. But such allegories, carried too far, border \ Confess., 1. iii. c. vii. 8 Epist> iit it> 62> &c>

tpist. iv. ad Rusticum. w NOUV. BibL, t. iii. p. I.

upon impiety. They are not to be so easily pardoned to a man of a cool head. But St Hierom having had the spleen to a high degree must be allowed some favour in the censure of his expressions. Those men when they are in, at commending or disparaging anything, are carried to speak more than they mean at their sedate times.

§ 6. But it was not during the times of Damasus that St Hierom fell under any censure for this his over-lashing ; but afterwards in the times of Siricius. Damasus had been so much of the same temper, that it is likely he approved of him the better for it ; and that one reason of his using those high-flown expressions was to ingratiate himself with him. And we find him, in his writings, during this later popedom, frequently appealing to the times of Damasus. " I wrote," says he, " while Damasus of blessed memory lived, a book against Helvidius of the per petual virginity of the blessed Mary, in which I had occasion, for the setting forth the advantage of virginity, to say many things of the incon veniences of marriage. Did that excellent man, and learned in the Scriptures, that virgin doctor of the Church, which is a virgin, find any fault with that discourse ? And in my book to Eustochium, I said some things harder yet concerning marriage ; and yet nobody was offended at it. For Damasus, being a lover of chastity, heard my commendations of virginity with a greedy ear." n

This last is the book which he complains is now lapidatus — stoned, or generally condemned.

He says, also, in another place, " that Damasus did himself write in commendation of virginity both in prose and verse."12

It is the less wonder that in letters between these two, that did so magnify this state of life, the habit or garment by which the continent life of a monk was professed, should be called the " garment of Christ."

And if what I have produced be sufficient to make this probable, then

I have cleared St Hierom's parents of an imputation that has been laid on them ever since Erasmus's time, even by learned men ; and which St Hierom himself would have counted a heinous one. For when he declares " how sinful it would be if any parents that are Christians should suffer their children to die unbaptised " (as I have shown 13 he does), he must judge that his parents had run a very sinful hazard if they had let him continue so long, and then take so long a journey, before they had procured him baptism.

Sect. ii. Of St Austin. His father was a heathen when this his son was born, and a long time after.

§ i. There is no instance of this nature more commonly urged than that of St Austin, and yet none that is a more palpable mistake.

II Apol. pro lib. contra Jovin. 12 Epist. ii. ad Nepotian. 13 Pt. I. ch. xv. I.

62 The History of Infant Baptism.

That he was about thirty-three years old when he was baptised, is clear. He himself gives a large account of it in his book of Con fessions.14' As he observed 15 that that book was in his life-time more generally read than any other of his works ; so it has happened ever since. That, of all others, having had the fortune to be translated into many vulgar languages, everybody has observed the story of his baptism. And it has cast scruples into the heads of many unlearned readers to think if infant baptism were then practised, why he was not baptised in infancy ?

§ 2. As for his parents : Possidius, who, a little after his death, wrote his Life, says, in the beginning thereof, " that he was born of creditable and Christian parents." So here matters are brought to a fair issue. St Austin, in his books which I quoted,16 makes us to understand that he never knew, heard, or read of any Christian that was an antipsedo- baptist. And Pelagius, his adversary in the question of original sin, whose interest it was to have found some, if there had been any, con fesses that he knew of none. And yet now, it seems, St Austin's own father was one.

And this must have passed for current, if St Austin himself had not given us a truer, or at least a more particular, account of his parents than Possidius has done. But this he does in the forementioned book of his Confessions. Only there is this difference : that the story of his baptism being set down at large, is taken notice of by everybody ; but his father's want of Christianity being mentioned but briefly, and by- the-bye in one or two places, has escaped the notice of many readers.

Marshall, in his Defence of Infant Baptism?1 or rather a friend of his whom he made use of to search into matters of antiquity, " having himself," as he there says, " but just leisure enough to look into these authors now and then : " he was taken up, I suppose, with much higher authors ; Calvin, Twiss, &c. But his friend has cleared this matter very well ; which was easy to do. He has produced the particular places where St Austin tells us that his father was no baptised Christian, nor so much as a catechumen, nor did believe in Christ, till a good while after he [St Austin] was born. Which are these :

In the first book of his Confessions, chap, xi., speaking of the time when he was a child (about eight or nine years old, one must guess by the story) he says of his father, " Ille nondum crediderat," ' he did not yet at that time believe.'

In the second book, chap, iii., speaking to God of the state of his

father and mother at that time when he was, as himself mentions,

ixteen years old, he says, " In my mother's breast thou hadst already

begun thy temple, and made an entrance for thy dwelling-place. But

he [my father] was yet but a catechumen, and that but newly."

" L. ix. c. vi. « Retractat, 1. ii. c. vi. » Pt. i. ch. xix. §§ 17 and 30.

17 Page 58.

vSV Austin. 63

In the ninth book, chap, ix., reckoning up in a speech to God Almighty the good deeds of his mother, who was then lately dead : he says, " Finally, she also gained over to Thee her husband in the latter end of his life. And had no more occasion to bewail that [crossness and ill nature] in him after he was fidelis, a baptised Christian, which she had endured in him before he was so."

Yet notwithstanding all this, the Life writers, copying out of Possidius, and one out of another, do to this day write him " parente utroque Chris- tiano natum, ' born of parents both Christians.' If he, or they, mean that his parents were both Christians at the time of his birth, it is a plain mistake. But if they mean that they became so before they died, it is true, but ought to have been explained so : at least by the modern writers, because of the occasion of mistake that it lays in the way of the antipaedobaptists, of which there was formerly no fear.

His mother indeed was a Christian (in heart and belief at least : whether baptised or not, we are not certain) at the time of his birth. But what could a woman do against the will of such an imperious and choleric husband as St Austin in many places 18 declares his father to have been in those times ? She did what she could or dared : he says of himself, "I was signed with the sign of Christ's Cross, and was seasoned with His salt (ceremonies then used by Christians on their children) even from the womb of my mother, who greatly trusted in Thee." 19 But so solemn a thing as baptism she could not, or dared not, it seems, procure to be administered against her husband's will. For it was not a thing 20 then used to be huddled up in a private parlour, or in the woman's bed-chamber, or without godfathers, &c., but had many solemn circumstances, and was performed by putting the child into the water in presence of the congregation, &c., except in some particular cases of extreme haste and necessity.

It was contrary to her husband's inclination that she taught her child, as she nursed him, the principles of Christian religion. As he plainly intimates when he says, " So I then believed, and so did all our family, except my father only ; who did not however so far over-rule the power of my mother's godly love toward me, but that I believed in Christ, though he did not." 21

St Paul persuades a believing wife to stay with an unbelieving husband,22 partly for the hopes there is of gaining [or converting] him ; and partly, because the unbelieving party is seldom so obstinate or averse to Christianity, but that the children are allowed to be made holy [or baptised] into it. Which I showed 23 to be the sense which the most ancient writers give to his words. But still this must be under-

18 Confess., 1. ix. c. ix., &c. 19 Confess., 1. i. c. xi.

20 See Pt. I. ch. xv. Sect. 7, § 3. 21 Conf. 1. i. c. xi.

22 I Cor. vii. 23 pt- i. ch. xix. § 19, it. ch. xi. § II.

64 The History of Infant Baptism.

stood to hold for the most part, not always. There has been seldom known any husband that would yield so little to the desires or petitions of a wife as this man would, while he was a heathen. He used her not as a companion, but as an absolute servant : even by the account which the son gives of the father after his death.

In a word, St Austin's case was the same with that of Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess ; and yet his father being a Greek, i.e., a heathen, and probably a hater of the Jewish religion, as St Austin's father was of the Christian, he had not been circumcised : as appears (Acts. xvi. i, 3). " Him Paul took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those quarters : for they knew all that his father was a Greek : " and there fore, probably would be inquisitive whether he had been circumcised or not.

Indeed, when St Austin was a child not yet big enough to go to school, but capable to express his mind, and it happened that he fell ill of a sudden pain in his stomach, so violent that he was like to die : and he had, as he tells himself,24 " the motion of mind and the faith to beg earnestly of his mother to get him baptised." She in that case would have ventured to do it, and did in great haste bestir herself in providing for it. And it had been done if he had not quickly mended of his pain. But there are several things considerable in his case. i. It was a case of great extremity : it must be done now or never. 2. It was at his own desire, so that his father could not blame his mother. 3. In that case a private and clinical baptism was sufficient. 4. It is probable that his father was now mollified in that averseness that he had for the Christian religion, in which he himself in a few years after thought fit to become a catechumen, or hearer.

§ 3. Afterwards the scene altered in the family of Patritius, St Austin's father. For when he began to believe in Christ, and to fear God, his son Austin began to be estranged from religion and all good inclinations by the heat of lust and fornication.25 And when his father now joined with his mother in persuading him to associate himself with the Chris tians, and of all the sorts of them to join with the Catholic Church ; this advice had no effect upon him at that time, for he quickly after ran into the blasphemous sect of the Manichees,26 who derided all baptism and the Scriptures, and were no more Christians than the Mahometans are now.

Yet it had its effect afterwards. For twelve or thirteen years after, when his father had now been dead a good while, and he disliking the Manichees, turned a sceptic, or seeker, or (as they now call them) a Deist, not knowing what religion to be of, he remembered the advice of his parents which he had formerly despised : " And I resolved," says he,27 " to be a catechumen in the Catholic Church, which had been re-

•4 L. i. c. xi. •» L. ii. c. i., ii., &c. * L. iii. c. vi.

87 L. v. c. ult. it. 1. vi. c. xi.

Monica, Adeodatus, Alipius, Tec/a, &c. 65

commended to me by my parents, so long till some certainty should show itself to my mind which way I were best to take." And this proved an occasion of his final conversion.

I the rather recite these words here, their meaning being explained by the circumstances ; because taken by themselves they might strengthen that opinion (which has been proved a mistake) that his father was a Christian when this his son was born.

Sect. 12. Of Monica, Adeodatus, Alipius, and some others.

They do none of them make instances for this purpose. •

§ i. Some (I think one or two) have named Monica, St Austin's mother, among their instances, but without any kind of ground, since there is no knowing whether she were born of Christian parents and baptised in infancy, or of heathens, and baptised at years of discretion. She had never been known if she had not been mother to St Austin. Nobody mentions her but he, and he says nothing, that I remember, of the state of his parents, but a great deal of her goodness and her care of him.

§. 2. Adeodatus, St Austin's son, begotten in fornication, who being fifteen years old,28 was baptised together with him, is likewise mentioned without any reason. St Austin was a Manichee when this son was born to him ; and they condemned all Christian baptism of infants or others, as I shall show by-and-by 29 concerning them and some other sects. It were absurd to expect that he should have procured him to be baptised before he himself had renounced that opinion and thought fit to be baptised himself. He says of him : " We [I and Alipius] joined him with us of the same age of ourselves in Thy grace [the grace of baptism] to be educated in Thy discipline, and were baptised," 30 &c. As Ishmael was circumcised, so this youth was baptised the same day with his father. Which was at Easter, anno 388.

§ 3. When I have spoken of Alipius, whom St Austin mentions as baptised together with him, I hope I have done. It is only in com pliance to Mr Tombs, that he need be mentioned at all. He had observed that he was baptised when he was adult, and so makes him an instance for this purpose,31 without giving him any proof or pretence of it, that his parents were Christians. He might in a week's time have collected a hundred such instances of persons baptised at man's age, whose parents are utterly unknown, as Alipius's are, only people have generally concluded that they were heathens, because they did not baptise their children.

And there happen to be also some more particular proofs in his case.

88 Confess., 1. ix. c. vi. M Ch. v. § 3. so Confess., 1. ix. c. vi.

31 Exercit., p. 28, it. Examen. p. 14.

66 The History of Infant Baptism.

As that, before his conversion he abhorred or scorned the name of Christ; as St Austin gives to understand, when after having given God thanks for His grace in recovering him himself, he adds, " Thou didst also sub due Alipius the brother of my soul, to the Name of Thy Only Begotten our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which he before took in disdain to have inserted in our letters." K

And also that he was so ignorant of what the Christians believed or held concerning the person of Jesus Christ. For having heard some Christians maintain that He as a man had no soul, but that His Divinity was in the stead of a soul to His body ; and thinking this to be the com mon opinion of the Christians, and judging it to be absurd ; " he was," as St Austin says, "the more hardly brought over to the Christian religion. But afterwards understanding this to be the mistake of the Apollinarian heretics, he congratulated the Catholic Faith," ^ &c. So improbable is it that he had Christian parents.

§ 4. There is one Den, an antipaedobaptist writer, and Danvers from him,*4 that mentions a great many more names yet — viz., Pan- cratius, Pontius, Nazarius, Tecla, Luigerus, Erasma Tusca, the three sons of Leonilla. But they do but just mention them, and if the reader would know who they are, and upon what grounds they are brought in here, he must look to that himself.

For Tecla, if they mean the famous Tecla that is said to be baptised by St Paul, there is no doubt but she was baptised in her adult age ; but there is as much probability of St Paul's parents having been Christians, as of hers. For the rest, nobody knows who they mean, for as some of those names have had several persons called by them, so some have had none at all that I know of.

What I have to add in this second edition to this and the foregoing

chapter, is, that whereas one Mr Delaun, in a Plea for Nonconformists,

written in King Charles II.'s time, had heaped together a great number

of quotations out of modern authors who had reported the ancient

opinions or usages to be, in any respect whatsoever, different from the

tenets or usages of the Church of England; and among the rest had

(though himself a paedobaptist, yet to puzzle matters) brought in at p

i i all that he could rake together against infant baptism— taking them,

I suppose, out of Danvers-viz., the sayings of Bishop Taylor, Grotius,

Lud. Vives, Daillb, Dr Field, Mr Baxter, Wai. Strabo, Boemus, which

nong several others I recited in the last chapter; and whereas there

TLTi6 . <luotations about infant baptism or the other subjects

t had been considered and answered by learned men of the Church

ough not in any particular answer to Delaun's pamphlet, but on other

is), and consequently, unless the nonconformists could produce

11 Confess., 1. ix. c. iv. » TK-J i ••

" Treatise of Baptism, Part I. ch.vii.

77*6' British Church. 67

some new matter, there seemed to have been said all that was necessary to restore peace and union. Now the other day a certain busy writer for dissension, instead of offering any new thing, reprinted Delaun's book, with a pompous preface, as a piece that never was answered, a finished piece, &c., which called for an answer from the churchmen.

As for infant baptism, there is not one word or quotation in it but what had been fully answered, nor, as I think, on any other subject Now at this rate we must never be at quiet ; if after objections fully proposed, and all of them publicly answered, the method be, instead of a fair reply, to reprint in a challenging way the very same objections again.

The reason I have to think that he took all the quotations he has against infant baptism out of Danvers, is, because where Danvers has mixed any forgery of his own with the quotation, there Delaun has done the like. As they do both quote Grot, in Matt. xix. 14, in the same words, but forged ones, as where they make him say : " Infant baptism for many hundred years was not ordinary in the Greek Church," and where they make him speak of Constantine as an instance against infant baptism, which he was never ignorant enough to do.

CHAPTER IV.

OF THE CHURCH OF THE ANCIENT BRITONS, AND OF SOME ANCIENT SECTS, VIZ., THE NOVATIANS, AND THE DONATFSTS, WHICH ARE BY SOME THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ANTIP^DOBAPTISTS, AND OF THE ARIANS.

§. i. A BOUT twenty-six years ago a certain antipaedobaptist writer l -ti- lighted upon an argument to prove, as he thought, the ancient Christians in Britain, before the coming in of the English, to have been against infant baptism. It is an evidence how great mistakes may arise from the misprinting of two or three words in a book, and that in a book of so little regard as Fabian's Chronicle. The account of the matter is this.

.Venerable Bede wrote in the year 731 the Church History of Hie

English Nation, and tells how Austin the monk, after having made some

progress in planting Christianity among the English, made a proposal

to the Britons, desiring them to join in communion with him and his

new converts, and to assist in converting the English to the Christian

faith. But whereas the Britons held and practised rites and traditions

in many things different from those that he then brought from the Church

of Rome, he insisted that they should leave off their own and comply

1 Danv., Treat, of Bapt., Pt. II. c. vii.

C 2

8 The History of Infant Baptism.

with his ceremonies and customs. This they refused. And after many altercations he at last made them this final proposal : " You practise in many things contrary to our custom, and indeed contrary to the custom of the universal Church. And yet if you will comply with me in these three things— that you keep Easter at the right time, that you perform the office of baptising (by which we are regenerated unto God) according to the custom of the Holy Roman Church and the Apostolic Church, and that you together with us do preach the Word of the Lord to the nation of the English, we will bear patiently with all the other things which you practise contrary to our customs. But they answered that they would do none of these things, nor own him for their archbishop," 2 &c.

This same passage is related by several others of our English historians in the after ages, who, taking it from Bede, relate it to the same sense.

Among the rest, one Fabian, a sheriff or alderman of London in King Henry the Seventh's time as I take it, wrote a chronicle of the English history, in English. There are two editions of his book which I have seen in the Oxford Library. There may be more : In one of them (which is the first I know not : I think the title page in one was torn) his words are to the same sense as Bede's, being these ; at fol. 56. ®hen be sapa to them, 5>en w tool* not assent to ms hestes gener= allg, assent pe to me especially in thre thpnges. &he first is that pe fcepe <EsterDap in Due fourme ana tgme as it is orDegneD, ®he scconD that pe gibe Christendom to the chiiDren in the manner that is useto in the Cbptcbe of Rome. 2HnU trje tbBrUe that pe preche unto the Anglis the ORorft of <£>oD3 &c.

But in the other, these words, in the manner that is usefc in the Cbprche Of Rome, are omitted : so that the condition stands thus, that £e gi&e Christendom to tbc CbtlDren. And this last-mentioned edition our author having lighted on, concluded that the British Church before these times had not been used to give Christendom to, or baptise, children.

But he should have considered that the account of such a thing should be taken from Bede and the other ancient historians, and not from Fabian : especially since Fabian in his preface acknowledges (as Mr Wills says,3 for I did not read that) that what he relates of the ancient affairs, he has from Bede ; and consequently his meaning must be to express Bede's sense ; and so that edition first mentioned must be as he meant it, and the omission in the other must have been by mistake, of himself, or the printer.

Fox 4 and other authors that have wrote since Fabian, recite the matter as Bede does. This argument taken from Fabian is endeavoured to be confirmed by

3 Beds, Eccl. Hist., 1. ii. c. ii. 3 Infant Baptism Asserted, p. 124.

4 Martyrology at the year 600.

Novatians and Donatists. 69

some other collateral ones : of which none is worth the mentioning, but that from Constantine's being born among the Britons and not yet bap tised in infancy. And that is not worth it neither, considering that very few nowadays believe that he was born in Britain, and none at all but this author, and one more, that his father was a Christian.5

Pelagius was certainly born in Britain. And since he owns (as I have produced his words 6) that he " never heard of any Christian, Catholic, or sectary that denied infant baptism," it is certain his own countrymen did not.

The man brings this for one of his arguments to prove that the British Church must have opposed the baptising of infants, " because they so fully prized and adhered to the Scriptures, and rejected human tradi tions, especially all Romish innovations," &c. If this be any argument, then for certain the psedobaptists' cause is in a bad case.

§ 2. The Novatians and Donatists are also brought in by the same writer as adversaries of paedobaptism. Though both these parties of men were schismatics, and forsook the communion of the established Churches in those times : yet their differences having been rather in points of discipline than of faith, and they having been at some times of the Church very numerous, and the time of their flourishing within our limited period of four hundred years, an argument from their practice of keeping infants unbaptised would be considerable. But it would be withal a very strange discovery : since there are so many books extant, written at the same time by Cyprian, Eusebius, Optatus, Austin, &c., containing a ventilation of all the disputes between the Catholics and these men, in which nothing has ever been observed that should intimate that they had any such practice or opinion. For among all the reasons that the Donatists (who rebaptised such as, having been baptised by the Catholics, came afterwards over to them) gave, why the baptism of the Catholics was null, there is none that lays any blame on their giving it in infancy. But, on the contrary, St Austin does often make use of the instance of infant baptism, as granted by them, to overthrow some other errors that they had about baptism.

It would, I say, be a strange discovery to make now. But the proofs brought for it do fail one's expectation. For as for those out of St Austin against the Donatists, Osiander, Fuller, Bullinger, &c., they are all by Mr Baxter 7 and Mr Wills 8 shown plainly to be nothing to the purpose. And what he would prove out of Austin de Anima and Wal- densis, that the dispute between Vincentius Victor and St Austin was, whether infants ought to be baptised, will appear a great mistake by reading what I have produced of the opinion of Vincentius in this col-

5 See ch. iii. sect. 2. § 2. 6 P. I. ch. xix. § 30.

7 More Proofs for Infant Bapt., Pt. II. § 2. ch. iv.

8 Infant Baptism Reasserted, p. 139.

~0 The History of Infant Baptism.

lection.9 For it was only whether infants that happened to die unbap- tised might ever enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yet he quotes some writers that do indeed say the thing that he would prove. But they are only Sebastian Frank, and one Twisk. It is an artifice that may take with some very ignorant people, but I believe not approved by the more knowing or candid of his own opinion, to quote for some matter of ancient history an author that is but of yester day, and of no note or credit. When a vulgar reader sees such a quota tion he thinks it as good as the best, because he knows not the author ; but one of any reading slights it for that reason, because he knows him not It is this man's way through all his book to quote, for the prin cipal things that are in dispute concerning antiquity, such books as the foresaid Frank and Twisk, and one Merning, and a book that he calls Dutch Martyrology. They are all, as it seems, Dutch writers of late years, of the antipaedobaptists' way ; and if they say all that he quotes them for, they say things without any regard whether they be true or false. It is a known rule, that any modern writer affirming anything of ancient history, without referring to some ancient author, is not at all to be heeded. These men might as well have quoted him as he them, and it had been a like authority.

One shall not see Mr Baxter in such a passion as he is in this place : to premise to the answers that he gives to the several quotations about these Novatians and Donatists, such sayings as : " Utterly false. False again. This is something were it true : but it is such a kind of false hood as I must not name in its due epithets. Not a word of truth ; no such matter in that chapter, or the whole book. Blush, reader, for such a man. Mr Bagshaw is now quite overdone in the quality of un truths," » &c.

I produced in the collection 12 a canon of a Council of Carthage, wherein they decree what is to be done in reference to that question, whether they should admit to any office of the clergy those who in their infancy, before they could judge of the error, had been baptised by the Donatists, and afterwards came over to the Church. Cassander and Mr Cpbbet had brought this as a proof that the Donatists, as well as Catholics, baptised infants. This writer says: "That is but a supposition at best that they might do so." 13 But I doubt anyone else will take it for a plain supposition that they ordinarily did so.

That challenge of St Austin, and confession of Pelagius, produced

efore,14 that they never knew nor heard of any heretics or schismatics

t were against the baptising of infants, must be an undeniable proof

that neither of these two sects were so : since a considerable body of

'/': \ ch/ xx'.§§ 2> 3, 4- » Page 249, &c., 241, &c.

Pt. I. ch. xvi. fc§ i, 2 is Treat of B t pt n ch yii

14 Pt. I. ch. xix. §§ 1 7 and 30.

Novatians and Donatists. 7 1

each of them were remaining in those parts where these two men lived ; and all their particular opinions were the subject of every day's dis putations. And St Austin in his Book of Sects, wrote a particular of their tenets u as well as of all the rest.

§ 3. The Arians are by some Catholic writers styled anabaptists. These also made a considerable body of men in some part of our period of, time, viz., of the first three hundred years after the Apostles. Especially in the time of the Emperors Constantius and Valens ; who took almost the same methods to force their subjects to turn Arians, or at least to hold communion with the Arians as the French king does at this day to force his to turn papists or go to mass. If the writer whom we have been following for some time, had ever heard of, or lighted on those places where the Arians are called anabaptists ; I am persuaded he would have increased the catalogue of his friends with one sect more. I would not have the antipaedobaptists claim any acquaintance with so ill company ; and therefore do give them an account of the reason why they had that name. It was not for that they had anything to say against infant baptism : but because they, as well as the Donatists before them, did use to baptise over again, such as came from the Catholic Church to them ; not for that they had been baptised in infancy (for if they had been baptised at man's age it was all one), but for that they had received baptism from the Catholics, whom the Arians did so hate, that they would not own any baptism given by them to be good. This is evident both from St Austin, who recites their tenets,16 and also from an oration of St Ambrose which I mentioned before, against Auxentius the Arian : where he says, " Cur igitur rebaptizandos," &c., ' Why does Auxentius say that the faithful people who have been baptised in the name of the Trinity, must be baptised again?' And this is all that the word anabaptist signifies : 'One that baptises over again those that have been baptised already.' And therefore those of the antipasdobaptists that know the signification of the word, do not own the name : they denying theirs to be rebaptising.

The instance of the Emperor Valens that I gave before 17 (whom St Basil exhorted to have his child baptised by the Catholic bishops, but he chose to have it done by the Arians) is a clear proof that Arians as well as Catholics baptised infants.

15 De Hseres., c. xlix. 16 De Heres., c. xlix.

17 Pt. I. ch. xii. §§ 9, 10.

7 2 The History of Infant Baptism.

CHAPTER V.

OF SOME HERETICS THAT DENIED ALL WATER BAPTISM. AND OF OTHERS THAT BAPTISED THE SAME PERSON SEVERAL TIMES OVER. THE DISPUTE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING REBAPTISING. OF THE PAULIANISTS, WHOM THE NICENE FATHERS ORDERED TO BE BAPTISED ANEW IF THEY WOULD COME INTO THE CHURCH.

§ i. TT THAT St Austin and Pelagius said of all heretics (that they V V had ever heard of) allowing infant baptism, must be under stood of such as allowed any baptism at all. For otherwise, they knew there were some sects that renounced all use of it to any persons, infants or others. And St Austin had himself been of one of them. And he does indeed express a limitation that is of the same effect, when he says, "All that do receive the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, do own infant baptism for the remission of sins : " a for those that denied all water baptism, did also generally renounce the Scriptures.

It may be worth the while to gratify the Quakers with a short catalogue of all their ancient friends in that point of denying baptism that were within our period.

The historians that have given us the tale of all the heresies they had heard of have been much too liberal of that name. For they have given the name of heretics to some that deserved a worse, and should have been called infidels ; and also to some that deserved one not so bad, and should have gone for distracted people.

Of the first sort were the Valentinians, who made use of the name of Christ only to mock and abuse the religion ; their own religion being a mixture of idolatry, magic, and lascivious rites. They blasphemed the Scriptures as false,2 and the Catholics as carnal ; and both as giving a wrong account of Jesus Christ, of whom they made quite another sort of being.

Of these Irenseus reckons up several sorts, which had their several opinions concerning baptism. I gave a general account of them before 3 out of the eighteenth chapter of Irenaeus's first book. And here you shall have Irenseus's words.

Having premised that " In this sect there are as many u<jro\vrpu<rei$, redemptions [or, ways of baptism] as there are ringleaders," he adds :

" Some of them dress up a bride-chamber, and perform mystical cere monies with certain profane words to those whom they initiate, and call this a spiritual marriage, which they say is made according to the like ness of the heavenly conjugations.

1 See the words, Pt. I. ch. xix. § 17. 2 Irenes, 1. iii. c. ii.

3 Pt. I., ch. xxi. § 2.

Qtiintilla, The Manichees, The Messalians. 73

" Others bring the party to the water, and as they are baptising, use these words, ' In the Name of the unknown Father of all things ; in the Truth, the Mother of all things ; in Him that came down on JESUS ; in the union and redemption and communion of powers.'

" Some that they may amuse those whom they initiate, use certain Hebrew words, Basema, Chamasi, Basenaora, &c.

'" Others of them again express their redemption [or, baptism] thus : ' The name that is hidden from every deity, dominion, and truth, which JESUS of Nazareth put on in the zones of light,' &c.

" And he that is initiated [or, baptised] answers, ' I am confirmed and redeemed ; and I redeem my soul from this ^EON and all that comes of it, in the name of IAO,' &c.

" Then they anoint the baptised person with balsam ; for they say this ointment is the type of that sweetness which surpasses all things. [Note, that this is the first mention of Chrism that is anywhere read of. And since I shall show presently, at chapter ix., that it was used by the Catholics from testimonies of near the same date as this, one may con clude that it came from some principle universally received by all Christians, Catholic or heretic.]

" Some of them say that it is needless to bring the person to the water at all : but making a mixture of oil and water, they pour it on his head, using certain profane words much like them before-mentioned ; and they say that that is redemption [or baptism]. This sort use balsam also.

" But others of them, rejecting all these things, say, 'That the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power ought not to be performed by visible and corruptible elements ; nor that of incomprehensible and in corporeal things be represented by sensible and corporeal things. But that the knowledge of the unspeakable majesty is itself perfect redemp tion [or, baptism].' " These last, I suppose, will be owned for friends.

§ 2. Tertullian wrote his book of baptism that he might put a stop to the heresy that had been set on foot by one Quintilla, a woman preacher, that had been at Carthage a little before, and had, as he says,4 seduced a great many. The main of her preaching was against water-baptism : " That it was needless, that faith alone was sufficient," &c. She had come out, as he understood, from the sect of the Caians. That sect, as impious as it was in other things,5 did not deny baptism that we read of. She had, it seems, added that herself. He there largely sets forth the falseness of her doctrine, and also her masculine impudence in usurping the office of a preacher of it, though it had been never so true.

§ 3. The Manichees are the next. As little deserving the name of

Christians as the rest, and less than the Mahometans do. They made

the same account of their Manes as these do of Mahomet. They owned

Christ to be a true Prophet, as these do ; and Peter, Paul, John, &c., to

4 De Baptismo, c. i. 5 Epiphan. de Caianis. hoer, 38.

~4 The History of Infant Baptism.

have been his true Apostles. But they said (as these also do) that the books which we have of theirs are no true records, but had been falsified. And the same absurdity which the Christians now do urge against these St Austin urged against them : " That if they plead our copies are falsi fied, they ought at least to produce such as are truer." And he, who had' been once seduced by them, tells us what they held as to baptism, "They say that baptism in water does nobody any good; neither ^ do they baptise any of the proselytes whom they delude into their sect." e

Yet St Cyril of Jerusalem 7 intimates that they had something instead of baptism. " Their baptism," says he, " is such as I dare not describe before men and women. I am afraid to tell in what matter it is that they, dipping a fig, give it to their wretched people." Yet he intimates what it was ; but it is so beastly that I will not do that.

§ 4. The Messalians seem to have been no other but a sort of enthu- siastical people, who, leaving off their employments, thought it necessary, or at least pleasing to God, to spend all their time in prayer and rapture ; and thereby became subject to many hypochondriac conceits. Epiphanius and St Austin, speaking of them in their catalogues, say nothing of their denying baptism to infants. But Theodoret s and the Historia Tripartita* out of him, repeats their sense thus : "That there is no profit accruing to the baptised by baptism : but that fervent prayer alone expels the devil." And says, " that the most noted men of their sect were, Dadoes, Sabbas, Adelphius, Hermas, Symeonis."

What does Mr Danvers do, but put down these men 10 for " eminent persons that in the fourth century bore witness against infant baptism " ? And he cites for authority the foresaid place, Hist. Tripart., 1. vii. c. xi., into which whoever looks, will see that the error there laid to their charge is in the words that I have set down, and no other : which express the opinion of the Quakers, not of the antipaedobaptists.

But he quotes also Sebast. Frank (one of the Dutch blades I men tioned a little above) n to confirm that this Dadoes, Sabbas, &c., were eminent witnesses against infant baptism. So that it is to be hoped for Danver's credit that he had never looked into Hist. Tripart., but had taken the quotation on the credit of Frank, which must be very small.

But if one read the whole passage in Theodoret, Hist. Ecd., \. iv. c. x., and Haretic Fabul, 1. iv. cap. de Messalianis : it is plain that the men were distracted. For they pretended that by force of their prayer they could bring the devil out of themselves, sometimes by spittle, and sometimes by blowing their nose : they would dance about, and say they were treading upon him : they would imitate archers, and then say they had shot him. And that after the devil was gone from them, they could see the Holy Trinity with bodily eyes. They were also full of

6 De h;er., c. xlvi. 7 Catech. vi. « L. iv. c. x.

9 L. vii. c. xi. M Treat, of Baptism, Pt. II. ch. vii. u Ch iv. § 2.

usco

prophecies and revelations. And St Hierom, who had lived in Syria among them, says,12 that they said of themselves, that " when they were come to the top of their perfection, they were beyond any possibility of sinning, in thought, or by ignorance."

The historians that have encumbered the church registers with these, and some other such sorts of sects, would at the same rate, if they had had in any country at any time a dozen or two of our Muggletonians, have made a considerable sect of them, to be talked of in church history to the end of the world. Whereas such men, especially when incon siderable for number, should be pitied in their life time, and kept dark : and their wild opinions forgot after they are dead. And this method would have lessened the catalogues of sects almost by one half.

Some do reckon besides these, the Ascodryti, and the Archontici : 13 as sects that used no baptism. But Theodoret says, " that the Asco dryti were a branch of the Valentinians ; and the Archontici of them."14 Which I am very glad of, being weary of reckoning any more.

St Austin says, " A sect called Seleucians, or Hermians, do not admit of water-baptism, nor of the Resurrection. These are the sects that have renounced all use of baptism." 15

§ 5. Some on the other extreme have administered it several times to the same person : and are therefore properly called anabaptists. I speak now of those that practised formal anabaptism, i.e., what they themselves owned to be anabaptism or re-baptising of the same person. And of such I remember no more in ancient times, but the Marcionites. Marcion taught, as Epiphanius tells, that " it is lawful to give three baptisms : so that if any one fall into sin after his first baptism, he may have a second : and a third, if he fall a second time."16 And here it seems he stopped his hand. Yet Epiphanius says that he had heard, that his " followers went farther, and gave more than three, if any one desired it."

He that writes the Present State of Muscovy, says, "their way is, that persons of age who change their religion, and embrace the Muscovite faith ; nay, even Muscovites, who having changed their reli gion in another country, are willing to return to their own communion, must first be re-baptised." 17 He speaks also of some vagabond people among them, called Chaldeans, who do customarily, and by a sort of license, practise great extravagances from the i8th of December to Epiphany ; during which time they are excluded the Church : but " on twelfth day, when their license is expired, they are rebaptised (some of them having been baptised ten or twelve times) and looked upon as good Christians." But Brereword, ch. xxiii. says (and quotes Passevin

12 Prolog, ad. Dialog, contra Pelag. 13 Epiph. de Archonticis.

14 Hgeret. fab. 1. i. c. xiii. 15 De Hcer. c. lix.

16 Haer. xlii. Marcionitae. 17 Dr Crull, c. xi.

76 The History of Infant Baptism.

for it), " that they use not this baptism on Twelfth Day, as a sacrament, or as any purification of themselves ; but only as a memorial of Christ's baptism received on that day in Jordan : and that the Abassens do the same thing upon the same day upon the same account." So that it is to be hoped that Dr Crull may be mistaken in the reason of their practice. And for what he says here of their rebaptising all that came over to their religion ; I have occasion to note something on it at ch.

ix. § 2.

Mr Thevenot also tells a story of some people called Sabeans living at Bassora in Arabia, that are, as he there says, improperly called Chris tians, that do reiterate the baptism which they use.18 But it is not the Christian baptism, nor given in that form. " They have," he says, " no knowledge of Jesus Christ, but that He was a servant to John Baptist, and baptised by him : and of the books of the Gospel no knowledge at all." But however it be with any late sects ; in ancient times there were, as I said, no sects that did this but the Marcionites.

I know that the name of anabaptists, or rebaptizers, was then by the Catholics imputed to several heretics, and by some Churches of the Catholics to other Catholic Churches. But they that were so censured did none of them own, as the Marcionites did, that what they did was re-baptising. They all pleaded that the baptism which the party had received before was null and void, as being administered in a corrupt Church, or by heretical bishops, &c.

The antipsedobaptists now hold the same plea : but the ground of the plea is very different ; for I never read, and I believe they cannot produce any instance of any one that pleaded baptism to be void because it was given in infancy. And as they disown the name of anabaptists or re-baptisers, so I have nowhere given it to them. As, on the contrary, I do not give them the name of baptists, nor of the baptised people ; for that is to cast a reproach upon their adversaries, as concluding that they are not so. Every party, while the matter continues in dispute, ought to give and take such names as cast no reproach on themselves nor their opponents, but such as each of them own, and such are the names that I use.

§ 6. The dispute about re-baptising, or the imputation thereof, was one that troubled the Church in former times as much as any. Many sects of heretics and schismatics were so bitter against the Catholics, that they said : " All things were so corrupt among them that baptism or any other office done by them was null and void, and therefore they baptised afresh all that came over from the Church to them. And many Churches of the Catholics were even with them, and observed the same course with all that came over from them. But others would not, but said, that baptism (though given by the schismatics, was valid. 18 Voyage. T. ii. p. 331.

The Paulianists and Photinians. 7

And this came at last to be a bone of contention between the Catholics themselves ; each party finding fault with the others way of receiving schismatics into the Church."

In St Cyprian's time the Christian world was divided into halves on this point. For he, and all the Churches of Africa, some of Egypt, and many in Asia, received not heretics into the Church with a new baptism. But the Christians at Rome, and most in Europe, used only to give them a new confirmation, or laying on of hands ; and so admit them.

Afterward, this came to be a rule, that "they that came to the Catholic Church from such sects as used not the right form of baptism [in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit] must be baptised at their admission : but they that in any sect had been baptised with those words should be adjudged to have already true baptism."19

§ 7. Yet the Paulianists were excepted from this general rule : though they, as Athanasius informs,20 used the said form of baptising, yet the council of Nice expressly decreed " that they must be baptised anew if they would come into the Catholic Church." 21 The reason seems to be that they, though using the same words, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet meant by them so different a thing (for they took the Son to be a mere man) that they were judged not to baptise into the same faith, nor in the name of the same God, that the Catholics and others did.

This shows the abhorrence that the Christians at that time had of an opinion that would now grow fashionable. And Photinus, a little after, in the time of Constantius, did no sooner make an attempt to revive this heresy, but that both the Catholics and Arians (though they could hardly agree in anything else) agreed in condemning him and his opinion: "which act of theirs," says Socrates the historian, "was approved of all men both at that present, and also in times following." 22 He means that all the most differing parties or opinions agreed that such a doctrine was abominable. And Theodoret, who lived at the same time with Socrates, having reckoned up in one book all the sects that had attributed to our Saviour no other nature than human, says in the last chapter thereof, " That they were at that time all extinct and forgotten ; so that the names of them were known to but few." 23 And so they have continued till of very late years : unless the modern abettors of them will plead that the succession of their doctrine has been preserved from the year 600 in the Churches of Mecca and Medina.

§ 8. It appears how conscious these men are that all antiquity is against them, by their setting themselves so bitterly against it. There is no sect of men now in the world that do use such endeavours, and some of them very unfair ones, to bring all the ancient Christians and

19 Basil, de Spiritu Sancto, c. i. w Orat. 3, contra Arianos. 21 Can. xix.

22 Lib. ii. c. xxiv. 23 Hreret. Fab., lib. ii.

7 8 The History of Infant Baptism.

their writings into a general disrepute. They employ and encourage some persons to read the Fathers only to weed and cull out of them some sayings which, taken by themselves, may be represented either ridiculous, insipid, or heterodox. They also collect out of history all the faults or miscarriages, that any ancient writer has been charged with : and making a bundle of this stuff, part true, part false, they present it to their proselytes, and even to the world, as the Life of such a Father, or as a specimen of such a Father's works. They give a great many reasons why it is not worth the while to read, study, or translate the discourses of these ancients : that time is much better spent in reading the modern criticisms upon the text of Scripture, which do often give the sense thereof such a turn, as to make our religion to be a very different thing from that which has been all along the religion of Christians. If they can gain this point to alienate people from any regard to the doctrine and faith of the primitive times, they make a good step, not only for their own turn to overthrow the doctrine of the Trinity, but also for the advantage of their next successors, the Deists, who can with a much better grace argue against a religion that has been altered in its most fundamental points, than against one that has continued the same since the time that it was once delivered to the saints.

But among all the reproaches cast on the Fathers there is none so scandalous and destructive of the credit both of the Fathers and of Christianity itself, as is one that they have lately set abroad, viz., that the Doctrine of the Trinity, or of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in whom we believe, and in whose name we are baptised, is (as it is under stood, explained, and held by the said Fathers) a doctrine of Tritheism, or of believing in three Gods. I may repeat their sayings, for they are industriously handed about in the English tongue. One of them says thus :

" They [the Fathers] thought the three Hypostases [or persons in the Trinity] to be three equal Gods, as we should now express it." 24 And again, "Not to recur to the Fathers, whose opinion was quite different from that which is now received : as who, properly speaking, affirmed that there were three consubstantial Gods, as has been shown by Petavius, Curcellseus, Cudworth, and others."25 And again, "Who, to speak the truth, were Tritheists rather than asserters of the present opinion ; for they believed the unity of substance, not the singularity of number, as Tertullian speaks : That is, that the substance of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was specifically one, but numerically three. As the learned men I before mentioned have clearly shown, and might more largely be demonstrated."

This spittle of an outlandish author our English Socinians greedily

1 Supplement to Dr Hammond's Annot. on i John 5, 6. - M Ibid. Preface.

The Fathers no TritheistS. 79

licked up. And to anything that was offered out of the Fathers they have in their late books opposed this ; 2G that " the Fathers held only a specifical unity of the divine nature, and the persons to be as so many individuals." This they repeat often, and refer to Curcellaeus's un deniable proofs of it. Of which Bishop Stillingfleet, taking notice, did in his " Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity," ch. 6, answer and refute, particularly all the instances brought by Curcellaeus, in a large discourse, from page 76 to page 100, bringing, as he expresses it himself, undeniable proofs that Curcell?eus had mistaken their meaning.

§ 9. Notwithstanding this, what does the foresaid author do, but three years after the publication of Stillingfleet's book, writing some "Critical Epistles," load them with the same slanders repeated, without taking any notice that they had been answered? Saying, "That the Nicene Fathers thought the Divine nature is no otherwise one than specifically, but that it is in number threefold. As Petavius, Curcel- Iseus, Cudworth, and others, have proved by such arguments as that there can nothing be said in answer to them." 27

In another of the said epistles28 he repeats the same slander, and would father it on some learned men in England. He says : " Learned men in England and elsewhere do not forbear to say openly that the Nicene Fathers believed three eternal and equal essences in God, and not one God in number." And having mentioned that several Protestant churches have received the Nicene Creed into their public confessions, he adds : "If then they will stand to this part of their confession, they must own that they believe three eternal natures, and renounce the numerical unity of God. Or if they will not do that, they must expunge that Article of their Confession in which they own the Nicene Faith."

And these letters he ventures to send into England, directed to bishops there, who he must needs think abominated such exorbitant sayings, and who could easily, if he had had the prudence to consult them first, have satisfied him that one of their brethren had long ago answered all those proofs of Curcellaeus with which he made such a noise ; Petavius's and Cudworth's instances being not so considerable nor so maliciously urged.

Our Church is not wont to take such affronts and continue silent under them, unless when the party is accounted of so little credit as to be not worth the answering. The learned men therein (and especially the most learned person against whom these epistles were directed) would probably have spent some pains to vindicate the Church of Christ from so foul a slander, but that they thought the falsehood of this imputation on the Fathers had been already sufficiently shown.

26 " Defence of Hist, of Unitarians," p. 5. Answer to La Moth. Letter to Universit. , p. 13.

-7 Epist. iii., ad Episcop. Sarisb., p. 108. -8 Epist. v., ncl Episcop. Vigorn, p. 177.

8o The History of Infant Baptism.

Here I did in the first edition take notice that some passages written a great while ago by a Right Reverend Bishop (of which others also had taken notice before), did seem to incline to this opinion of M. le Clerc concerning the Fathers, of which I have no more to say than what I have said in the preface of this second edition.

§ 10. M. Le Clerc brings some pretended proofs of the Tritheism of the ancients of his own collection, of which Bishop Stillingfleet took no notice, they being not in Curcellaeus. They are sayings, or pieces of sayings, of the Fathers, so partially picked out and unfairly represented, that at that rate one might abuse and misrepresent any writer, even the Scripture itself. He mentions in the words before recited a scrap of a sentence of Tertullian in his book against Praxeas, c. xxv. The whole sentence runs thus : " Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto tres efficit, cohserentes alterum ex altero ; qui tres unum sunt, non unus : Quomodo dictum est, Ego and Pater unum sumus : Ad substantial unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem." "Thus the connexion of the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Holy Spirit, makes that there are Three that cohere in one another ; which Three are Unum, One Sub stance, not Unus, One Person : as it is said, ' I and the Father are Unum, One Substance ' : to denote the unity of substance, not the singularity of number. That is (as M. Le Clerc says), the substance of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is specifically one, but numerically three." But that ,is (as anyone else will say), to denote the unity of substance, not the singularity of number of the persons : or, that the persons are not numerically one, though the substance is. For it is to be noted, that this book was written against that error of Praxeas, whereby he taught that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person : to confirm which he brought that place of Scripture, " I and the Father are One." Tertullian tells him, our Saviour's word there is unum, which denotes one substance; not unus, which would have denoted one person.

And though the design of the book be, as I said, to maintain that side of the question, that there are in some sense three in the Godhead (as Praxeas had maintained the contrary, carrying the arguments for the unity farther than he ought), yet even in this book there are more than twenty passages in which Tertullian aims to express as well as he can (for they had not then so determinate a use of words) a numerical unity of the substance, or essence. Particularly this passage : —

"Igitur unus Deus Pater, et alius absque eo non est: quod ipse

inferens non Filium negat, sed alium Deum : C^terum alius a patre

ihus non est. Atqui si nominasset ilium, separasset, ita dicens ; alius

pneter me non est nisi Filius meus. Alium enim Filium fecisset, quern

e alus excepisset. Puta solem dicere; Ego Sol et alius prater me

he Numerical Unity of Essence in the Trinity. 81

non est, nisi radius meus. Nonne denotasses vanitatem, quasi non et radius in sole deputetur ? " 29

' So there is one God the Father, and there is no other beside Him : which He affirming does not exclude His Son, but any other god ; and the Son is not another from the Father. It would have been to separate [or distinguish] Him, if He had named Him, and had said, " There is no other beside Me, except My Son." It had been to make His Son another, whom He had excepted out of those that are others. Suppose the sun should say, "I am the sun, and there is no other beside me, except my light [or ray]," would you not judge it absurd ? As if the light were not counted to the sun itself? '

To mention one passage more of the said book (chap. 29), where he is answering the argument of Praxeas, who had said, that since the essence [or substance] of the Father and the Son is one and the same, the Son could not suffer but the Father must suffer too. And where Tertullian, if he had thought the essence of the Son to be only specifically the same with that of the Father, and not numerically, could not have forborne to answer so. But he answers thus : that the divine nature did not suffer at all : but if it had, that argument would not have concluded, " Nam et fluvius, si aliqua turbulentia contaminatur ; quanquam una substantia de fonte decurrat nee secernatur a fonte : tamen fluvii injuria non pertinebit ad fontem. Et licet aqua fontis sit quas patiatur in fluvio : dum non in fonte patitur sed in fluvio ; non fons patitur, sed fluvius qui ex fonte est. Ita etsi spiritus Dei quid pad posset in Filio : quia tamen non in Patre pateretur; sed in Filio ; Pater passus non videretur. Sed sufficit nihil spiritum Dei passum suo nomine."

' For if a stream be puddled with any disturbance : though it be the same substance that runs from the spring, and be not distinct from the spring, yet the hurt of the stream will not affect the spring. And though it be the water of the spring which suffers in the stream ; yet so long as it suffers in the stream, and not in the spring, the spring does not suffer, but the stream which is derived from the spring. So though the Spirit [or Deity] of God suffer anything in the Son, yet so long as it suffered not in the Father, but the Son, the Father would not be said to suffer. But it is sufficient [to take off your argument] that the Divinity suffered not at all in its own nature.'

If he had thought the essence to be only specifically the same, he would not have gone so far for an answer ; the aim thereof is to show, that though it be numerically the same in both persons, yet something might be said of one of them which could not be said of the other.

But in other books the same writer affirms the numerical unity of essence more plainly and in the terms of the question, though not then in common use. For in his Apology ', ch. 21, he says, that the Xo'yoc; is " de Spiritu Spiritus, et de Deo Deus : modulo alter, non numero."

-3 Ch. xviii.

82 The History of Infant Baptism.

'Spirit of Spirit, and God of God: another in mode, but not in number.' The same expression of modulo alius ab alio is also in the book against Praxeas, ch. ix., and to the same purpose, ch. xiv.

It is therefore plain that Tertullian thought that in some sense the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are numerically one : which must be in respect of the substance ; for as for the persons, the design of his whole book against Praxeas is to maintain that they are three in number.

§ n. M. Le Clerc does also endeavour to make his advantage of Gregory Nazianzen, with whom Curcellseus had not meddled. He pre tended to write the Life of this Father.30 One may easily see through his pretended reasons for it, and perceive that the design was to repre sent him as a Tritheist : there are so many sayings of his wrested, and some false translated for that purpose. It is true, that Gregory in those voluminous disputations of his against the Arians and Sabellians, having no adversaries of the tritheistical opinion, and not fearing to be himself suspected of it, has some expressions in his arguments and explications unguarded on that side : yet so as that he still speaks with abhorrence of the belief of three Gods. And it is a known rule of charity that no consequences drawn from an author's expressions are to fix on him an opinion contrary to his own express declaration ; but that what he says at one or two places seeming to favour any opinion must be explained by others, if he have any other that are plain, full, and purposely written to the contrary.

What M. Le Clerc had produced from this Father was not answered (which can no way so well be done as by translating his works entire, a thing useful if the modern readers of books had so much regard to antiquity as they ought ; but such a regard is much lessened by such lives) and therefore he concluded in another piece, that " Gregory was undoubtedly of that opinion. The thing is so clear that it cannot be questioned by those that have considered it." 31 He mentions also in the Critical Epistles I spoke of before, his performance in proving this upon Gregory. Yet of all the passages produced in that life to justify this accusation, this is the hardest: that he in a certain sermon32 being busy in showing the unfitness of all those examples of natural things which are commonly made use of to explain the Trinity, how they are all deficient and unapt in one respect or another ; says, " that He, as well as others, had thought of the vein of water that feeds the spring, the spring or pond itself, and the stream that issues from it. Whether the first of these might not be compared to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit. But he was afraid that by this similitude there would seem to be represented something numerically

'"' liihliot. T. 19. "I Supplement to Dr Hammond's Ann. Preface.

32 Oral. 37, de Spirttu Sancto.

Gregory Nazianzen. 83

one, for that the vein, the spring, and the stream are numerically one though diversely modified or represented."

This indeed plainly shows that Gregory was afraid of representing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as numerically one in some sense : but how ? As having an essence numerically one ? Not so : for he does in a hundred places show that to be his real meaning. But in the Sabellian sense, which taught the persons to be numerically one, or, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are several names of one person ; and con sequently that it may properly be said that the Father was incarnated, suffered, &c. He had the more reason to be cautious of saying any thing that might seem to favour that sense, because the Catholics were slandered by the Arians to hold that opinion.

The hundred places that I spoke of might be produced out of Gregory's works. But there happen to be enough in that very sermon, or oration, where there is this for one. He is there answering those that thought that from the confession of three persons in the Godhead would follow by consequence the doctrine of three Gods. He answers thus : that though there be three in whom the Godhead is, yet there is in them three but one Godhead, t7g o &sos, ou pia QsoTq^ and again : aij,spiffro$ h {AS{tspia/j,!vot$ q (dsorris. But then he brings in an exception which they made against this answer of his.

Obj. — "But they will say that the heathens (such of them as had the most advanced philosophy) held that there is but one Godhead. And also in the case of men, all mankind has but one common nature. And yet the heathen had many Gods, not one only, and also there are many men.

This objection comes home to the point. And here it is that Gregory must declare whether he hold a specific or a numerical Unity. There fore observe how he answers. To the case of the heathen gods he makes a separate answer, that concerns not this question. But to that of mankind having one common nature, and yet being many men, he answers thus :

Sol. — " But here [viz., in the case of men] the several men have no other unity than what is made by the conception of our mind, TO lv l-/tt fj,6vov emvoiq, 6mpv\Tov. He goes on a while to show that men do in reality differ from one another : and answers to the objection about the heathen gods : and then adds, " TO ds rt^Tspov ou TOIOVTOV, ovfri TU laxojft, <pri<siv 6 t/J,bg dtcikoyog" *AXXd TO ev sK&aTOV UVTU auyx'siusvov ov-£ r/TTOV rj Kpig taurb: TUI TO.UTW TT\$ oiff/aj xai Trig But our Deity [or God] is not so : nor is the portion of Jacob like them as our Theolog [meaning Jeremy x. 16] says: ' But everyone of them [the persons of the Trinity] has an unity with the other no less than that which he has with himself, by reason of the identity of essence and power."

84 The History of Infant Baptism.

It is impossible anything should be fuller to the purpose than this. For the proper difference between a numerical and a specifical unity, is this, that a specifical unity is only by our conception : and the numer ical unity is the only real unity. In the several men that differ in age, in shape, &c., there is something alike — viz., the essence or nature of man. This our mind abstracts from the rest, and conceives it as one in them all But this common nature so abstracted from the individuals subsists only in our mind : and in reality every man has his own essence distinct in number from the rest : and if all other men were destroyed, he would have his own essence just as he has it now. And that which Gregory answers is : that several men have no other unity or sameness than what is by the conception of our mind, i.e., no other than a speci fical unity. But each of the three — viz., Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has an unity with the other as much as with himself, by identity [or sameness] of essence and of power, which must be a numerical one.

M. Le Clerc does indeed recite some of this answer, but in such a fashion as shows he had a mind to mar it in the reciting. And the like he does in several other passages of Gregory. In the forementioned comparison of the three persons to the vein, the pond, and the stream ; because the Greek word used by Gregory for the vein, is o<pQct\fj.l;, he translates it, / oeil, an eye. Who ever went about to repre sent the Trinity by an eye, a fountain, and a stream ? So great a critic should not have been ignorant that it signifies there (as Elias Cretensis in his comments on the place had noted) the vein that feeds the pond, or the hole or opening of that vein into the pond. And this yet is not so absurd, as where a little after the same words are translated, " an eye, a fountain, and the sun." There are a great many other places in that Life where Gregory is made, by curtailing or altering his words, to speak nonsense : and I wish the main design of it were not to make him speak something that is by many degrees worse. For to hold three Gods is not to be a Christian, nor any worshipper of Jehovah, but a Pagan.

The very same oration furnishes us with several more proofs of the contrary. A little after the fore-mentioned passage he quotes and approves of a rule of Christian worship given by his namesake, Gregory Thaumaturgus (or else by St Basil, for the words are ambiguous), «/3t« &fov rlv Uarspa, Qslv rba vibv, Qslv TO nviufj.a ciyiov : rpt% idi6rr,rag, ®s6rr,ra. /j.iav. « That we are to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit : three properties, one divinity."

And at another place in the same oration, " The Three are one in the Godhead [or essence], and the one three in properties [or persons], that there may be neither one in the Sabellian sense, nor three in that wicked sense now set up, viz., the Arian."

I desire the reader to compare the account of this oration or sermon, which he will conceive by these passages, with the account given by M.

Heresies about the Trinity. 85

Le Clerc of the same oration : and if he doubt which is the truest, to read the oration itself, and some other of the same Father's works, and so pass his judgment. This may be sooner done than to read the squabbles pro and contra about them. And indeed, if people would choose to read the Fathers and ancient writers themselves, rather than the scraps and quotations out of them, it were the only way to defeat the purpose of those that would defeat us of that strength and corroboration of the Christian religion which accrues by the constant succession of its fundamental doctrines in all ages.

I will mention but one passage more of Gregory, and that out of his oration concerning baptism,33 out of which I recited before what pro perly concerns baptism : but he there speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in whose name they were to be baptised, explains their way of subsisting in the Godhead, so as anyone will perceive he means a numerical unity of the essence. Always provided that we make allow ance for this, that they had not, as I said, any such settled use of words of a determinate meaning, specificcd, numerical, &c., as we use now, but expressed their sense by paraphrasing as well as they could. But you will see that he means that though they are in some sense three, yet that their essence, or nature, is one, and that numerically one : not three natures or essences all alike (as three men have), but one in number.

" They are each of them God as considered singly, viz., the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each having his property : but the three together are God when considered conjunctly. The first of which say ings is true because of the consubstantiality, the other because of the monarchy [or unity]. I no sooner go to think of one, but I am in my mind surrounded with the three shining round about me. I no sooner go to think distinctly of the three, but I am carried back to the unity [or to consider them as one]. When I am thinking of one of the three, I conceive him as the whole, and my mind has no room for anything else : I find myself unable to comprehend the greatness of him, so as to leave anything for the other. When I think of the three together, I see them as one lamp whose compacted light cannot be divided or measured."

§ 12. People's meaning about a doctrine is never better perceived than by observing in some dispute about it, how and with what reasons one side attacks, and how the other answers. Let us therefore observe in some heresies that were about the doctrine of the Trinity what argu ments the sectaries used, and which way the Churchmen answered. It will appear that the doctrine of the Church was such an unity of essence in the divine persons as we call numerical.

I shall mention one heresy before the Council of Nice, and one after it, because the pretence is for the time of that Council, and for some

33 Orat. 40.

86 The History of Infant Baptism.

time before and after it, that the Christians held the persons in the Trinity to be so many different beings, and to be one in essence no otherwise than as three men have the same common nature among them. If this were true, then farewell Fathers and the Church of Christ for all that time. For this would never justify them from an imputation of Tritheism. But the contrary, God be thanked, has been fully shown both by Bishop Stillingfleet, as I said, and by many other learned men, and needs no showing to any one that will read the books themselves.

i. The first notable heresy that rose about the doctrine of the Trinity was that of Praxeas, against which Tertullian wrote the book we spoke of : and it was after his time carried on by Noetus and Sabellius, from the year 200 to 260 : after which time the men of that sect were called Sabellians. They held that there is but one Person in the Godhead, as I said. And this they pretended not to be any new doctrine set up by them (for they and all people at that time owned this for a certain rule, as it undoubtedly is, that whatsoever is new in the fundamentals of reli gion is false), but they maintained stiffly that it was the very sense of the Christian Church before them. Now I say, that these men could never have so far mistaken the Church's sense as to assert one Person in number, unless the general doctrine had owned that there is but one essence in number. For if the Church had held, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had each a distinct numerical essence, as three men have, the Sabellians could never have run into that mistake of the Church's meaning as to think it to be that there is but one person, and consequently that the Father suffered, which they did, and were there fore called Patripassians. And on the other side, the Church would have had no difficulty in answering the objections of the Sabellians, who argued that since there is but one God, there can be but one Person in the Godhead. For if the Church had held as before that the three Persons have only the same specific or common essence, and not the same numerical essence, it had been no more a mystery that the Son should take flesh and the Father not, than it is that of three men that have all the same common nature of man one should do or suffer any thing and the other not. And they could not have avoided answering so. Whereas on the contrary the Fathers find it a very operose and difficult thing to answer the objections of those men (witness Tertullian's book against Praxeas), and do always fly to the incomprehensible nature of the divine essence.

And when the Arian disputes arose, the Catholics that maintained the clause of one substance were constantly by the Arians reproached with Sabellianism, i.e., of holding but one person in number ; which could not have been but that they explained themselves so as to show that they meant but one substance in number. This was the first and

Philoponus the first Tritheist. 87

main ground of Arius's falling off from the Church. For so Socrates relates the matter :

" Alexander the bishop, sitting on a time with his presbyters and other clergy, discoursed something nicely of the Holy Trinity, how there is in the Trinity (tow;, a unity [or singularity]. But Arms, one of the presby ters of his Church, a man not unskilful in logical quirks, thinking that the bishop did set up the doctrine of Sabellius, did himself out of con tention set up the directly opposite extreme to that of that Libyan."34

And a little after that the Council of Nice had inserted into the Creed that phrase, that the Son is opoo-jaio:, co-essential [or, of one substance] with the Father; the same historian tells how there were great con tests about the import of that word. And he says : " They that dis liked that word thought that the approvers of it did set up the opinion of Sabellius, and so called them blasphemers, as if they had gone about to take away Z--ap ?tv the subsistence [or, distinct personality] of the Son of God. And they, on the contrary, that approved that term, reckoned that their opposers brought in polytheism [or, several Gods]." K

This plainly shows that the Catholics who owned the word jtfMoutfuc explained themselves so as to mean one substance in number. For else the accusations ought to have run quite contrary, and not the deniers of that phrase ; but the approvers of it would have been accused of polytheism or tritheism, as they are now by these men. But they were then upbraided with Sabellianism, the direct contrary extreme ; and the defenders of the Nicene Creed against the Arians do take most pains in vindicating themselves from that imputation, which could have had no appearance if they had not been understood to hold one substance in number.

This made them to be accused of taking away the substance [or dis tinct personality] of the Son of God, because they teaching that there is in the Trinity but one substance in all, and the others extending what they said of ouff/a, substance, to :J--ap^i:, subsistence, concluded that they thereby made but one subsistence in all, and so the Son could have none. Whereas if they had meant, as these late slanderers represent their meaning, three substances in number, or anything that would have amounted to what that foul mouth calls three consubstantial Gods,63 they would have been so far from taking away his 'vrap%,$} that they had given him a distinct ouff/a, essence or divinity, and had made him a distinct God from God the Father.

If there were time to enter into any of the particulars of the history of the men of that time, such as Eustathius, Meletius, &:c, and other chief defenders of the Nicene faith, that would plainly show the falsehood of this accusation. For if this accusation were true, these men would have been by the Arians hated and deposed under any pretence sooner w Hist. 1. I, c. 5. K L. I, c. 25. * Above at § S.

88 The History of Infant Baptism.

than that of Sabellianism, which, as Socrates 37 and Theodoret 38 tell us was the chief pretence against them.

2. Now to come to some later times, and the heresies then arising. We shall see how directly contrary to history that opinion is that pre tends that it was after the fifth century that the doctrine of one individual essence was received. For it places the beginning of the Catholic religion in opposition to tritheism just at the time when tritheism in opposition to the true religion was first of all vented. For Joann. Philoponus in the sixth century was the first man of all that owned the Son and Holy Spirit to be God, that ever offered to deny the doctrine of one individual essence in the Godhead, and to affirm that each person in the Trinity had his own essence or substance distinct, and so that there were three substances or natures in number as well as three persons.

The quotations concerning him, and concerning his being condemned for this doctrine might be easily produced, being a piece of history so well known and uncontroverted. It is only to spare time (having too far digressed already) that I desire the reader to take the account of his heresy in the words of the learned Dr Cave,39 who giving a short account of him (as he does of all other writers), relates the ordinary history concerning him thus : " He vented several doctrines contrary to the faith. Having taken for granted from Aristottts Philosophy, of which he had been a great student, that Hypostasis is the same with Natura, he thence concluded that there is but one nature in Christ, and rejected the council of Chalcedon. And afterward, when the Catholics objected to him that there are in the Trinity three Hypostases, and yet but one Nature, to get clear of that objection, he ventured to maintain that there are three natures or substances in the Trinity : yet still positively denying that there are three Gods, or Deities. He was for this reason accounted, and is to this day accounted the author and ringleader of the sect of the Tritheists."

The Socinians themselves, when they think it for their purpose, do instance in the condemnation of this man ; saying of an opinion which they would represent the same as this, that " it was condemned by the ancients in the person of Philoponus : and in the middle ages, in the person or writings of Abbot Joachim," &c.40 And can there be anything fouler than to impute to the ancients an opinion which they condemned as soon as they heard it vented ? Would they have condemned him for expressing that which was their own meaning ?

All that has any appearance of truth in this accusation of the Fathers, is this ; First, that they being used to a style that is fitter for an honest

» L. 2, c. 9, de Eustathio. ^ L. 2, c. 31 de Meletio.

Hist. Literaria Part I. verb Joann. Philoponus. Considerations on the Explication of the Trinity, p. 12.

Socinians vilify the Fathers. 89

plain man to signify his meaning, than for a logician to hold a dispute in, and yet being forced to speak much of the Trinity, do many times express themselves so, and use such comparisons, paraphrases, &c., as a captious man may take his advantage of, if he will single out some particular places : and, secondly, that their disputes being against Arians, Eunomians, &c., who not only denied the numerical unity, but even the specifical unity or equality of essence in the Trinity, do sometimes use such arguments as prove a specifical unity ; not that that was all they would have, but to overthrow one error first. And on this head they sometimes use the instance of three men being bpoovaoi " of one sub stance : " such is that place of Gregory Nyssen which Curcellseus urges, and Bishop Stillingfleet confesses to be the hardest place in all antiquity. But in such places their aim is to argue thus ; if three men, though differing as three individuals, yet having all the same sort of essence, are in some sense styled "of one substance with one another," how much more may the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be so styled, who do not differ as three men, but have an essence that is ar^rog, a^spiaTos, "unparted, undistinguished;" and that is ay^pteruc, xa,} adtaiperug, "in separably and indivisibly " one and the same in them all ? They used these last words to express that which we now express by numerically one, or one in number. And they thought these words did it more effectually ; because a thing may be one in number (as there is but one world in number), and yet not uncompounded, indivisible, &c., as God's essence is. In a word, to say that they sometimes used the instances of a specific unity, is true : but to say that they pleaded for no more than that in the Trinity, is false.

§ 13. These answers and defences are necessary only in the case of those Fathers whose style is more loose and Asiatic, and so their words more capable of being perverted from their true meaning. But other Fathers, as St Austin, St Hierom, St Ambrose, &c., who lived at the same time and held the same faith and communion, being brought up to some use of logic, have placed their words concerning the numerical unity so, as that no file or tooth can touch them. This Bishop Stilling fleet has shown of St Austin : and it is proved incontestably by these words of his L. vii. de Trinitate, c. iv. "If the word essence were a specific name common to the Three, why might there not be said to be three essences ; as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are three men, the word man being a specific name common to all men ? " And a little after ; Quia hoc illi est Deum esse, quod est esse, tarn tres essentias quam tres Deos did fas non est. " Since with him it is the same thing to be God as it is to be ; we must no more say three essences [or Beings] than three Gods." St Hierom cannot well speak more home than he does in the place I quoted on another occasion, " If any one by Hypostasis meaning Essence, does not confess that there is but one Hypostasis in

90 The History of Infant Baptism. .

three persons, he is estranged from Christ." 41 And St Ambrose argues, " How can the Unity of the Godhead admit of plurality, when plurality is of number, and the Divine Nature admits not of number ? " 42 There would be no end of repeating the sayings of these and other Fathers that are full and home to this purpose.

§ 14. What then can be done with these Fathers? They are point blank against the Socinians ; and they cannot be made Tritheists, but must be owned to be Unitarians in respect of God's essence. They must be blackened some other way. As for St Hierom, he is proud, unconstant, &c.,-and the rest have other faults. What shall be said of St Austin, whose piety, humility, and caution in writing has obtained a great repute? Set M. Le Clerc upon him ; he'll prove him to be "one that has promoted some two doctrines which have taken away all good ness and justice both from God and men," 43 and will find a way to lay the odium of that tyranny with which the French king persecutes his Protestant subjects at his door. Upon what grounds? Because he held the doctrine of predestination an inextricable point in which good men in all ages have differed : and because he was convinced by the unquiet and contentious humour of the Donatists and Circumcellians, and by the good effect which the emperor's edicts afterward had upon them, that moderate penalties inflicted on turbulent schismatics are useful.

It is not only the Christians at the time of the council of Nice, and near before or after it, that have incurred the displeasure of these men by their branding the Paulianists in the manner I mentioned : it is all the ancients of whom we have any remains. Socrates44 tells how Sabinus, a writer of the Macedonian sect (these were akin to the Paulianists), found it for his purpose to cast dirt on the Fathers of the Nicene Council, making them a pack of ignorant and silly men. Yet he left a handle whereby himself might be refuted : for he had acknow ledged (as he durst not deny) that Eusebius was a man of great judg ment and learning. Socrates, by producing Eusebius's testimony45 in commendation of the rest, rebukes the falsehood of that slanderer. But these have taken a more effectual course : they have put them all into the indictment, not leaving us one by whose evidence we might retrieve the credit of the rest. The reason is, they can find never a Paulianist among them.

The Apostles chose the best men they could find to succeed them in the ministry ; such as Timothy, Titus, Polycarp, &c. They also gave them this charge, " The things which you have heard of us before many witnesses, the same commit you to faithful men, who may be fit

41 Ch. iii. Sect. 10. § i.

42 Lib. iii. de Spiritu Sancto. ch. xiv.

'Supplement to Dr Hammond's Annot., Preface. « L i c viii

44 De vita Constant. 1. iii. c. ix.

The Mischief to Religion by vilifying the Primitive Church. 9!

to teach others also."40 They knew how much it concerned the good of the Church and the credibility of the doctrine in future times, to have it handed down by faithful, prudent, and judicious men. We have all the reason in the world to believe (unless the contrary could be proved) that this charge was obeyed by their deputies ; and that the succession was for the first ages generally carried on in good hands. This race of men would persuade us the contrary : for they spare not any that are left of those that were nigh the Apostles. Take Irenseus for example. He received the doctrine from Polycarp, who was chosen by St John. He has left some books against the heresies that were then, and some other pieces. These were much valued by the men of the next ages. They call him the mauler of heresies and false doctrines, a skilful con veyer of the history and traditions of the Church. We pick out of his works the completest catalogue by far of the books of the New Testa ment of any that is so ancient. Yet in so large writings he has here and there (as it happens to a man) some sayings and sentences of small force or weight ; some particular observations of little moment, some arguings weak, and some mistaken. These they cull out, would have us judge of the whole garden by these flowers ; that they may represent the man a silly and credulous fop, and his works not worth the pains of reading.

Next to the undervaluing the authority of , the Scripture, there is no so mischievous way to undermine the Christian religion, as thus to vilify the ancient professors of it. For it is they that have handed down the Scripture and the interpretation and confirmation thereof to us. It is from them that we know which books are canonical, or were truly the writings of such or such an Apostle. One of the assurances that we have that the miracles recorded were really wrought, is, that they who lived so near the time that they might easily inquire, did believe and were really convinced of the matter of fact. And the more injudicious they are represented to be, the weaker that argument is. Therefore though we know them to be but men, and liable to mistakes, yet it is an unnatural impiety to make it one's business to represent them worse than they are.

But as their credit has held now so many hundred years in all the Christian world, when all the books of those that have nibbled at them have been slighted and forgotten : so the attempts made by these men are too void of strength and truth to give us any reason to fear that they should overthrow it. It is a poor piece of spite to set one's self to be revenged on the credit of men dead 1300 or 1500 years since, because their words will not be brought to favour some alteration of the Christian faith that we would set up. And it is also an impious thing to be so far in love with such an alteration as to go about to build it upon the ruins of the credit of Christianity in general. For what an

46 2 Tim. ii. 2.

92 Ttte History of Infant Baptism.

ill face does this put upon the Christian faith to maintain that it has been conveyed down to us by a Church made up of silly and credulous men, and such as believed there were three Gods ?

§ 15. After I had finished this chapter, there came over another book from Holland, written by the same spiteful enemy of the Fathers, whose cavils against them I have been here answering : where he brings in St Austin also among the Tritheists. He could not have taken a more effectual course to hinder anybody from believing his slanders of the other Fathers. He calls his book Bibliotheque Choisie, intending it for a continuation of his Bibliotheque Universelle. And himself he styles here " John Phereponus," that is, one that takes a great deal of pains to do mischief.

First, he labours by all ways to vilify St Austin, as one that was no such linguist as Phereponus is : " He understood (he says, p. 406) v neither Greek nor Hebrew. He was not fit to expound the Scripture. His reasonings popular, such as might please the Numidians and other Africans, who were of all nations the most ignorant and most corrupt." This he says, though he knew that St Austin was, not only for his preachings but writings, the most celebrated bishop (as St Hierom says) not only in Africa, but in the whole world. But he says (p. 407), " The churchmen of this age were hardly any better in the other provinces of the Roman Empire." The question, whether one that understands not Hebrew nor Greek (which yet is not altogether true of St Austin) may not for all that be fit to expound the Scripture, we will let pass ; but this is certain, that one that does not believe the Divinity of our Saviour Christ, is not fit to write harmonies, annotations, or paraphrases on it, nor translations of it. And all that abhor that heresy, will be care ful how they read them.

He proceeds (p. 410) to say, without any proof there given, " That St Austin, as well as the other Fathers, has followed the doctrine of that time, which established a specific unity between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a distinction of the numerical essence ; so that, speak ing properly, they believed three essences perfectly equal and strictly united in will " (which very mention of three essences is what St Austin spoke of with abhorrence in the words I quoted just now). Then having mentioned a book written against himself by the Abbot Faydit, entitled, "A Defence of the Doctrine of the Fathers concerning the Trinity against the Tropolatres and Socinians ; " or, " The Two New Heresies of Steven Nye. and John le Clerc, Protestants." He answers, " That he holds no heresy ; he does not approve of the Tritheism of the Fathers," &c. And if it be said that the Fathers were not Tritheists, then he refers to the authors he uses to do, Petavius, Curcellseus, Cudworth (as if they had not been answered), and to the piece that I mentioned, The Life of Greg. Nazianzen, written by himself. Where does this man think

The Mischief to Religion by 'Vilifying the Primitive Church. 93

the Catholic Church was at that time ? For he not only makes the Fathers to be heretics (and Tritheists, which is indeed to be pagans), but calls it also " the doctrine of that time."

But to show us from how envenomed a spirit all this rises, and how he employs himself; he tells us (p. 409), that " he has found a way to make a comedy of five acts out of the stories of certain miracles done at Hippo, of which St Austin speaks in his three hundred and twenty-second sermon, and the following." Now the things there related by St Austin are (if not proper miracles in the modern sense of the word, yet) wonder ful and gracious providences of God, which the word miracula well enough signifies, and which all pious men think themselves bound to lay to heart and commemorate, though this man makes a mock of them. This adver tisement he gives, to see, I suppose,- whether this copy too will yield any money ; and whether, as he has found booksellers that would stand out at nothing, so he can find any players profane enough to act this his comedy. And if they be so inclined, it is pity but they should do it, that they may fill up the measure of their impiety, and that all Christian princes and states may follow the good examples of the French King in exter minating them, and of the King of Prussia in prohibiting his books.

§ 1 6. Since the first edition of this book, M. le Clerc does, in an encomium which he writes on Mr Lock, Bibl. Choisie. T. vi., own that he has seen Bishop Stillingfleet's Vindication of the Trinity. And after having passed a very slighting and contemptuous censure on what the bishop has there, and in some other pieces, written against Mr Lock's notions, and on the other side as much magnified his hero (the solidity of his doctrine, the exactness of his thought, &c.; whereas Bishop Stil- lingfleet understood neither his adversary's meaning, nor the matter itself, and was never used either to think or to speak with any great exactness. See the saucy arrogance of this critic) he pretends at last to be surprised to find there a confutation of Curcellseus's proofs of the Tritheism of the ancients. He had reason to be surprised, if he had not seen it before ; because he had, since the publication of it, cast vile reproaches on all the ancient Christians on the credit of those proofs, which he might see here all overthrown.

What does he do upon, this surprise? Does he pretend to show by any particulars that Curcellseus had not mistaken the sense of his own quotations, as the bishop pretended to show that he had ? Or, if he cannot do this, does he acknowledge his own slanders ? Neither of these. But instead of vindicating those quotations from being wrested, he throws in one more of his own to them, which is more apparently wrested than any of them. It is out of St Hilary de Synodis, " Which book," he says, " Mr Stillingfleet had not read very carefully, or else did not remember distinctly. For there is hardly any book from which one may more plainly prove that the orthodox of that time believed one

94 the History of Infant Baptism.

God in specie [i.e., as to the sort or kind of Gods], but three in number." Is not this horrid? Three Gods in number? Did ever any Christian own this ? Then he produces the passage.

It must be noted that St Hilary there, in disputing against the Arians, does labour to show that the term 6/xo6<r/oj, of one substance, is the most clear and the most significative of the Catholic's meaning ; but yet that the term o/io/ouff/of, of like substance, as also the term, of equal substance, may be borne with and admitted as being capable of being explained in an orthodox sense, and as being so explained and used by many Catholic writers, viz., that "in divinis," 'likeness' or 'equality,' are all one with identity or sameness. Speaking thus : " Si ergo [Pater] naturam neque aliam neque dissimilem, ei quern invisibiliter [1. indivisibiliter] generabat, dedit ; non potest aliam dedisse nisi propriam. Ita similitudo proprietas est, proprietas aequalitas est," 47 &c. ' If then He [God the Father] gave [or, communicated] to him whom He, without any division, begot, a nature which is not another nor unlike ; it must be so that he gave him no other than his own. So likeness and sameness [or, ownness] and equality are all one.' And then a few words after comes the passage at which M. le Clerc carps: "Caret igitur, fratres, similitudo naturae con- tumeliae suspicione : nee potest videri Filius idcirco in proprietate Paternae naturae non esse, quia similis est : cum similitudo nulla sit nisi ex aequalitate naturae ; aequalitas autem naturae non potest esse, nisi una sit; Una non Personae unitate, sed GENERIS." 'So that there is no need, brethren, that you should suspect this phrase, likeness of nature, of any reproachful meaning : nor will the Son seem not to have the Father's own nature for that reason, because he is said to be like him. Whereas there is no likeness but by equality of nature ; and equality of nature cannot [in this case, speaking of divine nature] be, unless it be one. One, not by unity of person, but of GENUS.'

Whereas M. le Clerc observes here, that supposing the numerical unity of the divine essence, it is not proper to say, the nature of the son is like or equal to that of the father ; it is true, if St Hilary had not explained himself so, as by equality to mean identity. And whereas he observes that by the word genus, St Hilary shows his meaning to be of a generical or specified unity only ; this also would have some sense according to the ordinary use of the word genus. But St Hilary had declared in that very book in what sense he took the word : as at the beginning of the book, in these words : " But seeing I must often use the words essence and substance, we must know what essence signifies : lest we should use words and not know the meaning. Essence is that which a thing is, &rc. And it may be called the essence, or nature, or genus, or substance of anything." And a little after, " Whereas therefore we say that essence does signify the nature, or genus, or substance," &c.

47 Prope. finem.

The Rule of our Saviour ever understood of Baptism. 95

And constantly afterward he uses those words as synonymous. And accordingly Erasmus in the dedication of his edition of St Hilary's works had said : " Of the same essence, or as St Hilary often speaks, of the same genus or nature with the father, which the Greeks express lifto-jaibv" So that to say, " Unitate non personas sed Generis," is to say, " not one person, but one substance : " or as he himself expresses it in the page before, " Non persona Deus unus est sed natura." " God is not one in Person, but in Nature."

So unfair and pedantic a thing it is to catch hold of some single phrase or expression, whereby to account for an author's meaning through a whole book. The contrary appears by many passages in the book. Particularly by this. He as well as the other Fathers does often say that he that should preach that the Son as well as the Father, is unbegotten, and without any cause, fountain, origin, or principle [which the Greeks express ayzwqrov xaj avap^ov, ' unbegotten' and 'unofiginated,' or self-originated] would inevitably make two Gods. Or, "that God is one by virtue of the innascibility : " ' autoritate innascibilitatis Deus unus est.' Because though there are three Persons, yet one only of them is the fountain and origin of the Deity. Or, as Tertullian expresses it, " they are all One, inasmuch as all are of One, that is, as to unity of the substance." — Contra Prax, ch. ii.

Now he that speaks thus plainly denotes a numerical unity. For a specifical unity might as well or better be conceived between three co ordinate ayewrjra xat avap^a. But a numerical unity cannot be con ceived without conceiving the Father as the fountain of the Deity.

CHAPTER VI.

THE OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING THE FUTURE STATE OF INFANTS, OR OTHER PERSONS, THAT HAPPENED TO DIE UNBAPTISED.

§ i. HpHE account of their opinion in this matter will be best given -L in these particulars.

i. All the ancient Christians (without the exception of one man) do understand that rule of our Saviour (John iii. 5) : " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man [it is in the original lav py r!$, ' except a per son,' or ' except one '] be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," of baptism.

I had occasion in the first part to bring a great many instances of their sayings: where all that mention that text from Justin Martyr down to St Austin do so apply it : and many more might be brought. Neither did I ever see it otherwise applied in any ancient writer. I

96 The History of Injant Baptism.

believe Calvin was the first that ever denied this place to mean baptism.1 He gives another interpretation which he confesses to be new. This man did indeed write many things in defence of infant baptism. But he has done ten times more prejudice to that cause, by withdrawing (as far as in him lay) the strength of this text of Scripture (which the ancient Christians used as a chief ground of it) by that forced interpre tation of his, than he has done good to it by all his new hypotheses and arguments. What place of Scripture is more fit to produce for the satisfaction of some plain and ordinary man (who perhaps is not capable of apprehending the force of the consequences by which it is proved from other places) that he ought to have his child baptised, than this (especially if it were translated in English as it should be) where our Saviour says that no person shall come to heaven without it ? meaning, at least in God's ordinary way. It is true that Calvin does at other places determine this to be so, as I shall show presently at § 8. But his dictate is but a poor amends for the loss of a text of Scripture. Since his time those parties of the Protestants that have been the greatest admirers of him, have followed him in leaving out this place from among their proofs of infant baptism, and diverting the sense of it another way : which the antipaedobaptists observing, have taken their advantage, and do aim to shut off all the Protestant psedobaptists from it. They are apt now to face out any of them that makes any pretence to this text, as going against the general sense of Protestants. Mr Stennet, in his late answer to Mr Russen, page 73, having said that the " Custom of baptising infants seems to have taken its rise from the mis interpretation (as he calls it) of this text;" and having instanced in Chrysostom, Cyril, and Austin, as concluding from this place a necessity of baptism to salvation (and he might have added to them all the ancient Christians that ever spoke of this matter as producing this text, though not this only), he himself declares that he takes Calvin's inter pretation, of which he there gives a scheme, to be the truer — you may be sure. Immediately after which, that which only seemed before, he now terms to be certain. And he adds, " Those of the Romish Church do still build their infant baptism on the same principle." If that be true, then we may observe (by the way) that he takes afterward, ch. vi., a great deal of pains to no purpose, to prove that they pretend no Scripture ground at all, but only the authority of the Church. " But this principle," he says, "the Protestants have justly abandoned." If he mean the principle of an absolute impossibility of salvation for a child by mis chance dying unbaptised, as raised from this text, it is true. But if he mean the principle of an impossibility of salvation to be had according to God's ordinary rule and declaration, any other way than by baptism, I shall, by and by, show that not all the Protestants, if any, have aban- 1 Instit. 1. iv. ch xvi. § 25.

The Rule of our Saviour ever Understood of Baptism. 97

doned it. On the contrary, they, most of them, take this text in the sense that the Fathers did : only they judge that in determining of the future state of an infant so dying we are not to bind God to the means that He has bound us to, but may hope that for extraordinary cases and accidents He will make an allowance. As in the case of circumcision omitted, though the rule were as peremptory as this : " That soul shall be -cut off; " yet where His providence made it impracticable (as in those continual travels in the wilderness, &c.) He did not execute the penalty ; and yet in ordinary cases the rule stood firm.

But see what a triumph this antipsedobaptist raises upon the supposal that the Protestants have abandoned this principle, "And since," says he, " this foundation is by these last [the Protestants] allowed to be insufficient to bear the weight of infant baptism ; it might be worth a further inquiry whether it be founded on any solid foundation at all ; and if those who appear first to have used it, proceeded on so great a mistake, whether this custom ought not to be discontinued, as well as the basis on which it was originally laid ? "

The judicious Mr Hooker saw betimes the inconvenience as well as groundlessness of this new interpretation of Calvin's, which was then greedily embraced by Cartvvright and others, that they might with better face deny any necessity of that private baptism which had been ordered by the Church in cases of extremity ; and says on that account, " I hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of holy Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. To hide the general consent of antiquity agreeing in the literal interpretation, they cunningly affirm that certain have taken these words as meant of material water : when they know that of all the ancients there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise either expound or allege the place, than as implying external baptism. Shall that which has always received this and no other construction be now disguised with a toy of novelty ? — God will have the Sacrament used not only as a sign or token, what we receive, but also as an instrument or mean whereby we receive grace, &c. If Christ Himself who giveth salvation do require baptism, it is not for us that look for salvation to sound and examine Him whether unbaptised men may be saved : but seriously to do that which is required, and religiously to fear the danger which may grow by the want thereof," &c. — Eccl. PoL, 1. v. §§ 59, 60.

2. By those words, " the Kingdom of God," in this text, they do all of them understand (as anyone would naturally do) the Kingdom "of Glory hereafter in Heaven."

This is confessed by the right reverend author of the late Exposi tion of the Thirty-trine Articles of the Church of England, who goes about himself to affix another sense on those words, viz., that they here signify " the Church," or the " Dispensation of the Messiah." For,

ii. r>

9g The History of Infant Baptism.

speaking of the ancient times, he says : " The words of our Saviour to Nicodemus were expounded so as to import the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation : for it not being observed that the ' Dispensation of the Messiah' was meant by the 'Kingdom of God,' but it being taken to signify ' eternal glory,' that expression of our Saviour's was understood to import this, that no man should be saved unless he were baptised," 2 &c.

It must be granted that in some places of the New Testament by these words, " the Kingdom of God," is meant the Gospel state in this life. I gave an instance 3 before, where I think it is so taken. But it is far more often taken in the ordinary sense for the state of future glory. And that it should be so taken here, I crave leave to offer these reasons :

1. All the ancient expositors and other Fathers, both Greek and Latin, do, as I said, understand it so. The reader has seen a multitude of their sayings occasionally here brought, whereof not one is capable to be understood otherwise; and I believe none can be produced that is. Hermas, who set down in writing these words of our Saviour, or the substance of them, before St John himself did, takes it so. As appears by his speaking 4 of people entering this kingdom after their death. Tertullian5 paraphrases "cannot enter" by " non habet salutem," ' cannot be saved.' And so all the rest. Now it is hard to think that not one of the ancients should expound it right.

2. Mr Walker, who had consulted as much on the exposition of this text as any man, takes the antipaedobaptists for the first inventors of the new exposition ; and that it was invented by them to serve a turn. For so are his words : " God's spiritual kingdom on earth, or, visible Church, is all that the anabaptists will have these words to signify ; and that upon this design, because they would by this distinction avoid the force of the argument hence," &c.6

3. As he there observes, this text explains itself: for the expression being redoubled by our Saviour, in v. 3, and again in v. 5, it is in v. 3, " He cannot see the Kingdom of God." And St Austin long ago made this observation, " What he had said, he cannot see, he explained by saying, ' he cannot enter into.' " 7 Now for the Church here ; one that is not baptised may see it. It is therefore plainly meant of the kingdom of glory.

4. It is not likely that our Saviour should in His discourse with Nicodemus introduce a sentence in so solemn a way of speaking, as to premise twice over to it these words : " Verily, verily, I say unto thee," and yet at last the sentence should come to little more than this :

3 Art. 27. 3 Pt. It ch xix § 2I

* See Part I. ch. 5. § 2. 5 Ib. ch. iv. § 3.

• Modest Plea, c. xii. § 8. 7 Lib. 3, de anima et ejus origine, c. xi.

The Antipcedobaptists* Explication of John Hi, 3, 5- 99

hat without baptism one cannot be baptised. For to be baptised, and to be entered into the Church, are terms much about equivalent.

Neither does it appear what the antipaedobaptists gain by this interpretation of theirs, if it were consistent : since the only way, at least the only known and ordinary way, to the kingdom of glory, is by being of Christ's Church, or, under the dispensation of the Messiah. , As for the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation, which the learned bishop whom I mentioned says these words were anciently expounded to import, I am going presently to recite the sense of the ancients particularly, how far they expounded them so, and how far not.

St Austin is of opinion, that had it not been for this sentence of our Saviour, the Pelagians, when they were so hard pressed with the arguments taken from the baptism of infants, would have determined that infants were not to be baptised at all.

The Church of England, together with the whole ancient Church, does apply and make use of this text as a ground of baptising infants, beginning the office for it thus : " Forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ says, ' None can enter into the Kingdom of God except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost,'" &c. ; and afterwards, "Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate," &c. And they do in all the three offices of baptism, as soon as the party is baptised, whether he be infant or one of riper years, give thanks that he is regenerated, and grafted into the body of Chris -fs Church.

And whereas some people have expressed a wonder at St Austin, that he should hold, "that all that are baptised are also regenerate ;" no man living can read him without perceiving that he uses the word regenerate as another word for baptised, and that this with him would have been an identical proposition : as if one should say nowa days : " All that are baptised are christened." If some of late days have put a new sense on the word regenerate, how can St Austin help that? And the Church of England uses the word -in the old sense.

Many of the late defenders of infant baptism have, as I said, left out this place from among the proofs that they bring from Scripture for it ; but for what reason, it is hard to imagine.

If they fear that from hence will follow a ground of absolute despair for any new convert for himself, and for any parent in respect of his child dying before he can be baptised, is it not natural to admit of the same smsixsia, and allowance in these words as we do and must do in many other rules of Holy Scripture, namely, to understand them thus : that this is God's ordinary rule, or the ordinary condition of salva tion ; but that in extraordinary cases (where His providence cuts off all 8 L. i. de peccat. merit, c. xxx. D 2

I00 The History of Infant Baptism.

our opportunity of using it) He has also extraordinary mercy to save without it. The ancients, as I shall show, did hope, and even con clude so, in case of a convert believing ; and many in the following ages of an infant.

If the objection be that it is not easy to conceive how an infant can be born or regenerate of the Spirit (which is mentioned in the text as well as of water) since he is not capable of any operations of the Spirit on his will, &c. It is not only owned by all other Christians that the Holy Spirit, besides His office of converting the heart, does seal and apply pardon of sin, and other promises of the covenant ; but also by the antipredobaptists, that the Spirit of Christ is given or applied to infants. So says Mr Danvers, "That they are capable of salvation by Christ's purchase, and the application of Christ's blood and spirit to them, who doubts it ? I am sure I never affirmed the contrary." 9 And Mr Tombs, " The Grace of God electing them, putting them into Christ, uniting them to Him by His Spirit.'" 10

The antipaedobaptists do themselves make use of this place of Scripture against the Quakers and other antibaptists (and that with good reason) to prove the necessity of baptism. Some of them also, that can read no other than the English translation, will sometimes very unwarily urge it against the paedobaptists, and will observe, that it is said, " Except a man be born," &c., it is not said a child : concluding from the word that he that is so born must be "a man grown." But these, you will say, are right English divines. This may be retorted on them : for the original is not iuv py avftp, or lav py avfyuxos : " except a man " ; but sav pi r/$, " except anyone." And so the text is understood by the ancients, and by all that can read the original.

It is a common thing with the antipaedobaptists, when they are attacked with that argument, that women's receiving the communion is no more plainly expressed in Scripture than infant baptism, to answer by citing the text, Aoxi/Aa^sru 'tawl>\> civdpuvog, &c., "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat," &c., and to urge, that the v?ord"Av6pu-o:, being of the common gender, includes women as well as men. And they will frequently boast, and say, " Do but produce as good proof for baptising infants, as this text affords for women receiving, and we will comply." Nevertheless, it is not advisable for them to venture any more on this challenge than they can be content to lose. For the word rl( used here, lav ^ rlf, does (much more naturally than the word u*6pu*oi) signify any ' one,' or any ' person,' man, woman, or child. It is only an Anglicism to say, " except a man," instead of, " except a person be born of water," &c.

§ 2. Though the ancients understood the foresaid text to mean baptism, and though the words are peremptory, yet they were of opinion • Answer to Appeal, p. 9. w Examen} § 10.

Case of Martyrs dying Unbaptiscd. 101

thai God Almighty did in some extraordinary cases, when baptism could not be had, dispense with His own law. And one case, which they all agreed to be exempted, was that of martyrs. If anyone had such faith in Christ, as willingly to sacrifice his life for the testimony of His truth, they concluded that such a man, whether he had as yet been baptised or not, was received into the kingdom of heaven. For this they called " baptismum sanguinis," ' a being baptised in blood : ' referring to that of our Saviour (Matt. xx. 22), "You shall be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with."

So Tertullian, " We have also another baptism (which, as well as the other, can be used but once), namely, that of blood. Hie est baptismus qui lavacrum et non acceptum reprcesentat, et perditum rcddit. ' This is a baptism which will either supply the place of water- baptism to one that has not received it, or will restore it to one that has lost [or, defaced] it.' " n The same thing is owned by Cyprian.12

St Cyril, who says thus, " If one be never so upright, and yet do not receive the seal of water, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven : this is a bold speech, but it is none of mine ; it is Jesus Christ that has made this decree." 13 Yet afterwards in the same oration, excepts martyrs.

So likewise Fulgentius, as positive as he is, that none can be saved without baptism, yet puts it, " Exceptis iis qui pro Christi nomine suo sanguine baptisantur." 14 ' Except those who are for the name of Christ baptised in their own blood.' Gennadius speaks to the same purpose.15

And yet St Austin says, " Ever since the time that our Saviour said, ' Except anyone be born again of water,' &c., and at another place, ' He that shall lose his life for My sake, shall find it : ' no person is made a member of Christ, but either by baptism in Christ, or by death for Christ." 16

§ 3. Beside the case of martyrs : if a heathen man was arrived to some degree of belief of the Christian religion and confession of it, and yet died without baptism, they judged of his case with some distinction.

For if the man had shown a contempt or gross neglect of baptism as a needless thing, and then were cut off by death without receiving it, they judged such a case to be hopeless. Tertullian himself calls that a wicked doctrine : "to think that baptism is not necessary to those that have faith." His words you. have before, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 3. And St Ambrose speaks of it as a received opinion, that " a catechumen, though he believe in the Cross [or, death] of the Lord Jesus, yet unless he be baptised in the name'of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, cannot receive remission of sins, nor be partaker of the gift of spiritual grace." 17

11 De Baptismo, c. xvi. 12 Epist. 73, ad Jubaianum. 13 Catech. 3.

14 De fide ad Petrum, c. xxx. 15 De Eccl. dogmatibus, c. Ixxiv.

16 L, i. de anima et ejus origine, c. ix. 17 Lib. de his qui initiantur, c. iv.

IO2 The History of Infant Baptism.

He must mean of those that refuse or contemn baptism, as will appear by what I shall quote from him by-and-bye. And Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of three sorts of persons that die unbaptised, reckons these the worst, and likely to have the greatest punishment. His words are recited in Pt. I. ch. xi. § 6. St Austin's words also I produced before, Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 4 § 3. " But when a man goes without it by his wilful neglect of it, he is involved in guilt: for that must not be called a con version of the heart to God, when God's sacrament is contemned." So that the learned Vossius in his book of baptism, Disp. vi. Th. vi., having spoken of some points of baptism in which the opinions of the Fathers differed, owns them to have been unanimous in this. " This is," says he, " the judgment of all antiquity, that they perish eternally, who despise baptism, i.e., will not be baptised when they may."

If it were one that intended to be baptised some time or other, but put it off from time to time, either out of a negligent delay, or out of a desire of enjoying unlawful lusts some time longer, and then happened finally to miss it, as St Chrysostom says he had known it happen too often, they judged such an one lost, though not liable to so great punishment as he that had absolutely despised it. So Gregory Nazianzen determines in the place last mentioned ; and their sayings to that pur pose are too common to need repeating. I shall recite only one of Hermas's for its antiquity, being writ in the Apostles' time. He speaks 1S of a vision which he saw of the building of the Church Triumphant, under the emblem of a tower built with several stones : and he saw 19 many sorts of stones rejected and cast far from the tower. And among the rest, some "cadentes juxta aquam, nee posse volvi in aquam, volen- tibus quidem eis intrare in aquam," ' that fell nigh the water [on which the tower was built], and though they seemed desirous to go into the water, could not roll into it.' And in the explication 20 he asks, " What are those other, that fell nigh the water, and could not roll into the water? " Answer is made, " They are such as heard the Word, and had a mind to be baptised in the name of the Lord ; but considering the great holiness which the truth requires, withdrew themselves and walked again after their wicked desires." And I think it very probable that St James means this sort of men, ch. i. ver. 6, 7, 8, where he speaks of some that were " double-minded, wavering, unstable, tossed to and fro " in their resolutions ; and he says there, that " such shall receive nothing of the Lord."

Some put off their baptism a long time, fearing lest after it they might

into sin again. These Tertullian commends, and advises to stay till

ie danger of lust is over ; and says at one place,21 that to such men, if

icy should happen to miss of baptism, " an entire faith is secure of salva-

" Pastor, lib. i. vis. 3. » Cap. ii. » Cap. vii. » See Pt. I. ch. iv. § 5.

Those that Missed of Baptism by Delay. 103

tion." But all the rest do much discommend this practice, as appears at large in the sermons made to the catechumens by St Basil, St Gregory Nazianzen, St Gregory Nyssen, St Chrysostom, and others.

Nazianzen says, this is the " deceit of the devil counterfeiting holi ness, and cheating men of the grace of baptism by persuading them to an over-caution : that by means of their fear of staining their baptism they may altogether miss of it." 23

Nyssen says,23 that of the two it is better to receive it now, though one should fall into sin after, than to hazard the loss of it by this caution. For to those that sin afterwards, he allows hopes of pardon upon repent ance ; but of those that die without being baptised at all he says, " When I hear that peremptory sentence, ' Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born again/ &c., I dare not forebode any good to those that are not initiated."

Chrysostom 24 brings in these men arguing, and answers them. " ' I am afraid,' says one. ' If you were afraid, you would receive baptism and preserve it.' ' But I therefore receive it not, because I am afraid.' ' But are you not afraid to die in this condition ? He that sins after baptism (as it is like he will, being but a man) will, if he repent, obtain mercy. But he that making a sophistical use of the mercy of God, de parts this life without the grace, will have inevitable punishment.' " And afterwards, " In what anguish of mind am I, think you, when I hear of anyone that is dead that was not baptised, considering those unsuffer- able torments?" And in another tract, "If sudden death seize us, which God forbid, before we are baptised, though we have a thousand good qualities, there is nothing to be expected but hell."25

Firmilian, Bishop of Csesarea, in Cappadocia, who was of the same opinion as St Cyprian was, that baptism given by heretics is null, asks (by way of objection to himself) this question,26 what should be said of the case of those who, having come from the heretics to the Church, and having been received without a new baptism, were since dead without it ? He answers, " They are to be accounted in the same state as those that have been catechumens among us, and have died before they were baptised." But what he thought that state to be cannot be plainly known, because the next words are very obscure ; yet Rigaltius, by an amendment of the words (without the authority of any MS.), makes them favourable for the case of such deceased persons; and Bishop Fell allows of his opinion.

If any of the foresaid sorts of men did put off their baptism till some dangerous sickness seized them, and then were baptised in their sick bed, and died. Though they did give hopes that such a baptism was available to salvation, yet they counted these no creditable sort of

22 Or. 40. K De Baptismo. w Horn. I in Acta Apost.

25 Horn. 24 in Joann. x Apud Cyprian, Epist. 75, prope finem.

I04 The History of Infant Baptism.

Christians, because they seemed to come to it no otherwise but by mere constraint. Nay, Nyssen "" reckons these among such as shall not be punished, but, on the other side, shall not go to heaven. There were ancient canons, that such, if they recovered, should never be admitted to holy orders: as appears by the epistles of Cornelius recited by Eusebius.28 Though it appear by the same that Novatian was dispensed with for this incapacity.

But there is one case of a man's dying unbaptised, on which they generally put a favourable construction, though with some difference of opinion concerning his future state. And that is, if a man, while he was in health, were come to a steadfast resolution of being baptised the next opportunity, but were hindered by sudden death, or some other unavoidable impediment. Nazianzen's opinion of such is, that they shall not be punished, and yet neither on the contrary shall they be glorified. He, as well as Nyssen and many other of the Greek Church, seems to have thought that there is a middle state, not partaking, or not much, either of happiness or misery. You have his words Ft. I. ch. xi. § 6. He showed also by that anguish of soul which he himself felt when he was like to die without baptism,29 that he feared either hell, or at least the loss of heaven.

St Ambrose speaks at one place doubtfully of these men's escaping punishment, but more doubtfully of their obtaining any reward, in the words which I cited in Pt. I. ch. xiii. § 2 : " But suppose they do obtain a freedom from punishment, yet I question whether they shall have the crown of the kingdom." But yet afterwards he gives his opinion positively in the case of Valentinian (who missed of baptism in the manner we now speak of), that his desire of baptism was accepted instead of baptism, not only for pardon but also for glorification, as was showed in ch. iii. sect. 3, § 3.

St Austin embraces this opinion of St Ambrose last mentioned, and gives a proof of it out of the Scripture from the example of the penitent thief, " Which," says he, " when I consider thoroughly, I find that not only martyrdom for the name of Christ may supply the want of baptism, but also faith and the conversion of the heart, in a case where by reason of the straitness of the time the sacrament of baptism cannot be cele brated. For that thief was not crucified for the name of Christ, but for his own ill deserts, neither did he suffer for his belief; but while he was suffering, he came to believe. So that in his case it appears, how much that which the Apostle says : ' With the heart we believe unto righteous ness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,' does avail without the visible sacrament of baptism. But it is then fulfilled invisibly when not the contempt of religion, but some sudden exigent of necessity keeps one from baptism." 30

17 Or. in eos qui differunt baptisma. w H. E., 1. vi. c. xliii.

» See ch. iii. sect. 6, § i. » Contra Donatistas, 1. iv. c. xxii.

State of Infants dying Unbaptised. 105

Since this thief had a promise of Paradise, it is plain that St Austin means that a man dying in that case must have hopes not only of im punity, but of reward. Besides that, he thought there is no middle place.

In his Retractations^- he considers this matter over again, and says the example of the thief is not absolutely fit for this purpose, " because one is not sure whether he were baptised or not," i.e., some time in his life before, which is very improbable. Yet he insists on the probability of it in his writings against Vincentius Victor.

§ 4. One might have thought that they should have as good hopes of the state of an infant dying unbaptised, as of a heathen convert who believed and sincerely desired baptism dying likewise unbaptised ; since it may be said of the infant, as well as of the other, that it is not his fault but mischance that he is not baptised. And Nazianzen, and the others that do allot a middle state to the one, do allot the same to the other. But St Austin, and those who allow of no state absolutely middle, have hopes of the convert's (such as the thief was) going to Heaven, though unbaptised, but no hopes of an unbaptised infant's escaping some degree of condemnation.

The reason of the difference as they seem to understand it is, that whereas God ordinarily requires both faith and baptism, yet that either of them (when the other cannot be had) may suffice to salvation. As the thief having no baptism, but having faith and the desire of baptism, was saved ; and infants having not faith, but having baptism, are saved ; but infants dying unbaptised, having neither faith nor baptism, cannot escape some degree of condemnation for original sin.

To this purpose are St Austin's words, " As in the case of the thief, who by necessity went without baptism corporally, salvation was ob tained because he spiritually was partaker of it by his godly desire. So where that [baptism] is had, salvation is likewise obtained, though the party go without that [faith] which the thief had."32 And so likewise St Bernard 33 resolves the case from St Austin. Having said that a man having faith, and the desire of baptism, may be saved though he miss of baptism, he adds : " Infants, indeed, since by reason of their age they cannot have faith nor the conversion of the heart to God, consequently can have no salvation if they die without baptism."

The ancients had not all of them the same opinion concerning the death that is brought on mankind by original sin. The author of that Comment which has been ascribed to St Ambrose, but has since been thought to be Hilary the Deacon's, and by others to be mixed out of several ancient works, thinks it to be only temporal death. The words that are two or three lines before those I am going to recite are for certain Hilary's, for St Austin quotes them under his name.34 The

81 L. ii. c. xviii. ffl De baptismo contra Donatistas, 1. iv. c. xxiii.

33 Epist. 77. ad Hugonem de sancto victore. M L. iv. ad Bonifac. c. iv.

106 The History of Infant Baptism.

words to this purpose are these, Comment, in Rom. v. Haying spoken of the death which St Paul says came on all by -Adam's sin, he adds : " There is also another death, which is called the second death in hell, which we do not suffer for the sin of Adam, but by occasion thereof it is brought on us by our own sins." It is plain this man would not have sentenced infants to the second death in hell. But the more common opinion I think, especially in the western parts, was, that the death threatened to Adam, and coming by original sin on all by nature, is eternal death. Pacianus teaches so in his Sermon of Baptism. " Mind, oh beloved, in what death a man is before he be baptised. You know that received point, that Adam was the head of our earthly origin, whose condemnation brought on him subjection to eternal death, and on all his posterity, who are all under one law."

Accordingly they differed concerning the future state of infants dying unbaptised; but all agreed that they missed of heaven.

Those of the Greek Church do generally incline to the opinion of that middle state. Their words are cited in the first part, viz., Nazian- zen's, ch. xi. § 6. Those of the author of the questions in Justin Martyr, ch. xxiii. § 3 ; and those of the author of the Questiones ad Antiochum, ibid. The opinion of Pelagius (who conversed most in the Greek Church), ch. xix. passim. The words of St Ambrose (who transcribed most that he wrote from Greek authors), ch. xiii. § 2.

But St Austin and most of the Latin Church in his time, holding no such middle state, do believe such infants under some degree of con demnation : whose words you have in the xv., xix., and xxth chapters. Both one and the other agree in this, that infants dying unbaptised cannot come to the kingdom of heaven.

How hard soever this opinion may seem, it is the constant opinion of the ancients : none ever having maintained the contrary in these times, nor a great while after, except that Vincentius Victor mentioned in the xxth chapter of the first part, who also quickly recanted. St Austin in a letter to St Hierom says, " Whoever should affirm that infants which die without partaking of this sacrament shall be quickened in Christ, would both go against the Apostles' preaching, and also would condemn the whole Church : universam Ecclesiam" 35 And of the Pelagians, who believing no original sin, had therefore the most favourable opinion of any that was then held, of the natural state of infants he says, " that even they, being awed by the authority of the Gospel, or rather, Chris- tianorum populorum concordissima fidei conspiratione perfracti, ' being overswayed by the agreeing consent in the faith of all Christian people,' sine ulla excusatione coneedunt quod nullus parvulus, nisi, &c., do without any tergiversation own, that no infant that is not born again of water and of the Spirit does enter into the kingdom of God." 86

M I':Pist- 28- * Epist. 105, ad Sixtum, prope finem.

St Aitstin's Opinion of their State. 107

Tertullian himself, who at one place advises to keep children un- baptised till the age of reason, is thought by the paedobaptists, and confessed by some of the other side, to mean " when there is no danger of death before : " because he owns it for a standing rule, that "without baptism there is no salvation for any person." 37 And Nazianzen, who advises to defer their baptism till they are three years old or thereabouts, expresses himself with this limitation " if there be no danger of death." And if there be any danger, advises it to be given out of hand, as a thing without which they will, he says, "not be glorified."38 And except these two, none speak of any delay of it at all.

§ 5. But that party that believed no middle state, and thought that the Scripture obliges us to confess that infants are under some degree of condemnation, and that they are by nature children of that wrath mentioned Ep. ii. 3, yet believed that it is a very moderate and mild punishment which they shall suffer, if they die unbaptised. This I speak of the times of our period of the four first centuries : for afterwards the opinion grew more rigid, as we shall see.

St Austin does very often assert this mild degree of their condemna tion ; because the Pelagians did not fail to represent the doctrine of original sin odious upon the account of such infants as missed of baptism, sometimes not by their parent's fault, but by some unavoidable accident. He thinks it necessary to maintain against these men the doctrine itself, though it be severe ; but he takes care not to represent it more severe than he thought the plain words of Scripture enforced. Therefore as in one place of his book de peccat. merit, he says, " Let us not therefore of our own head promise any eternal salvation to infants without the baptism of Christ, which the Holy Scripture that is to be preferred to all human wit does not promise." 39 So in another chapter of that book he has these words :

" It may well be said that infants departing this life without baptism will be under the mildest condemnation of all. But he that affirms that they will 'not be under condemnation, does much deceive us, and is deceived himself: whenas the Apostle says, 'Judgment came on all men to condemnation,' " 40 &c. To the same purpose he speaks in his Enchiridion, ch. xciii.

In another book of his it appears how mild he thought this condem nation might be : even so mild, that to be in that state might be better than to have no being at all. For Julian the Pelagian had objected, that if the doctrine of original sin were true, it were a cruel and wicked thing to beget children, who would be born in a state of condemnation, and consequently in such a state as that it were to be wished they had never been born : citing that of our Saviour, " Well were it for that man

37 See Ft. I. ch. iv. § 3. x See Pt. I. ch. xi. § 6. 39 Cap. xxiii.

40 Cap. xv.

io8 The History of Infant Baptism,

that he had never been born." To this St Austin answers,41 that God is the author of being to all men ; many of whom, as Julian must con fess, will be eternally condemned : and yet God is not to be accused of cruelty for creating them. And farther, that all godly parents will take all care possible for baptising their children, which will take off that original guilt, and make them heirs of a glorious kingdom. And as to those infants that yet die unbaptised, answers thus':

" I do not say that infants dying without the baptism of Christ will be punished with so great pain, as that it were better for them not to have been born : since our Lord spoke this, not of all sinners, but of the most profligate and impious ones. For if in the day of judgment some shall be punished in a more tolerable degree than others ; as he said of the men of Sodom, and would be understood not of them only : who can doubt but that infants unbaptised, who have only original sin, and are not loaded with any sins of their own, will be in the gentlest condemnation of all ? Which as I am not able to define what or how great it will be ; so I dare not say that it would be better for them not to be at all, than to be in that state.

" And you yourselves who contend that they are free from all con demnation, are not willing to consider to what condemnation you make them subject, when you separate from the life of God and the Kingdom of God so many images of God ; and also when you separate them from their pious parents, whom you expressly encourage to the begetting of them. If they have no original sin, it is unjust that they should suffer so much as that Or if they suffer that justly, then they have original sin."

He shows that the future state in which the Pelagians thought such infants would be is not so different from that in which he judged they would be, as they did invidiously represent. For they confessed that without baptism they could not come to the Kingdom of God, but must eternally be separated from God and from their parents; but they would not call this condemnation. He judged that they were under condemnation, but so gentle, that probably that state would be better than no being at all : and consequently that they or their parents would have no reason to wish that they had never been born.

St Austin does so generally observe this rule of speaking with great caution and tenderness of the degree of their condemnation, that when Erasmus came to revise his works, he quickly found that the book, de fide ad Petrumvzs none of his,42 for this reason among others, because the author (who is since known to be Fulgentius) does express the condemnation of infants that die unbaptised in such rigid terms as that whether they die in their mother's womb, or after they are born,43 one 41 L. v. contra Julianum, ch. viii. « Erasmi censura ad istum librum.

43 Cap. xxvii.

Opinion of Fulgentius, Gregory, &c. 109

must hold for certain and undoubted that they are ignis aterni semp- iterno supplido puniendi, ' to be tormented with the everlasting punish ment of eternal fire;'" and again, " interminabilia gehennas sustinere supplicia : ubi Diabolus," 44 &c., 'to suffer the endless torments of hell ; . where the devil with his angels is to burn for evermore.' "This," says Erasmus, " I never read anywhere else in St Austin : though he does frequently use the words punishment, condemnation, perishing."

Erasmus's observation is true for the general. Yet it must be con fessed that in one sermon 45 of his, where he is eagerly declaiming against the Pelagians, who taught that infants were baptised not for eternal life but for the kingdom of heaven, and that if they die unbaptised they will miss of the kingdom of heaven indeed, but have eternal life in some other good place : he confutes their opinion thus : " Our Lord will come to judge the quick and the dead ; and He will make two sides, the right and the left. To those on the left-hand He will say, ' Depart into everlasting fire,' &c. To those on the right, ' Come, receive the king dom,' &c. He calls one, 'the kingdom;' the other, 'Condemnation with the devil.' There is no middle place left, where you can put infants." — And afterwards : " Thus I have explained to you what is the kingdom, and what everlasting fire : so that when you confess the infant will not be in 'the kingdom,' you must acknowledge he will be in 'everlasting fire.'"

But these words came from him in the midst of a declamatory dispute. He would, if he had been to explain himself, have said, as in other places, that this fire would be to them the most moderate of all. Though he speak of this matter a thousand or two thousand times, yet he never, as I know of, mentions the word eternal fire in their case but here. So that we must either conclude that the heat of controversy carried him in that extempore sermon beyond his usual thought : or else we must conclude, by Erasmus's rule, that that sermon is none of his.

It was the foresaid book of Fulgentius (which asserts this dogmatically, and over and over), being commonly joined with his works, and taken for his, that fixed on him in after ages the title of " Durus infantum Pater," ' The father that is so hard to infants.' It was Fulgentius, that lived one hundred years after, and not he, that most deserved that name.

Whereas Grotius observes 46 that St Austin never expressed anything at all of their condemnation, not even to those lesser pains, till after he had been heated by the Pelagian disputes — seeming to intimate that he was not of that opinion before ; but took it up then in opposition to the Pelagians. I have showed before 47 what St Austin himself says to that imputation : for it was objected by some in his life-time.

44 Cap. iii. 43 De Verbis Apostoli, Serm. 14.

w Annot. in Matt. xix. 14. 47 Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 3, § 2.

1 10 The History of Infant Baptism.

§ 6. I shall here make a short excursion beyond my limits of four hundred years ; and see how the opinions of men did come to some abatement of this rigour after the times of Fulgentius, who died anno

533-

in Pope Gregory's time, A.D. 600, the opinion of their being tor mented continued. For he speaks thus : " Some are taken from this present life before they come to have any good or ill deserts by their own deeds ; and having not the sacrament of salvation for their deliverance from original sin, though they have done nothing of their own here, yet there they come adtormenta ' to torments.' " 48 And a little after, " Perpetua tormenta percipiunt," ' they undergo eternal torments.'

The same, or at least the opinion of moderate torments, continued down to Aflselm's time : for he speaks thus on the subject : " Though all shall not be equally tormented in hell. For after the day of judgment there will be no angel nor human person but what will be either in the Kingdom of God, or else in hell. So then the sin of infants is less than the sin of Adam ; and yet none can be saved without that universal satisfaction by which sin, be it great or small, is to be forgiven." 49

Thus far it continued. But about this time the doctrine of the Church of Rome and the Western world took a great turn in this point ; and they came over to the opinion of the Greek doctors that I men tioned. For Peter Lombard, A.D. 1150, determines50 that the proper punishment of original sin (where there is no actual sin added to it) is "poena damni, non pcena sensus," 'the punishment of loss (viz., loss of heaven and the sight of God), but not the punishment of sense, viz., of positive torment.'

Pope Innocent the Third confirms this, by determining that the " Punishment of original sin is carentia lisionis Dei, ' being deprived of the sight of God ; ' and of actual sin the punishment to be gehenme perpetua cruciatus, ' the torments of an everlasting hell.' " 51

Then Alexander de Ales,52 and Aquinas,53 and so the whole troop of schoolmen do establish the same by their determinations. They suppose there is a place or state of hell or hades, which they call " limbus " or " infernus puerorum," where unbaptised infants will be in no other torment or condemnation but the loss of heaven.

But they did not know what to do with that authority of the book defide ad Petrum, which I mentioned, and which they took to be St Austin's, which says : "We must believe most firmly, and make no question of it, that they are tormented with eternal fire." Yet see the

48 Lib. i. Exposit. in Job c. xvi.

8 Lib. de concept. Virginis et peccat. originali., cap. xxii.

co Lib. i. Sentent. Dist. xxxii. ^ Uecret. lib. iii. cap. de baptismo.

" P. II., g. 105, M. 10. si Tertia, Q. i, Art. iv..

The Schoolmen's Limbiis Puerorum, 1 1 r

power of distinctions. Alexander de Ales answers : " To be punished with that fire may be understood two ways : either on account of the heat of it, or of the darkness of it. They that have actual sins will be punished with the heat : but the other, only with the darkness of it, as wanting the sight of God," 54 &c. Now darkness without heat is, one would think, but improperly expressed by fire. But he says (and true enough), " that if we do not understand it so, it will be contrary to what St Austin says at other places of the mildness of their punishment."

This was, as I said, the general opinion of the schoolmen. Yet Gregorius Ariminensis 55 (who is called the tormentor of children) and Dreido 56 endeavoured to revive the opinion of Fulgentius ; but found no followers, after that the other opinion had been countenanced. The doctrine of eternal torments finds a difficulty in sinking into men's belief (if they have considered what eternity is) when it is applied to the case of wicked men. Much more in the case of infants, who have in their own person not known or committed good or evil, and have only the stain of nature. And our Saviour, speaking of grown men, says, " They shall be beaten with few stripes, if they be ignorant persons, and such as knew not their Master's will." How much more must that rule hold in the case of infants who never were capable of any sense at all about it ?

Dr Field in his book of the Church,57 is pleased to call this opinion of the schools a Pelagian conceit. But I have proved that it is older, especially in the Greek Church, than Pelagius ; and was held by those that acknowledged original corruption : which corruption, they con fessed, carried with it, in unbaptised persons, condemnation. But they thought the loss of heaven for ever was that condemnation ; and that when there was no actual sin in the case, there would no positive punishment, or a very gentle one, be added. They thought that that alone made a mighty difference between infants baptised, and those that die unbaptised ; that the one should enter the Kingdom of Heaven, the other eternally miss of it : according to that sentence of our Saviour before mentioned (John iii. 5).

This opinion of no positive punishment, or a very gentle one, was afterwards so general, that when the contrary one was anew set up by the Protestants, it was by some adjudged to be heresy. For Father Paul, in giving an account how the Council of Trent prepared 58 their decrees about original sin (which were determined in the fifth session, June 17, 1546) mentions their disputes among themselves, whether they should condemn as heretical that proposition of the Lutherans : "That the punishment for original sin is hell fire:" and says it missed very

54 Loc. citat. 55 L. ii. Disk xxxi. Q. 3.

56 Lib. i. De gratia et lib. arbitrio. tract, iii. 57 Lib. iii. Appendix.

58 Hist, of the Council of Trent, lib. ii.

! r 2 The History of Infant Baptism.

narrowly being anathematised : it was only out of respect to St Austin and Gregorius Ariminensis that they forbore. The good Fathers doubt less mistook, as well as other men, Fulgentius's book for St Austin's ; so that the blow had in great measure missed him : but by what I pro duced before out of Pope Gregory the First, " They shall undergo eternal torments," it appears that they were nigh doing a greater mis chief. There wanted but an ace, but they had branded one of the renowned bishops of the infallible See for a heretic. A shot that would have recoiled on themselves.

§ 7. All mentioned hitherto have taken for granted that there are no hopes of such infants entering the Kingdom of Heaven : only they differ about their positive punishment, or the degree of it. But some others have conceived hopes of their obtaining that also in one case ; which is, when the parents being good Christians do in heart and purpose dedicate their child to God, and pray for it, and do their best endeavour to get it baptised, but are prevented by its sudden death.

I have taken some pains (more perhaps than such a particular thing deserves) to find who was the first that ventured to declare this chari table opinion, after it had been so decried by the ancients, and recanted by Vincentius. I find none elder than Hincmarus, Archbishop of Rheims, A.D. 860, who expressed such hopes; but it was in a case that was very particular. A certain rash and stubborn bishop in his province, named Hincmarus too, Bishop of Laudun, had excom municated all his clergy, so that there was nobody to give baptism, absolution, or burial. The archbishop writes a severe reproof to him,59 and in it takes occasion to speak of the fate of such infants as had in the meantime died without baptism ; hoping that they, by God's extraordin ary mercy, might be saved, though he had done what lay in him for their perishing. He argues thus : " As in the case of infants that are under the guilt of the sin of nature, that is, the sins of others ; the faith of others, that is, of their godfathers that answer for them in baptism, is a means of their salvation. So also to those infants to whom you have caused baptism to be denied, the faith and godly desire of their parents or godfathers, who, in sincerity, desired baptism for them, but obtained it not, may be a help [or profit] by the gift of Him whose Spirit (which gives regeneration) breathes where it pleases." I have occasion to men tion this Hincmarus of Laudun again in the next chapter, § i, because Danvers, reading somewhere that his metropolitan reproved him for suffering infants to die unbaptised, concluded that he was doubtless a bishop for his turn.

Then for the case of an infant dying in the womb, the schoolmen before- mentioned, Alexander de Ales and Aquinas 60 do say : " That such an infant being subject to no action of man, but of God only, He may have 59 Opusculum 55 capitulorum, cap. xlviii. w P. 3, Q. 68, Art. n.

Wickliff's Opinion of Unbaptised Infants. I \ 3

ways of saving it for aught we know." They extend this no farther than to the case of a still-born infant, though the reason seems much the same for one that dies before he can possibly be baptised.

Vossius 61 brings in St Bernard, Petrus Blesensis, Hugo de Sancto Vic- tore, and even St Austin himself, as asserting a possibility of salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism ; and he seems to under stand this, their assertion, to extend to the case of infants. But the places of St Austin and Bernard are no other than those I recited, § 4 of this chapter, which do expressly exclude infants, and speak only of grown men, whose actual faith and desire of baptism makes amends for the want of it where it cannot be had. And the places in the other two, Blesensis and Hugo, do, if one examine them, speak to no other purpose.

The next, therefore, that I know of that has any favourable opinion, or rather suspends all opinion, of the case of such infants, is our Wickliff, whose words are these : " When an infant of believers is brought to Church, that according to Christ's rule he may be baptised, and the water or some other requisite is wanting, and the people's pious intention continuing, he dies in the meantime naturally by the will of God, it seems hard to define positively the damnation of such an in fant, when neither the infant nor the people have sinned, that he should be damned. Where, then, is the merciful liberality of Christ ? " &c.62

Then he discourses some things preparatory to his answer, too large to repeat here ; but his answer is this, cap. xii. : "And by this, I answer your third objection, granting that God, if He will, may damn such an infant, and do him no wrong, and if He will, He can save him ; and I dare not define either part. Nor am I careful about reputation, or get ting evidence in the case, but as a dumb man, am silent, humbly con fessing my ignorance, using conditional words, because it is not clear to me whether such an infant shall be saved or damned. But I know that whatever God does in it will be just, and a work of mercy to be praised of all the faithful." Then he calls them presumptuous that of their own authority define anything in this case. He counts it rash to determine their damnation, and on the other side says : " He that says, ' That in this case put, an infant shall be saved as is pious to believe,' puts him self more than needs, or will profit him, upon an uncertainty." In the next chapter he handles the degree of their punishment in case they be damned, and he determines it contrary to the Schools that it will be not only loss of heaven, but sensible punishment.

It is to be noted that he had spoke his mind before of the state of infants that are baptised, as being out of danger. For in cap. xii., hav ing discoursed of three sorts of baptism, viz., of water, of blood, and of

61 De baptismo, Disp. vii., thesi. xxii. xxiii. 6a Trialog. , 1. iv. c. xi.

1 14 The History of Infant Baptism.

the Spirit, and that the third is the chief, and that God, for aught we know, may sometimes grant that without the other. He adds : " Repu- tamus tamen absque dubietate quod infantes rectk baptizati flumine, sint baptizati tertio baptismate, cum habeant gratiam baptismalem." ' But we hold that to be without doubt, that infants that are rightly baptised with water, are baptised with the third baptism [viz., that of the Spirit], whenas [or seeing that] they have the baptismal grace.'

This last I note, because Mr Danvers 63 had brought this man for one of his witnesses against infant baptism, taking a great deal of pains to show how great a man Wickliff was. And what is worse, he had cited some passages out of this book and these very chapters, taking here and there a scrap, which by itself might seem to make for his purpose.

Mr Baxter,64 to answer him and vindicate Wickliff, transcribed the whole passage of the length of several pages ; a thing that is tedious, but yet necessary in answering such quoters. "And now reader judge," says Mr Baxter, " what a sad case poor, honest, ignorant Christians are in, that must have their souls seduced, troubled, and led into separa tions, &c., by such a man. . . . When a man as pleading for Christ and baptism dare not only print such things, but stand to them in a second edition, and defend them by a second book."

But all this did no good upon him. For that he might show himself the most tenacious man that ever lived, of what he had once said, he does in another reply after that, go about with a great many words to maintain his point.

I shall be so civil to my reader, as to take for granted that the words of Wickliff here given, though but a small part of those produced by Mr Baxter, do satisfy him : for if an author give his opinion in plain words, that all baptised infants are in a state of salvation, but make a question of those that die unbaptised, whether they can be saved or not, and do also speak of the baptising of an infant as being accord ing to Christ's rule, and do call the people's intention of doing it, a pious intention, one needs no plainer account of his approving it. If Wickliff had ever spoke a word against the baptising of infants, the Council of Constance would not have failed in those forty-five articles drawn up against him after his death, to have objected that, for they commonly overdo that work : whereas they object nothing about baptism, and what others object is, that he gave hopes that some unbaptised infants might come to heaven.

The same thing appears in the tenets of WicklifTs scholars that survived him. For Fox in his Martyrology^ recites out of the Register of the Church of Hereford, a declaration of faith made by one Walter Brute, a scholar of Wickliffs, examined before the Bishop of Hereford, « Treat, of Bapt., page, 280, ed. ii. 64 More Proof -

• Second Edition, vol. i. p. 453.

The Lollards' and Hussites' Opinion. 115

A.D. 1393, in which he says, "I greatly marvel at that saying in the decrees which is ascribed to Austin, that little children that are not baptised, shall be tormented with eternal fire, although they were born of faithful parents, who wished them with all their hearts to have been baptised. . . . How shall the infant be damned that is born of faithful parents that do not despise, but rather desire to have their children baptised ? " &c. And afterwards, in the time of Henry IV., one of the articles usually enjoined for the Lollards, who were the disciples of Wickliff, to recant, was, as Fox GG recites it, this : " That an infant, though he die unbaptised, shall be saved." But there is no such thing in Fox, as Danvers 6T would prove out of a book he calls Dutch Martyrology, that one Clifford informed the archbishop that a Lollard, if he had a child new-born "would not have him be baptised." Fox does indeed tell,68 how a good while after, in the time of Henry VI., some Lollards of Norfolk had among other articles, this objected to them ; that they held, or taught, " That Christian people be sufficiently baptised in the blood of Christ, and need no water; and that infants be sufficiently baptised if their parents be baptised before them ; and that the sacra ment of baptism used in the Church by water is but a light matter, and of small effect/' But he shows at the same place, that in all probability both this and several other of the articles charged on them were by the informers altered in words from what they had said, on purpose to make them odious ; which was the constant vein of the Popish accusers of those times. Wickliff had said, that the water itself without the baptism of the Spirit, is of little efficacy. And he and his followers had said, that if the parents be good Christians, and pray for their child, there are hopes that it may be saved, though it do by some sudden chance die before it can be baptised. And if these men said no more than so, yet that was enough for their adversaries to frame such a slanderous information. But if we suppose that they did really hold what was objected, then they were not of the antipsedobaptist opinion (as Danvers,69 by altering the words something the other way, would represent), but of the humour of the Quakers to slight all water-baptism. The Hussites also, in Bohemia, had the same hopeful opinion, viz. : that infants dying unbaptised may be saved by the mercy of God accepting their parent's faithful desire of baptising them for the deed, as appears by their history, both in Fox 7° and the writers from whom he copies. And this was objected to them as an error by the Papists there, as it was to the Lollards here. Indeed, they were disciples of our Wickliff, as well as the Lollards. For John Huss, the first reformer there, imbibed the sense of religion which he had from Wickliff s books, and took this principle among the rest.

™ Ibid., p. 485. 67 Treat, Pt. II. ch. vii. <» Ubi prius, p. 608.

6U Treat., Pt. II. ch. vii. 70 At the year 1415.

! £6 Tlie History of Infant Baptism.

Nay, even in the Church of Rome, some doctors have shown a great inclination to this opinion, and have expressed it as far as they durst. Cassander quotes Gerson, Biel, Cajetan, and some others, as expressing some hopes in this case, and encouraging the parents of such children to pray for them. But I doubt that Gerson and Biel do mean only such infants as die in the womb, which amounts to no more than what the old Schoolmen had said, as I showed. Yet Gerson's words are ambiguous : I will set them down. He had been observing that God does not always tack His mercy to the Sacraments, and thereupon advises "Women great with child and their husbands to use their prayers for their infant that is not yet born, that (if it be to die before it can come to the grace of baptism with water) the Lord Jesus would vouchsafe to sanctify it beforehand with the baptism of His Holy Spirit For who knows but that God may perhaps hear them? Nay, who would not devoutly hope that He will not despise the prayers of His humble servants that trust in Him ? This consideration is useful to raise devotion in the parents, and to ease their trouble of mind if the child die without bap tism, forasmuch as all hope is not taken away. But yet there is, I con fess, no certainty without a revelation." n

This is part of a sermon preached before the Council of Constance, where Huss was condemned and martyred. And one error whereof Huss was accused, was, that he held the salvation of infants that by mis chance die unbaptised. Therefore if Gerson mean this of children born alive, it shews that he was of another temper than the rest of that bloody popish council.

Cardinal Cajetan was another of the better sort of papists ; and he ventures to say of children that die after they are born and yet before they can be baptised, that " it is not unreasonable to say that baptism in the desire of the parents is in such case of necessity sufficient for their salvation,"72 but says, he speaks " under correction." And he has been corrected. For some doctors have called him heretic for this ; ~'A others that are not so severe yet say it is an erroneous and rash opinion to think this to be possible. Indeed the Council of Florence had determined that " the souls of all that die in actual mortal sin, or even in original sin alone, do go ad infernum ' to hell.' " I suppose they mean that infants go to that part of hell which they call limbus pueronun, where there are no torments.

But above all, Cassander74 himself has shown a very compassionate temper in the pains he has taken to encourage parents to some hopes, and to earnest prayers for their child so dying, but withal a very modest one, when he adds these words : " This opinion of mine con-

71 Scrm. de Nativitate Marine Consid. 2.

74 In tertiam partem Thomac, Q. 68, Art. I and 2.

73 Vasquez in tertiam, t. 2, Disp. 141, c. iii. 74 De baptismo infantium.

Some Doctors of the ChurcJi of Rome. 1 17

cerning infants I will not defend with contention or obstinacy, nor rashly condemn those who, being persuaded by the authority of the ancients and of almost the whole Church, do allow salvation to those infants only to whom God in His secret but just judgment does vouch safe the sacrament of regeneration and baptism."

§ 8. Upon the Reformation, the Protestants generally have denned that the due punishment of original sin is, in strictness, damnation in hell. I suppose and hope that they mean with St Austin a very moderate degree of it in the case of infants in whom original corruption, which is i\\Qfomes or source of all wickedness, has not broken out into any actual sin.

But if their doctrine has in this respect been more rigid than that of the Church of Rome, or of the ancient Greek doctors, they have in another respect, viz., in the case of Christian people's children, given such a mitigating explication of our Saviour's words as to allow better hopes than either of them. For they do generally incline to think that if a child by misfortune die before it can have baptism, the parents' sincere intention of giving it, and their prayers, will be accepted with God for the deed, and will be available to procure of God's mercy pardon of original sin, and even an entrance into the Kingdom. Whereas the Schoolmen and Fathers have thought that Christ at the Day of Judgment will proceed by that sentence, (John iii. 3, 5), " such an one cannot enter into the Kingdom of God," in the manner that a judge in a court of common law proceeds upon the words of a statute, having no power to make allowance for circumstances; the Protestants do hope that He will act in the manner that a judge of a court of equity does, who has power to mitigate the letter of the law in cases where reason would have it. The Fathers themselves thought this allowance would be made in the case of a grown man, who had a personal desire of baptism, and that if it was an invincible necessity that kept him from water, he might enter the Kingdom without being born of water. The Protestants think the same in the case of the desire of the parent for his infant. They think thus : the main thing in God's intention in this case is that a parent as he dedicates himself to God, so he should likewise dedicate his child and get him entered into that covenant made in Christ, with out which there is no hopes of Heaven ; and that he should accordingly make use of that symbol or outward sign which God has appointed to be the way of admission into that covenant, if he can possibly, and that his refusal to do the latter will be looked on as a refusal of the covenant itself. But that if, notwithstanding his sincere desire and endeavour of obtaining the outward symbol, he be by some accident disappointed of it, God will yet grant the same favour that He had promised upon the use of it, because it is the heart that God regards ; and where that is ready, outward things are accepted according to what a man has, and

1 1 g The History of Infant Baptism.

not according to what he has not, especially it' some act of God Him self—as the sudden death of the infant, &c. — do render it impossible for him to have them.

Luther and his followers do indeed speak more doubtfully of this, and do lay so much stress on actual baptism as that they allow a layman to do the office in times of necessity, rather than that the infant should die without it

But Calvin and those that follow him (who to the great prejudice of religion made a needless schism from the others, or else the others from them, I know not which) sunk the doctrine of the necessity of baptism a pitch lower. They own that baptism is necessary not only necessi tate pracepti, by God's command, but also thus far, necessitate medii, that it is God's ordinary means to regenerate and give salvation.75 But they determine it as a thing certain that the child of a godly believing parent shall obtain the kingdom of heaven, though he do by sudden death, &c., miss of baptism, " provided this happen by no negligence or contumacy of the parent." And they deny that there is or can be any such necessity as to justify a layman's giving it. And Calvin takes an occasion to jeer some Papists that had said, " that if a child be like to die, and no water to be had but what is in the bottom of a deep well, and nothing to draw with, the best way is to throw the child down into the well that it may be washed before it be dead."

The Church of England have declared their sense of the necessity by re citing that saying of our Saviour (John iii. 5) both in the office of Baptism of Infants, and also in that for those of riper years. And in the latter they add these words : " Beloved, you hear in this gospel the express words of our Saviour Christ, that ' except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' Whereby you may perceive the great necessity of this Sacrament, where it may be had." And Archbishop Laud, showing that infant baptism is proved from Scripture, and not from the tradition of the Church only (against the Jesuit, his adversary, who, to cast in a bone of contention, had asserted the latter) gives his sense of it thus : " That baptism is neces sary to the salvation of infants (in the ordinary way of the Church, with out binding God to the use and means of that Sacrament to which He has bound us) is expressed in St John iii. — Except," 76 &c.

Concerning the everlasting state of an infant that by misfortune dies unbaptised, the Church of England has determined nothing (it were fit that all churches would leave such things to God), save that they forbid the ordinary office for burial to be used for such an one : for that were to determine the point, and acknowledge him for a Christian brother. And though the most noted men in the said Church from time to time, K Calvin Antidot. ad Synod. Trident. Seff. 7, Can. 5, it. Antidot. ad Artie. Paris \rt. i, it. Institut. 1. iv. c. Ixxv. § 22. « Reiatjon of Conference, § 15, num. iv.

CJnircli of England Presbyterian Antipcedobaptists. 1 19

since the Reformation of it to this time, have expressed their hopes that God will accept the purpose of the parent for the deed, yet they have done it modestly, and much as Wickliff did, rather not determining the negative than absolutely determining the positive that such a child shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Archbishop Laud's words we see are, " We are not to bind God, though He has bound us." And Archbishop Whitgift, disputing with Cartwright, says, " I dislike as much as you the opinion of those that think infants condemned that are not baptised." 77 All this is modest. But there are indeed some that do make a pish at any one that is not confident, or does speak with any reserve about that matter ; and they despise him and his scruples as much, and with as much success, as Vincentius the talkative did those of St Austin on the same point.78

For the opinion of the English Presbyterians, I shall content myself with citing these words of Mr Baxter : " I have hereby been made thankful that God has kept me from the snare of anabaptism. For though I do not lay so much as some do on the mere outward act or water of baptism (believing that our heart-consent and dedication qualifies infants for a covenant right before actual baptism which yet is Christ's regular solemnisation and investiture) yet I make a great matter of the main controversy. Notwithstanding that I hereticate not the anabaptists for the bare opinion's sake," etc.79

The antipsedobaptists, as they allow no advantage to an infant by its baptism, nor yet by its being the child of a godly and religious parent, so they do not all agree about the state of infants dying before actual sin. One sort of them determine with great assurance that all infants, of heathens as well as Christians, of the wicked as well as of the godly, shall be saved, and shall enter into the kingdom of God. And they dissuade men from having their children baptised, or born again of water, etc., seeing by this determination they are secure of heaven without it. To which the other commonly answer that they desire such a safety for their children as has some ground in God's word, and not in their determination only, since an infant has no promise, right, or expectation of the kingdom of heaven, merely as it is a human creature, or born of human race, but only as being entered and interested in the covenant of Christ, by which is promised an eternal life after this ; and the said covenant does require, as a condition of all that are to enter into the kingdom, that they be born again of water, etc.

Another sort of antipsedobaptists have not this assurance concerning all infants, but do suppose a different state of them on account of the decrees of election and reprobation.

§ 9. Concerning the state of a baptised infant dying before actual sin, the whole Christian world has agreed that it is undoubtedly saved

77 Defence of Answ. to Admonition, tr. ix. ch. v. div. 2.

78 See Ft. I. ch. xx. 79 Reply to Hutchinson, p. 39.

1 20 The History of Infant Baptism.

and will be admitted to the joys of heaven, since it has all that the Church of Christ can give it. St Austin says, as I showed before, "He that does not believe this is an Infidel."8 And, "God forbid that we should doubt of it." It is certain there was never any doubt made of it till the times of the late managers of the doctrine of Pre destination. Some of these have added several limitations and provisos to this proposition relating to the election or sanctification of the par ents, or their right to church membership; and some of them have used such expressions, as that they seem to think that even among the infants of faithful parents, some are so reprobated by the eternal decree of God, that though they be baptised, and die in infancy, yet they will be damned. Some sayings of Paraeus, Perkins, Zanchius, &c., are by their adversaries produced to this purpose.81 And it is known what exceptions some have taken to the rubric of the last edition of the English Liturgy at the end of the office of baptism ; that " it is certain by God's Word that children which are baptised, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved."

What enemies soever that assertion may have now, it had none in those times of which I am writing. The maintainers of predestination in those days spoke thus of the case of an infant dying before actual sin : that if he was baptised before he died, it was thence manifest that he had been elected ; if not, it appeared that he was not elected. Or thus : that those infants which were predestinated to salvation came by God's providence to obtain baptism, but the others missed of it.

This is plain in the discourses of St Austin, Prosper, Fulgentius, &c., "There are," says St Austin, "two infants born : if you ask what merit they have, they both are of the lump of perdition. But how comes it that the mother of the one brings him to the grace [viz., of baptism], the mother of the other in her sleep overlies it ? You will ask me, What merit had one that he should be brought to the grace ? What merit had the other that was overlaid by his sleeping mother ? Neither of them deserved any good. But ' the potter has power over his clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel to honour, another to dishonour.' "82

And he puts a harder case yet. The Pelagians, who held that the grace of God is given according to men's merits, were urged by St Austin to tell what foregoing merit one infant that was baptised and then died could have above another that died without the grace of baptism. " If you should say," says he, " that he merited this by the piety of his parents, you will be answered : Why then do the children of godly parents sometimes miss of this benefit, and the children of wicked 80 Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 5, § 6.

* See Acta Synodalia Dordracena Remonstrantium Dogmatica, pp. 45, 46.

• berm. De Verbis Apost. , xi.

Prcedestinarians and Semipelagians. 1 2 1

parents obtain it ? Sometimes a child born of religious parents is taken away as soon as it is born, before it be washed with the laver of re generation, and an infant born of the enemies of Christ is, by the com passion of some Christian, baptised in Christ. A baptised and chaste mother bewails her own son dying unbaptised, and yet finding another child left in the street by some strumpet, takes it up and procures it to be baptised. Here for certain the merits of the parents can have no place," 83 &c. He goes on to show by several other reasons or instances that it was impossible to assign any other ground of difference, except the free purpose of God, " Why some infants being baptised should obtain, and others dying unbaptised should miss of, so excellent a benefit of being made the sons of God, without any merit of their parents, or of their own."

So Prosper (or be it Hilarius or Pope Leo that was the author of the book De Vocatione Gentium, lib. i. c. vii.,) challenges those who attri buted the difference that God makes in calling one nation or one person to the means of salvation, and not another, to the different use that they had made of free-will, to give any tolerable account of the case of infants : " Why some being regenerated, are saved ; others not being regenerated, do perish. For I suppose," says he, " that those patrons of free-will will not be so shameless as either to say that this difference happens by chance, or to deny that those that are not regenerated do perish."

And those who were at that time (from the year 420 to 500) the opposite party in the Church to those that held this absolute election and reprobation, and were called by the others Semipelagians, as in reference to the adult, they maintained that God had elected those who He foresaw would be faithful. So for infants that die in infancy, they said, that those of them which God foresaw would have been godly if they had lived, those He in His providence took care should be baptised ; and those that would have been wicked if they had lived, He by some providence causes to miss of baptism. So that both these con trary parties agreed in this ; that of infants so dying all the baptised ones were saved, and (as the opinion then was) all the unbaptised missed of it.

Of the modern Prsedestinarians or Calvinists, if some have been so rigid as to think that some baptised infants dying in infancy do perish, yet they are not all of that opinion. Vossius allows it to be an infal lible rule which is expressed in the rubric aforesaid. " It is," says he,84 " not the judgment of charity only, but of charity that cannot be mis taken, that we account baptised infants go to heaven, as many of them as die before the use of reason, and before they have defiled themselves with actual sins."

83 Lib. ii., "Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum," c. vi. M De Baptismo, Disp. iv. , th. iv.

1 2 2 The History of Infant Baptism.

§ 10. From the last quoted place of St Austin, one may observe, that the ancients did not, in the baptising of children, go by that rule which some modern Calvinists would establish, viz., that none are to be baptised but the children of parents actually godly and religious. For he speaks of the case of a strumpet's child, or a child " born of the enemies of Christ," viz., of heathens, found in the streets and baptised, as a common instance. And in his epistle to Auxilius 85 a young bishop that had rashly excommunicated a whole family for the parents' crimes, he desires him to show a reason, if he can, how a son, a wife, a slave, can justly be excommunicated for the fault of the father, husband, and master. And then adds : " Or any one in that family that is not yet born, but may be born during the excommunication ; so that he cannot, if in danger of death, be relieved by the laver of regeneration."

Bishop Stillingfleet has fully shown the absurdity and inconsistency of this opinion of the Calvinists, and how they can never, in many cases that may be put, come to a resolution or agreement what children may be baptised, and what not ; and has cleared the grounds of baptism from such scruples.86 And as for the text, i Cor. vii. 14, on which they build those scruples.87 I have shown that the ancients do understand it in a sense much more plain and natural, and more agreeable to the scope of St Paul's arguing there, which gives no foundation for any such scruple. And we see by the instances here brought, and many other, that they willingly baptised any infants, if the parents or any other that were owners or possessors of such infants showed so much faith in Christ as to desire baptism for them.

CHAPTER VII.

AN ACCOUNT OF« THE STATE OF THIS PRACTICE FROM THE YEAR 400 TILL THE RISE OF THE GERMAN ANTIP^DOBAPTISTS. OF THE WALDENSES, AND THEIR CHIEF ACCUSERS, ST BERNARD, PETRUS CLUNIACENSIS, REINERIUS, PILICHDORF, ETC. THE CONFESSIONS OF THE WALDENSES THEMSELVES.

§ i. T GAVE before a note of reference to the books of some authors that lived after the year 400, for the use of those that would trace this practice for one century farther.1 The general account of them is, that they speak of infant baptism as a thing uncontroverted. And so it holds for all the following times till after the year 1000. The antipaedobaptists who do put in their plea for the first three hundred or

* Epist. 75. 86 Unreasonableness of Separation, Part III., sect. 36.

Part I. ch. xix. § 19, ch. xi. § n i part I. ch. xxii.

No Quotations from 400 to 1000 can be controverted. 123

four hundred years, yet do (so many of them I mean as have any tolerable degree of learning and ingenuity) confess that in all these following ages the baptising of infants did prevail. Mr Tombs says, " The authority of Austin was it which carried the baptism of infants in the following ages almost without control."2 And though it appear plainly by St Austin's writings which I have largely produced, that there was no Christian in the world that he knew or heard of, that denied it (except those that denied all baptism), so that he need not say St Austin's authority carried it ; yet it is, however, a confession of the matter of fact for the after-times.

Only whereas he puts in the word almost, as if some, though few, did oppose it, there is, on the contrary, not one saying, quotation, or example that makes against it, produced or pretended, but what has been clearly shown to be a mistake. As in the first four hundred years there is none but one Tertullian, who advised it to be deferred till the age of reason, and one Nazianzen, till 1;hree years of age, in case of no danger of death. So in the following six hundred there is no account or report of any one man that opposed it at all.

Some places of authors have been cited indeed, but there wants nothing but looking into the books themselves to see that they are nothing to the purpose. So Mr Danvers created to Mr Wills and Mr Baxter a great deal of trouble in sending them from one book to another to discover his mistakes and misrepresentations of several authors within this space; but withal a great deal of discredit to himself, for there is not one of his quotations that seemed material enough to need searching but proved to be such. Mr Wills had at first yielded him two authors as being on his side ; but Mr Baxter coming after (and Mr Wills himself upon a second review) rectified that erroneous con cession, as was easy to do by consulting the original authors ; for it was taking the scraps and breviats of things out of the Magdeburgen- sian epitomisers which occasioned that there was any possibility of mistake.

One of the two I spoke of was Hincmarus, Bishop of Laudun, whom I had occasion to mention in the last chapter on another account. He had upon a quarrel 3 excommunicated all the clergy of his diocese, so that there was for a time none to baptise, bury, absolve, &c. Some children died by that means without baptism. Complaint was made to his metropolitan : he reproves him, shows him the pernicious conse quences, hopes that the children that died, and others that died without absolution, the communion, &c., may by God's mercy be saved (I quoted his words for that before), but adds, " But as for you, you can not be secure, if any by your order have died without the said sacraments,

2 Examen, part I, § 8.

3 Hincmari Rhem. Opus., 55 capit., c. xxviii., &c,, ad 40.

1 24 The History of Infant Baptism •

that you shall not be severely judged (though the mercy of Almighty God make it up in them) unless your true humility do procure your pardon," &c. The stubborn bishop would not obey, but recriminated : he sent word to the archbishop,4 saying, " You gave me an example. I have a village in your diocese, &c., and you excommunicated them, and I have an account of how many infants died without baptism, and men without the communion," &c. The archbishop denied this ; the matter is brought before the Synod held in the Attiniacum ; they con demn the Bishop of Laudun.

Now see what Mr Danvers makes of this (which I set down as a specimen, not that I mean to trouble the reader with tracing him any farther, whatever I have done myself), he relates it thus :5

" Hincmarus, Bishop of Laudun, in France, in the ninth century, re nounced children's baptism, and refused any more to baptise any of them, &c. For which he and his diocese were accused in the Synod of Accinicus, in France, in these words : Ne mt'ssas celebrarent, aut infantes baptisarent, aut pcenitentes absolverent, aut mortuos sepelirent (which he translates contrary to the idiom of Latin phrase and to the tenor of the history), ' that they neither celebrated mass, baptised children, absolved the penitent, or buried the dead.'" Whereas the accusation was not against the diocese, but against the bishop only, that he had excommu nicated them and interdicted his clergy, ne missas celebrarent, &c., ' that they should not [or, could not] say mass, baptise children, absolve peni tents, or bury the dead.' And he quotes for this Bib. Patrum, torn. ix. Part II. p. 137 ; Magd. Cent. ix. c. iv. pp. 40, 41, 43 ; Dutch Marty r- ology, P- 244, Part I.

Now for Dutch Martyrology I will by no means answer. But this I will undertake, that whoever looks into Hincmarus's Opusculum, which is recited in Bib. Patrum, torn. ix. Part II., p. 93, &c. (p. 137 seems to be a mistake of the printer], ed. Colon, 1618, or into Magd, Cent, ix., c. ix., p. 443 [which is the place that must be meant, though his print be c. iv. pp. 40, 41, 43], edit. Basil, 1547, will find the account of the matter as I have told it, and no other.

Now at such a rate of quoting, reciting, translating, and altering he may find antipaedobaptists in every age and at any place. It is abun dance of the quotations that he has brought which I, as well as Mr Baxter and Mr Wills, have searched, and never found any, not so much as one (of those I mean which are for the centuries aforesaid from 400 to 1000, and seemed to be anything material), but what had some such mistake as this, or a worse, in the applying of them. But I shall not go on to recite them, especially since the foresaid writers have done it already.6 One would wonder what he meant to make of this Hinc-

I J>bid>' P^fatio' 6 Treat. Pt. II. ch. vii. p. 233, edit. 1674.

Baxter, More Proofs, &c.; Wills's Infant Bapt. Asserted, it. Inf. Bapt. Reasserted.

Berengarius is accused falsely. 125

marus. If we can conceive that he thought his opinion to be against bap tising children, did he think that he judged burying the dead unlawful too?

§ 2. But about the year of Christ 1050 there are quotations that have better foundation, and a greater appearance of truth, and do at least deserve an examination ; concerning Bruno, Bishop of Angers, and Berengarius, Archdeacon of the same Church ; and about one hundred years after, some concerning the Waldenses of yet greater credit.

Bruno and Berengarius seem to have aimed at a reformation of some corrupt doctrines then in the Church of Rome. They had an oppor tunity more advantageous than ordinary, one being bishop and the other archdeacon of the same place. They are said to have begun their attempt about 1035, when Berengarius was but a young man, for he lived fifty years after that time. They opposed transubstantiation, for which they had a great many mouths open, and many pieces wrote against them. Among which many, there is one (not written by one of the same nation, but a foreigner, who owns that he speaks by hearsay) that charges them with some error that did overthrow infant baptism. It is a letter written by (Durandus, Bishop of Liege, as Baronius and the editors of the Bib. Pair, had supposed ; but as Bishop Ussher 7 and F. Mabillon 8 have fully proved, by) Deodwinus, Bishop of Liege, to Henry I. King of France. The words are :

" There is a report came out of France, and which goes through all Germany, that these two do maintain that the Lord's body [the Host] is not the body, but a shadow and figure of the Lord's body. And that they do disannul lawful marriages, and as far as in them lies, overthrow the baptism of infants."9

Of Bruno we hear no more : probably he died.

But of Berengarius, the report that Deodwinus had heard was so far certainly true, as that he did deny the real presence of the Sacrament in that proper and corporal meaning in which a great many then began to understand it. And there are a little after this a great many tracts written, and a great many councils 10 held against him and others of his opinion for that supposed error. But none of those tracts, nor any of those councils, do object any error held by him in reference to matri mony or infant baptism. And since he is found three or four several times to have been received to Communion by his adversaries upon his recantation of that his opinion of the Eucharist, without mention of any other, it is probable, and almost certain, that the report which Deod winus had heard of his holding those other opinions was a mistake : or else that (as Bishop Ussher n guesses) he had denied that baptism does

7 De Succes. Eccl., p. 196. 8 Analect., t. iv. p. 396.

8 Bib. Patr., t. xi., ed. Col., 1618, Durandi Epist.

10 Concil. Turonense, anno 1055, Romanum 1063.

11 De Succes. Eccl., cap. vii. sect. 37.

126 The History of Infant Baptism.

confer grace ex opere operato : which was enough at that time to make his adversaries say he did overthrow baptism. And that is Deodwin's word : he did not say they denied it ; but his words are " quantum in ipsis est, parvulorum baptismum evertunt: " — 'They, as far as in them lies, overthrow the baptism of infants.'

Guitmund, indeed, who is one of those many that I said wrote against Berengarius toward the latter end of his life, about his opinion of the other sacrament, does take notice of Deodwin's letter, and of the report therein mentioned of his holding those other opinions : but he speaks of them as of tenets which Berengarius, if he ever held them, never did think fit to own or publish ; for his words 12 are, that " Berengarius, finding that those two opinions [of marriage and baptism] would not be endured by the ears even of the worst men that were, and that there was no pretence in Scripture to be brought for them, betook himself wholly to uphold the other [viz., that against transubstantiation], in which he seemed to have the testimony of our senses on his side, and against which none of the holy Fathers had so fully spoken, and for which he picked up some reasons and some places of Scripture mis understood," &c.

This is what he says as by report from Deodwin's letter. And for his other adversaries,13 Lanfranc Adelman,14 Algerus,15 and others, they do not at all, as I can find, mention anything about baptism.

One thing I do here note, by the by : that both this Guitmund, and the others mentioned, do so maintain the Doctrine of Transubstantia tion against Berengarius, as that they say nothing of worshipping the Host, nor anything from whence one may gather that it was then practised in the Church of Rome itself. I believe they then held Transubstan tiation, as the Lutherans do now Consubstantiation, so as not to worship the Host as the Papists do now.

Now for the next age after this : The author of the acts of Bruno, Archbishop of Triers, cited by Bishop Ussher,16 says that the said Bruno taking on him to expel those that were of the Berengarian sect out of his diocese, there were some found among them who, upon examina tion, confessed their opinion to be, that " Baptism does no good to infants for their salvation." And the said author tells it upon his credit, that he was present at their confession and heard them say so.

§ 3. But it is probable that these were a sort of people that have been since called Waldenses. For it must be observed that in this age, viz., the 1 2th century, several societies of men began to make a figure in the world, whoj differing from one another in some other matters, all agreed in renouncing the Pope and See of Rome, and denying Transubstantia-

' De Veritate Corporis et Sang., lib. i. 13 De Corpore et Sanguine Domini.

Epistola ad Berengar. de Veritate, &c. 18 De Sacramento Corporis et Sanguinis, &c. 16 De Sucess. Eccl,, c. vii. p. 207.

onfessions of the Waldenses. 127

tion, and the worship of images, and some other grosser corruptions lately brought into that Church. These were at first in several places called by several names and nicknames, but have been since denoted by the general name of Waldenses. And one of the nicknames in use at this time was to call them Berengarians. Now, whether those in Bruno's diocese, that were so called, did mean by that saying of theirs, that baptism itself is a thing of no use to infants or anyone else, or whether they put the emphasis on the word infants, does not appear : and there were about this time some sects that would say the one, and some that would be apt to say the other, as I shall show.

Beside the name of Berengarians, other names that were severally used at several places and times, were these : Cathari [or Puritans] Paterines, Petrobrusians, Lyonists, Albigenses, Waldenses, and several more. And these, though differing many of them very much one from another, have been of late confusedly and by one general name called Waldenses.

And of these Waldenses so taken in a lump, the peedobaptist and antipaedobaptist writers do at this time hotly dispute whether they held for or against infant baptism.

The antipaedobaptists produce the evidence of the Popish writers of that time, who wrote against them, some of which do plainly and fully charge some of them with denying it.

The Protestant psedobaptists say this was one slander of many with which those their adversaries endeavoured to blacken them, because they condemned the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, and produce for evidence several confessions of the Waldenses themselves, wherein they own infant baptism. Now such confessions were doubt less more to be relied on than any of the accusations of their adver saries, if they were as ancient as they.

The present Waldenses, or Vaudois, in Piedmont, and Provence, who are the posterity of those old, do practise infant baptism, and they were also found in the practice of it when the Protestants of Luther's reformation sent to know their state and doctrine, and to confer with them ; and they themselves do say that their fathers never practised otherwise. And they give proof of it from an old book of theirs called the Spiritual Almanack?-1 where infant baptism is owned : and Perin their historian, gives the reason of the report that had been to the contrary, viz., that their ancestors " being constrained for some hundred years to suffer their children to be baptised by the priests of the Church of Rome, they deferred the doing thereof as long as they could, because they had in detestation those human inventions that were added to the sacrament, which they held to be the pollution thereof. And foras much as their own pastors were many times abroad, employed in the

17 Pevin, Hist, of Waldenses, 1. i. c. iv.

I28 The History of Infant Baptism.

service of their Churches, they could not have baptism administered to their infants by their own ministers. For this cause they kept them long from baptism, which the priests perceiving and taking notice of, charged them with this slander." There are many other confessions of theirs of like import, produced by Perin, Baxter, Wills, &c. This is the account the Waldenses give of themselves in those confessions, some of which seem to have been published about two hundred years ago. One of the Bohemian Waldenses is dated 1508.

But the antipaedobaptists (some of them) say, this was by a corrupt compliance, for that "about this time they made a great defection from their former principles and integrities, and have too much gendered since into the formalities of the Huguenots." As if they had done it in compliance with Luther, who did not begin till 1517.

Yet they can produce no other or elder confession of theirs, that speaks contrary to these. There are extant several of their elder con fessions which express particularly the points in which they protested against what they held to be corrupt in the Romish doctrine and way, as against transubstantiation, chrism, extreme unction, &c., but do mention nothing, one way or other, about infant baptism : which is a sign that that was none of the things they disowned. They do in several of their old books, copied in Perm's history of them, speak of baptism and the other sacrament (for they owned but two). And in them they oppose themselves against the popish doctrine of the sacra ments ; and particularly they blame the papists for relying too much on the outward or visible part of them (as the Protestants do now to the same purpose blame that tenet of theirs, that "Sacraments do confer grace ex opere operate, 'by the outward work done'"). And there is one of them also that does mention the baptising of children, but so as to leave the main question still ambiguous. It is their Treatise concerning Antichrist, written, as is pretended, A.D. 1120. But I do not believe that, not having found any other account of this people so early. In it they say (as Perin recites it at the end of his history), " He [Antichrist] attributes the reformation of the Holy Spirit to a dead outward faith, and baptises children into that faith, that thereby bap tism and regeneration must be had, and gives and receives orders and other sacraments by that, grounding therein all his Christianity, which is against the Holy Spirit." One party say, " They do hereby condemn all baptising of children as a dead outward work." The other say, " They ought by these words to be understood to own baptising of children, and to except only against the foresaid popish tenet ; for whether it be in children or grown persons, it is an Antichristian or popish abuse to ascribe the regeneration to the ' dead outward work,' or mere outward act, which ought especially to be ascribed to the grace or mercy of God sealing and confirming the covenant to them.

The Waldenses. 129

Perin himself, who produces it, understands it so. And there is a Catechism of theirs, which, Perin 1S says, is composed out of their old books, that does expressly mention and own infant baptism. But of what date that Catechism is, I know not.

Bishop Ussher19 quotes out of Hoveden's Annals in Henry //, fol. 319, ed. London, a confession of faith made by the Boni homines of Toulouse (this was one name given to one of those sorts of men that have been since called Waldenses), who being summoned and examined before a meeting of bishops, abbots, &c., repeated it before the assem bly ; but being urged to swear to it, refused. In the body of which confession they say : " Credimus etiam quod non salvatur quis, nisi qui baptisatur : et parvulos salvari per baptismum," ' We believe also that no person is saved, but what is baptised ; and that infants are savett by baptism.' Mr Baxter having been called upon by Danvers to produce any confession of theirs of any ancient date that owned infant baptism, produces this,20 which was about the year 1176, and says, " Would you have a fuller proof? " But the other answers,21 that this confession was not what they naturally and usually held, but what the court forced them to say by way of recantation : which proves rather, that they usually held the contrary, or were suspected so to do. This latter appears by the story to be the truth of the matter ; and it is wonder Mr Baxter would urge it. But, however, it signifies nothing to the purpose. For these men were Manichees (as appears by the other opinions the court made them recant, viz., that there were " two gods, whereof the evil god made the visible world," &c.), and consequently the opinions they held against baptism were against all baptism of old or young, that it is good for nothing ; and so when they denied " that infants are saved by baptism," their meaning was, that no person is ever the more saved for being baptised. This they then recanted. And this is a known 22 tenet of the Manichees, of whom there were many in these parts whose story is confounded with that of the other Waldenses, as I shall show by-and-by.

It is to be noted that they that write against them do accuse them of abundance of heresies and monstrous doctrines ; and that with great variety. One writer, of one time and place, accuses those that he writes against (whom he calls by such or such a name, as Puritans, Apostolics, &c.), of one set of false doctrine ; and another writer, of another time and country, lays to the charge of those that he writes against, whom he names perhaps by some other name, as Albigenses, Arnoldists, &c., another catalogue of heterodox opinions. But one

18 Pt. III. 1. i. c. vi. 19 De Success. Eccl., c. viii. p. 242.

20 More Proofs, page 380. 21 Second Reply. " See ch. v. § 3.

». B

, 30 The History of Infant Baptism.

general thing that they were all guilty of, is their renouncing and defying the Church and Pope of Rome.

And for the other opinions (such, I mean, as are really false ones, and not only by the papists so accounted), they run for the most part on the vein of the old Manichean heresy ; and they do often expressly call them Manichees. The old Manichees held two principles, or gods ; the one good, and the other evil : and that the evil god made the material world; they renounced and blasphemed the Old Testament, and part of the New ; they denied the resurrection of the body, believ ing that a man survives after death only by his soul ; they had no use of baptism nor of marriage ; they abhorred the eating of any flesh, &c. These same opinions, and others of the old Manichees, are generally the chief ingredients in the heresies imputed to these men.

There is also great variety in the account of their morals. Some give to those they describe the character of sober, just, and conscientious men, though of heretical opinions. Others paint those they write against as men of lewd lives as well as doctrines. Most of the books against them are between the year 1140 and the year 1400. What was done against them afterwards was chiefly by fire and sword. Several armies were, by the instigation of popes and the forwardness of princes, sent against them ; which sometimes dispersed them, but could never extirpate them.

The countries that were fullest of them, were the south parts of France, and the north parts of Italy, and the valleys between the Alps ; which last place proved so good a refuge for them, that they have con tinued, and do continue, there to this day : save that the French king has lately driven out those that lived within his limits and forced them to seek habitations in Germany and elsewhere. Yet some say that the inhabitants of the Cevennes that are now in arms, are also the offspring of this people.

It must be noted farther, as to the matter of baptism, that some of the foresaid writers do represent those against whom they write, as deny ing all baptism : some others do so speak of them whom they oppose, as if they allowed baptism to the adult, but not to infants. And others, among all the false doctrines which they charge on those they write against, mention no error about baptism at all.

Now, see the power of prejudice, which it has to make each party construe and interpret the same relations of matter of fact to the sense that their side would have to be true. The papists believe that all the accusations of these people are true, and that they were such in all points as those old monks and inquisitors have painted them. The Protestant paedobaptists think that they really held those tenets against the Church of Rome : but that all the rest are false and malicious accusations, among which they reckon that of their denying infants'

Many different sorts oj the Waldenses. 131

baptism for one. And this is what the present Waldenses themselves do affirm. The antipsedobaptists say, that all the Protestant doctrines are truly imputed to them, and so is their denial of infant baptism : but all the rest are false.

§ 4. I shall by no means undertake a recital of all the particular quotations, partly because they are so numerous, confused, and contrary to- one another ; but especially because they are so far below the date of those times which I have set myself to examine. Whatever the tenets of these men were, they are much too late to give us any direction about the sense of the Primitive Church. I shall only take hold of a handle which some of each of our opposite parties do give of an expedient to reconcile this historical difference. Which is by slitting the matter in dispute, and supposing that some sects of these people did deny infant baptism, and others not.

For, as Mr Baxter says at one place, " Now I leave it to the reader among many uncertainties which of these he will believe most probable : — (i) Whether all the parties were slandered; (2) Or whether Peter and Henry were slandered, by occasion of the mixed Manichees, or by the vulgar lying levity, or popish malice ;1 (3) Or whether Peter and Henry were guilty, as some now, though the rest were not ; (4) Or, &c. . . . Believe which of these you find most cause." 23

So likewise, on the other side, Mr Tombs says : " As for the Albigenses and Waldenses, it might be that some might be against infant baptism, yet others not ; or it may be, in the beginning held so, but after left it."24 And Mr Danvers : "Neither would I be thought to assert such an universal harmony among the Waldenses in this thing, but that it is possible there might be some difference among some of them even in this particular." 25

So far they come towards a compliance. And there is nothing in so obscure a matter and so perplexed an account more probable than this. And to evince it, I shall —

1. Show that there were many several sects of those men whom we now call by one general name, Waldenses.

2. Produce what proofs there are that some of them denied infant baptism, and what probability they carry.

3. Show how it appears of the most of them that they did not deny it.

First. However later writers have agreed for method's sake to call them by one general name of Waldenses (because that is the name that those which now remain call themselves by), yet it is plain that at the begin ning they were of several sorts, names, and opinions. Bishop Ussher, in his book De Successionc Ecclesict, has proved by good historical evidences

23 More Proofs, p. 411. M Precursor, p. 30.

25 Treat., Pt. II. ch. vii. p. 321, eel. 2.

E 2

132 The History of Infant Baptism.

that there were some real Manichees that crowded in amongst them, which, as he supposes, gave occasion to the papists to slander the whole body. For the Manichees did really contemn all baptism, as the Quakers do now, and held many other of the worst opinions which are now affixed to the Quakers.

Ecbertus Schonaugiensis 2t$ wrote, anno 1160, a treatise against a people then spread in many countries, " Whom," says he, " our Germans call Cathari, Puritans; the Flemish call them Piphles; the French, Texerant, (I suppose it is misprinted, he interprets it) weavers." Their tenets, which he repeats, show them to-be Manichees: such as, the unlawfulness of marriage ; of eating any flesh, as being the creature of the devil ; that Christ had no true human nature, &c. He had disputed with several of them, and he says, serm. i : "They are also divided among themselves ; for several things that are maintained by some of them are denied by others." And of baptism particularly, he says : " Of baptism they speak variously : that baptism does no good to infants, because they cannot of themselves desire it, and because they cannot profess any faith. But there is another thing which they more generally hold concerning that point, though more secretly, viz., that no water- baptism at all does any good for salvation ; and, therefore, such as come over to their sect, they rebaptise by a private way which they call baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire."

And in serm. 8, which is a chapter on purpose to prove to them the use of water-baptism (as the seventh is to prove infant baptism), he tells how this baptism with fire was, as he says he had heard it from one that had been at their secret meetings. It is in short thus : In a close room they light candles or torches, as many as can be placed round by the walls and everywhere. The company stand in order with great rever ence. The person that is to be baptised, sive catharisandus, or puritan- ised, is placed in the midst. The archicatharus, standing by him with a book used to this purpose, lays the book on his head, and pronounces certain benedictions, the rest praying the while. This is called baptism with fire, because of the lights around which make the room look almost as if it were on fire. But he tells them: "This is not the way, you heretics; nor to the purpose that you pretend. You ought to make a good roasting fire, and put him in," &c.

What he says of their slighting all water-baptism, but especially infant baptism, does help to make one understand many passages that we meet with in the writings against these men. The sayings of many sorts of them that are quoted as speaking against infant baptism, ought not to be so taken as that they approved baptism of the adult, and denied it to infants ; but they really looked on all water-baptism as a superstitious thing, only they thought it yet more absurd in the case of infants. They 28 Serm. I, B. P., t. xii. ed. Col., 1618.

Ecbert and Reinerius, of 'the Cathari. 133

laughed at the Christians for two things : one, that they placed religion in washing people at all ; and the other, that they did it to infants. When their arguments failed against baptism in general, they took the advan tage of the incapacity of infants. And so do now the Quakers, some of the Socinians, the Deists, and such other sects as would have men go by reason rather than by Scripture. They undervalue this sacrament in general ; but they particularly deride the applying of it to infants.

Pilichdorf, also writing against these men,27 gives an account of the difference of their several sects. He says : "The Waldenses do dislike and even loathe the Runcarians, Beghards, and Luciferians. And that whereas all Catholics from the four quarters of the world agree in the unity of the faith, the heretics do not so, but some of them condemn the rest," &c.

But above all the rest, this is clearly made out by Reinerius. He knew all the sorts, differences, and circumstances of those people that have been since styled Waldenses, better than any man. He had lived among them, and had been one of one sort of them for seventeen years, and then after his renouncing of them was made an inquisitor against them. It is pity that he had neither a style to write clearly, nor the candour to express their tenets fairly. He, in representing their opinions, frequently gives a turn to the expressions which shows that his aim was to paint them as odious as he could ; and that especially in the case of the Lyonists. For the others, they could not well be painted worse than they were. But these had gained such a repute by the innocence of their lives, and the soundness of their faith, that they did more hurt to the Church of Rome than all the rest ; therefore he does, as anyone will perceive, endeavour to blacken their opinions in the recital.

He gives an account of seven sects of these men : 2S the Lyonists, or poor men of Lyons, the Runcarians, the Siscidenses, the Ortlibenses, the Paterins, the Ordibarians, and the Cathari or Puritans. It was of these last that he had been : which held the worst and most blasphemous opinions: "That the devil [or, evil god] made this world and all things in it ; that all the sacraments of the Church, viz., the sacrament of baptism of material water, and the other sacraments, profit nothing to salvation, and are no true sacraments of Christ and His Church, but vain and devilish. Also, that all infants, etiam non baptisati, 'even those that are not baptised,' are punished eternally, no less than murderers and thieves."29 After a great many horrid opinions, he describes a practice which they used instead of baptism. They called it the consolation and the spiritual baptism, or the baptism with the Holy Spirit. It had no use of water, nor of the Christian form of baptism.

27 Contra sectam Waldensium, c. xii.

28 Lib. adv. Waldenses, c. v. vi. ; Bib. P., t. xiii. Colon. 1618. ffl C. vi.

1 34 TJie History of Infant Baptism.

It is remarkable what he says of one sect of these Cathari : that they held " that Christ did not take on Him human nature of the blessed virgin, but took on Him a body that was heavenly [or, from heaven]." This was the opinion of some old heretics, and is said to be held by the present Minnists.

He says, the first of this sect came from Bulgaria and a country that he calls Dugranicia. They were doubtless an offspring of the old Manichees j who, as well as these later, made use of the name of Jesus Christ, but denied the true history of Him, and framed a notion of Him more enthusiastical than that which the worst sort of our Quakers do by the name of Jesus Christ within them.

These Cathari, it seems, thought water-baptism a devilish thing ; but that even without it infants (and men, too, that were not initiated in, and rescued by their rites) would be damned as being of the devil's make. Yet here, the Albanenses, one sect of the Cathari, dissent, Reinerius says; "and say, no creature of the good God. shall perish." I suppose they meant that their body shall be damned ; but their soul, because that is made by the good God, shall be saved.

The Runcarians and Paterines say likewise, that Lucifer created all visible things. One would think these should be the same that others call the Luciferians ; but that Pilichdorf in the place I mentioned, distinguishes them. These (and the Ortlibenses and Siscidenses, of whom he says little) have nothing about baptism. The Siscidenses, he says, hold the same as the Waldenses, save that they receive the communion. Now, who he means by the Waldenses, I know not ; for this is the only place where he uses the name. This man wrote anno 1254.

The Ordibarians say, " The world had no beginning : that Christ was a sinner till He became one of their sect. They deny the resurrection of the body, but not the immortality of the spirit [or soul] : they say baptism is of no further value than are the merits of the baptiser ; and that it does no good to infants, unless they be perfect in that sect." So the words are : " nisi sint perfecti ilia secta." I think they mean, unless they be initiated in that sect, nXsiouptvoi.

Of the Lyonists he says thus : 30

" There is no sect more pernicious to the Church than they," &c.

Of the sacraments he says, " They condemn them all." This appears to be invidiously expressed. For, by his own account of the particulars, they did (to say the worst) only hold some heterodox opinions about them.

First, for baptism : " they say that catechism is nothing." This also must be maliciously worded, for no people ever, that believed the articles of the Creed, would hold catechising of children to be useless.

30 Ch. iv.

The Petrobrusians deny Infant Baptism. 135

But I guess by catechism here is meant the interrogations and answers at the baptising of an infant. " Also that the washing that is given to children does no good." By words so short one cannot tell which of these three tenets he would accuse them to hold, either — i. That all baptismal washing is good for nothing. For so a Quaker now would say, " The washing you give your children is good for nothing," when his meaning is that all baptism is so. But these people do not seem to have been Manichees. Or, secondly, That baptism is of no force when it is given to infants. But then it would have been plainer expressed, and he would have used the word baptismus, and not ablntio, which is spoken in disdain, and signifies an ordinary washing. Or, thirdly, That in baptism, the washing itself or outward act taken by itself, is not that which saves, but God operating saves by it, as St Peter says, "It is not the washing off the dirt of the flesh that saves."31 This last I take to be what they might be likely to say. And this was a great heresy in those times, to deny that the sacraments do confer grace, ex opere operate, ' Even by the mere outward work done.' " Also that the god fathers do not understand what they answer to the priest. Also, that the offering which is called Atnvegung, is an invention. Also they dislike all the exorcisms and benedictions of baptism."

Here is evidence more than enough that there were several sects of this people. Which is what I proposed to prove by these passages.

§ 5. And now, secondly, that some of them (I do not say any of the Waldenses strictly so called, but some of these sects which about the same time and the same places opposing the Church of Rome, are therefore by late writers huddled together under the name of Waldenses — that some of these, I say) did deny infants' baptism, there is this ground of probability —

First. One Evervinus, of the diocese of Cologne, a little before the year 1140 writes to St Bernard a letter (which is lately brought to light by F. Mabillon, Analect., torn, iii.) giving him an account of two sorts of heretics lately discovered in that country. One sort were by his descrip tion perfect Manichees. Of the other sort he says : " They condemn the sacraments, except baptism only, and this only in those who are come to age, who they say are baptised by Christ Himself, whoever be the minister of the sacraments. They do not believe infant baptism, alleging that place of the Gospel, ' He that believeth and is baptised,' &c. All marriage they call fornication, except that which is between two virgins," &c.

Then at the year 1146, Peter, abbot of Clugny, writing against one

Peter Bruis and one Henry, his disciple, and their associates,32 charges

them with six errors, the first of which was their denial of infant baptism.

The other five were : "2. That churches ought not to be built ; and, if

81 i Ep. iii. ch. v. 21. 32 Epist. contra Petrobrusianos,

136 The History of Infant Baptism.

built, ought to be pulled down." If we were to credit all the reports that come now from France, the Cevennois would seem to be of this opinion by their destroying so many churches ; but I hope that those reports are not true. " 3. That crosses ought not to be worshipped, but broken and burnt." Peter Bruis had been, a little before the writing of this, taken and burnt himself. This writer says it was a just judgment on him who had burnt so many crosses. " 4. That not only what Beren- garius had said, viz. : ' That there is no transubstantiation in the sacra ment,' was true ; but also that that sacrament is no more to be ad ministered since Christ's time. 5. That dead men receive no benefit from the prayers, sacrifices, &c., of the living. 6. That it is a mocking of God to sing in the church."

He also says that they were reported to " renounce all the Old Testa ment, and all the New, except the four Gospels." But this he was not sure of, and would not impute it to them for fear he might slander them. So it appears that he did not certainly know what they held. Yet to make his proofs unquestionable, he first proves the truth of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles by their agreement with the Gospels, and then the Old Testament by the New. And then out of the whole pro ceeds to refute their tenets, bestowing a chapter on each. The first of them was, as I said, against infant baptism, and is thus expressed :

" The first proposition of the new heretics. They say — ' Christ sending His disciples to preach, says in the Gospel: "Go ye out into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned/' From these words of our Saviour it is plain that none can be saved unless he believe and be baptised — that is, have both Christian faith and baptism. For not one of these, but both together, does save. So that infants, though they be by you baptised, yet since by reason of their age they cannot believe, are not saved. It is therefore an idle and vain thing for you to wash persons with water at such a time, when you may indeed cleanse their skin from dirt in a human manner, but not purge their souls from sin. But we do stay till the proper time of faith ; and when a person is capable to know his God and believe in Him, then we do (not, as you charge us, rebaptise him, but) baptise him. For he is to be accounted as not yet baptised who is not washed with that baptism by which sins are done away.' "

This is, as to the practice, perfectly agreeable with the modern anti- paedobaptists, but, as Cassander observes,33 it is upon quite contrary grounds. For the antipsedobaptists now do generally hold that all that die infants, baptised or not, of Christian, or of heathen parents, are saved, and so it is needless to baptise them : whereas these held that, baptised or not, they could not be saved, and so it was to no 33 De baptismo infantium.

They Thought no Infant Saved. 137

purpose to baptise them. And this writer does accordingly spend most of the chapter, which is in answer to this tenet of theirs, in proving that infants as well as grown men are capable of the Kingdom. " Abate," says he, " of that overmuch severity which you have taken upon you ; and do not exclude infants from the Kingdom of Heaven, of whom Christ says, 'Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.'" Also he argues that the infants of the Jews had a possibility of being saved, viz., if they were circumcised ; and if the children of Christians have no means to be saved, we are in much worse case than they ; and at last he concludes that chapter : " Oh the difference that is between mercy and cruelty, between a tender regard to one's children and unnaturalness, between Chirst lovingly receiving infants and the heretics impiously repelling them," &c.

It is to be noted that this author speaks of this opinion as then lately set on foot, and says it might have seemed not to need or deserve any confutation, " were it not that it had now continued twenty years.34 That the first seeds of it were sown by Peter de Bruis," who was living when the book was written, but put to death before it was published, of which mention is made in the preface. It was first vented in the moun tainous country of Dauphine, and had had there some followers, from whence being in good measure expelled, it had got footing in Gascoigne and the parts about Toulouse, being propagated by Henry, who was a disciple and successor of the said Peter.

This writer aggravates this charge of novelty by urging that if baptism given in infancy be null and void, as they pretended, then " all the world has been blind hitherto, and by baptising infants for above a thousand years has given but a mock baptism, and made but fantastical Christians," &c. " And whereas all France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and all Europe has had never a person now for three hundred or almost five hundred years baptised otherwise than in infancy, it has had never a Christian in it."

The next year, 1147, Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, commonly called St Bernard, was desired by Pope Eugenius to accompany some bishops whom he sent into those parts, to stop the spreading of these doctrines, and to reduce those that had been led into them. And when they were come nigh to the territory of the Earl of St Giles's, Bernard writes a letter to the said earl,35 who at that time harboured the foresaid Henry in his country, recounting what mischiefs that heretic, as he calls him, had done. " The churches are without people, the people without priests, &c. God's holy place is accounted profane, the sacraments are esteemed unholy, &c. Men die in their sins, their souls carried to that terrible judicature, alas ! neither reconciled by penance, nor strengthened by the Holy Communion ; the infants of Christians are hindered from the life of Christ, the grace of baptism being denied them; nor are they suffered to come to their salvation, though our Saviour compassion- 34 Prsefatio et initium libri. 35 Epist. 240.

, 3 g The History of Infant Baptism.

ately cry out in their behalf, saying, ' Suffer little children to come to Me ' &c " He tells the earl that it is little for his credit to harbour such a man that had been expelled from all places of France where he had come. The issue was, Henry was banished.

I know not whether it was before this, or after (I think it was after), that St Bernard, writing his sixty-fifth and sixty-sixth sermon on the Canticles, takes occasion to discourse largely against a sort of heretics, whom he names not, but says they called themselves apostolical men. He describes them thus in several places of those two sermons : — " ist. That they held it unlawful to swear in any other case ; but being examined of their tenets, they would swear and forswear in the denial of them." And that " to conceal their opinions, they would give Catholic answers to all questions of the faith : they would go to church, show respect to the minister, offer their gifts, receive the sacrament," &c. He shows by Scripture that all true religion owns itself. And this receiving the communion in dissimulation, is what Reinerius, about one hundred years after this time, observes, that the Siscidenses would then do, and the Lyonists, he says, would, but the Waldenses would not. " 2. That they held marriage to be a wicked uncleanness (only some of them said that virgins might marry, but none else), and yet they kept company with women in a way that gave great scandal ; and women used to run away from their husbands and come and live with them. That they held uncleanness to be only in the use of a wife : " whereas that is, as he shows, the only case which makes it to be none. " 3. That they held the eating of all flesh and milk, and whatever is generated of copula tion, unlawful." He says, if they did this out of a desire to keep under the body, he would not blame them ; but if it was out of a Manichean principle (for this, as well as the foregoing, was a tenet of the old Manichees), they fell under that censure of the apostle : " Teaching doctrines of devils, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats," 36 &c. " 4. That they owned not the Old Testament, and some of them none of the New, but the Gospels. 5. That they denied purgatory. 6. They laugh at us," says he, " for baptising infants, for our praying for the dead, and for desiring the prayers of the saints." So he gives in opposition to them the grounds of infant baptism, as well as of the other doctrines by them denied.

The heretics he speaks of here, appear plainly to have been of Manichean principles ; and so probably to have derided all baptism : whereas Henry, as well as Peter Bruis, allowed of water-baptism to the adult. So that probably these mentioned in the sermons are not the same with those in the letter; for Peter and Henry are charged with no Manichean doctrine, save that Peter of Clugny had heard some say that they denied all the Scripture but the Gospels ; but he owns that

36 I Tim. iv. 3.

Manichees with the Petrobmsians. 1 39

he had no certain account of that : and probably the report that imputed it to them arose by mistaking the tenets of these for those.

Then, at the year 1 192, one Alanus, reckoning up the opinions of the Cathari, says some of them held baptism of no use to infants ; others of them to no person at all.

It is to be noted, that neither Petrus nor Bernard do call them that they write against, VValdenses, nor do so much as mention the name ; nor was there, I believe, any such name then known.

These are the only four writers that I know of that do plainly accuse those they write against, of denying baptism peculiarly to infants. And the only persons they mention are that Peter and Henry and their followers : for those of Cologne seem to have rambled thither from Dauphine, where Bruis had begun to preach about twenty years before.

Mr Stennet, in his Answer to Russen, ch. iv. p. 84, would, indeed, have us believe that there were above one hundred years before this time, viz., anno 1605, some that denied baptism peculiarly to infants, namely, the followers of Gundulphus. For this, he quotes a passage reported by Dr Allix from the history of a synod held at Arras that year, which is lately brought to light by Dacherius. Spidleg., t. xiii., where these men being examined by the Bishop of Cambray, do indeed deny that baptism can do any good to infants. But in the same examination, being farther interrogated, the men confessed that they thought water-baptism of no use or necessity to anyone, infant or adult. Now, is this fair quoting, to take the first of these, and leave out the latter part which follows in Dr Allix' book? These men whom Mr Stennet represents as antipsedobaptists (and if they had been so, they would have been the earliest that any history mentions), were as to the point of baptism, Quakers or Manichees.

And so all the other writers that I have seen (except the four afore said) do, if they have anything at all about the denial of baptism, impute to the heretics they speak of, the denial of all water-baptism. As the fragments of the history of Aquitain, cited by Pithseus, Joannes Floriacensis, cited by Massonius, Radulph, Ardens, and many more whose sayings are produced by Bishop Ussher.37 The words of Ecbertus I gave before,38 " That infants ought to have no baptism, and grown persons no water-baptism." Reinerius, as I said, about the Lyonists speaks ambiguously. Erbrardus and Ermingardus are cited by Danvers 39 as witnesses that some of whom they write, denied infant baptism ; but Mr Baxter, having searched them,40 says, that they speak of those people as denying the law and the prophets ; maintaining the two gods, where of the evil one made the world ; denying the resurrection, and all use of marriage, or the lawfulness of it. So that they must have been

37 Lib. de Success. Eccl. M § 4. 39 Treat., Ft. II. ch. vii. page 250.

40 More proofs, page 394.

I4o The History of Infant Baptism.

Manichees, who do all of them deny all baptism, but especially infant baptism.

William of Newburgh, who lived then in England, describes some of these men by the name of Publicani, and by their being Gascoigners, and says : " About thirty of them came out of Germany into England under Henry II. about 1170, and being examined of their faith, they denied and detested holy baptism, the Eucharist, and marriage." 41 Fox, out of Historia Guisburnensis, mentions the same men, and that the chief of them were Gerardus and Dulcinus. He gives no account of any opinion they had against baptism. But Hollingshead says they derogated from the sacraments such grace as the Church, by her authority, had ascribed to them.

Several Councils and Decretals made about this time do establish the doctrine of baptism both in general, and also particularly that of infants: in opposition, as it seems, to some that denied all baptism, and to others that denied that of infants. As for example, the Lateran Council under Pope Innocent the III., anno 1215, c. i. : "The sacrament of baptism performed in water with invocation of the Trinity is profitable to salvation, both to adult persons and also to infants, by whomsoever it is rightly administered in the form of the Church." And the said Pope has in the Decretals a letter in answer to a letter from the Bishop of Aries, in Provence, which had represented to him that, " Some heretics there had taught that it was to no purpose to baptise children, since they could have no forgiveness of sins thereby, as having no faith, charity," &c.42

Also the Lateran Council under Innocent the II., 1139, did condemn Peter Bruis, and Arnold of Brescia, who seems to have been a follower of Bruis, for rejecting infants' baptism.

These proofs do, I think, evince that there were some about this time that denied all baptism, and some others that denied peculiarly infant baptism, amongst those parties of men that have been lately called Waldenses.

I know many paedobaptists believe neither of these ; and Perin, their historian, does endeavour to clear them of this as of a slander. Two things the psedobaptists say to this matter, which are very considerable, i. That it is common for men to slander their adversaries about the opinions they hold — as appears not only by many instances in that ignorant age, in which the monks, who were then the only writers, veri fied in themselves that character quoted by St Paul, "Always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies," 43 more lively than ever the Cretians, for whom it was made, could possibly do ; but also by too many in this age, as Vicecomes, a learned papist, has in this very matter, to his own shame,44 left on record that Luther, Calvin, and Beza were adversaries of infant baptism.

! i1.'51'1 lib- "• c- xi»- 12 Opera Innocent, tertii, t. ii. page 776, ed. Col., 1575. Tlt- >• xu- 41 De Kit. Bapt., 1. ii., c. i.

Most of the Waldenses Practised Infant Baptism. 141

2. That we ought, in all reason, either to deny credit to these popish writers concerning these men, or else to believe them in one thing as well as another. If we allow them for good witnesses, then those that they describe were men of such unsound opinions in other things as that no Church would be willing to own them for predecessors. But if we account them slanderers, we ought not to conclude from their testimony that any of these men denied infant baptism ; which does not appear by any of their own confessions, and which the present Waldenses do account as a slander cast on their ancestors.

These considerations do, in great measure, justify those paedobaptists who maintain that there is no certain evidence of any Church or society of men that opposed infant baptism till those in Germany about one hundred and eighty years ago. The proof concerning any sort of the Waldenses is but probable, I owned before that the probability is such as does weigh with me. But for the main body of them there is no probability at all.

§ 6. And now, thirdly, that there were several sects or societies of them that did not deny the baptism of infants, is proved from this, that a great many writers against them, diligently reciting the erroneous opinions of those they write against, and that often in smaller matters, yet mentions nothing of this.

Lucas Tudensis writes largely against the Albigenses that were then in Spain ; but among all the accusations of them, true or false, has nothing of this. Petrus de Pilichdorf (in the year 1395, as he himself gives the date, cap. xxx.) writes a book of confutation of the several pretended errors of the Waldenses of his time in thirty-six chapters ; but has nothing of baptism : though he descends to speak of many lesser matters, and aggravates all with very railing words ; yet he finds nothing to accuse them of, but such things as the Protestants now hold : except one or two, as the " Unlawfulness of all oaths," &c. ^Enaeas Sylvius wrote in 1458 his Historiam Bohemicam, in which he reckons up the tenets of the Picards, a sort of these men. But 45 he mentions no difference they had with the then established Church about infant baptism ; save that they spoke against chrism, &c. And Fox, reciting their tenets out of him, mentions only this, " that baptism ought to be administered with pure water without any hallowed oil." Nauclerus also, in his Chronicon^ written 1500, recites their doctrines particularly,40 and mentions no such thing as the denial of infant baptism. Yet he also takes notice of so small a matter as that they affirmed water to be sufficient without oil. There are in Gretzer's collection 47 of pieces, written against the Wal denses, six treatises in all (beside Reinerius and Pilichdorf, mentioned already), reckoning up their heterodox opinions ; but not one word of

45 Ussher de Sue. Ecc. , c. vi. ; Baxter, More Proofs, p. 380.

46 Vol. II. p. ii. p. 265. 47 Bib. Pat., t. xiii., ed. Col., 2618.

1 4 2 The History of Infant Baptism.

this. One of them is a direction to the inquisitors, in the examining of these men, how to discover and convict them : for it seems they kept their opinions very close; whereas if they had not baptised their children, nothing would have been a more ready conviction. The Magdeburgenses 48 have a catalogue of their opinions, taken, as they say, out of a very old manuscript, and nothing of this. Bishop Ussher quotes 40 also Jacob Picolominjeus, Anton. Bonsinius, Bernard. Lutzen- burgensis, and several others, treating of these sorts of men, who object nothing of this.

§ 7. I have, more than I ever meant to do, troubled myself in inquir ing into the history of these men ; and all that I can make of the inquiry is this :

First. There was a great many among them that really held the impious opinion of the Manichees. Some of this sect were in these countries before the Waldenses, whom the Protestants own for pre decessors, arose or were taken notice of: which was after the year uoo. These all of them denied all water baptism. So the Quakers may claim kindred of them if they please : but no Baptist, whether psedobaptist or antipsedobaptist, can. They had an invention of their own which they used instead of the Christian baptism, and which they called " spiritual baptism": and they said, "by it forgiveness of sins, and the Holy Spirit was given. It contained in it imposition of their hands, and the saying of the Lord's Prayer. Only one sect of them, the Albanenses, said the hand did no good ; being, as all other flesh is, created by the devil. So they used the prayer only." 50

These men were thus far on the antipaedobaptists' side, that this mock baptism of theirs they gave to the adult only. And they derided the Christians for two things : one, that they used baptism with water at all ; and the other, that they gave it to persons that had no sense of it, viz., infants. And this, for aught I know, might be all the ground of the Waldenses (who, by the first writers, are not well distinguished from these men) being accused of denying infant baptism.

This sort of men continued a considerable time. Reinerius says, in his time " there were not above four thousand in all the world that were Cathari, quite pure [or perfect] of both sexes ; but of Credentes (so they called their disciples that were not yet perfect) an innumerable multitude."50

Though the authors do not well distinguish the names: yet most generally this sort that denied all baptism, and held the other vile opinions, are denoted by these names— Catheri, Apostolici, Luciferians, Runcarians, Popelicans, alias Publicans.

2. There were another sort that held none of those impious tenets of 48 Cent. xii. p. 1206. « De Success. Eccl., c. vi. p. 255, it p. 306, &c.

50 Reinerius, c. vi.

Petrobrttsians not properly called Waldenses. 143

the M^nichees concerning two Gods, &c. But they joined with the other in inveighing against the Church of Rome, which in these times began to be very corrupt. And the Papists do sometimes confound these with the other, and affix to these some of the opinions of the other.

If any of these that owned water baptism denied it to infants, and if P. Cluniacensis did not mistake their opinion upon the occasion afore said, it was the Petrobrusians, otherwise called Henricians. What Reinerius says of the Lyonists is very general and obscure. And of the others no such thing is said. Especially this is constant ; that no one author that calls the people he writes of, Waldenses, does impute to them the denial of infant baptism.

3. If there were any such, they seem not to have continued long, but to have dwindled away or come over to those that practised infant baptism. For none of the later writers concerning these men do charge them with anything of this. This the reader will observe, if he mind the date of the year which I have affixed to each writer. And it is a manifest sign that either none of those whom we now denote by the name Waldenses, that owned water baptism, held anything against infant baptism ; but that the elder writers imputed it to them upon the mistake aforesaid of taking the Manichees' opinions for theirs ; or upon vulgar reports which by this time appeared to be false : or else that if there had been formerly any such sects in that great variety, they were by this time extinguished.

Pilichdorf writes against them under the name of Waldenses. Reine rius does but once just mention that name, as denoting one sect : one cannot tell which. But Pilichdorf entitles his book Against the Sect of the Waldenses, and calls them at every word Waldensian heretics : but ascribes no opinion to them that deserves that name, nor any error at all about baptism. He is the only man of their adversaries, who though he gave them ill language, yet charges them with no particular opinion (or no material one) but what they themselves own in their confessions. He wrote, as I said, anno 1395. By which time their opinions must be justly and distinctly known. If they had formerly been mistaken to be of the same opinion with those Manichean sects, they had now had time to clear themselves from that imputation. And so we find by his words they did. For he says, " The Waldenses do dislike and even loathe the Runcarians, Beghards, and Luciferians." 51 And they seem by his description to have been in the same state of religion that they were found in, one hundred and thirty years after by the Protestants.

And he also supposes that from their beginning they had been free from any false doctrine about the sacraments. For in his first chapter he speaks of their original : that it was from one Peter Waldensis (others

31 Cap. xii.

144 The History of Infant Baptism.

call him Waldus), who in the time of Innocent the Second (so he says, but others place him at 1160, which was the time of Alexander the Third) reading that command of our Saviour to the rich young man Matt. xix. 2 1 (some others also add, that he was also affrighted at the sudden death of one of his companions), took a resolution of selling all he had, and giving it to the poor : and was imitated by some others, particularly one John of the city of Lyons. After a while they took on them to preach ; and being forbid (for they were laymen), they refused to forbear, and so were excommunicated. Then they betook themselves to preaching privately ; and, as he adds, " out of hatred to the clergy and the true priesthood, they began out of the errors of old heretics, and adding some new and pernicious articles, to destroy, condemn, and reject all those means by which the clergy, as a good mother, do gather their children, except the sacraments only."

He means, as appears by what follows, they rejected indulgences, pardons, canonical hours, prayers to the saints, &c. But if they had rejected infant baptism, he would not have failed to have mentioned that. By which it appears that either this man had never heard of the Petrobrusians ; or else had not heard that they denied infant baptism ; or else did not take them to have been'Waldenses.

And in this last mentioned sense Cassander 52 speaks of the Petrobru sians as a sect that, together with the salvation of infants, denied their baptism : but of the Waldenses, as practising it.

The Petrobrusians could not properly be called Waldenses, because they set up their party before Waldus did his. For Peter Bruis had preached twenty years when Cluniacensis wrote, as I showed before : which was 1146. And Waldus began, by the earliest account, in the time of Pope Innocent the Second, whose first year was 1130.

So if we take the name Waldenses strictly, for one sort of men ; as those old writers generally do : then there is no account that any of them were antipaedobaptists. But if we take it in that large sense, as many late writers do, to include all the sorts that I have rehearsed, then there is probable evidence that one sort of them, viz., the Petro brusians, were so ; but not that the general body of the Waldenses were. And that opinion of the Petrobrusians seems to have been in a short time extinguished and forgotten.

§ 8. Now because I take this Peter Bruis (or Bruce, perhaps his name was) and Henry, to be the first antipaedobaptist preachers that ever set up a Church or society of men holding that opinion against infant baptism, and rebaptising such as had been baptised in infancy ; I will for the sake of the antipeedobaptists give the history of them so far as it is upon record. And the same thing may gratify the Quakers : for I believe they were the first likewise of all that have owned the Scriptures 82 De Baptismo infantium.

The Life of Peter Bruis and Henry. 145

(as I see no reason to conclude but this people did ; though there was a report that they rejected some books of them) that ever taught that (he use of receiving the Lord's Supper is not to be continued.

They were both Frenchmen. Both of mean rank or quality : for Peter of Clugny bespeaks them thus : " Because the darkness of a mean condition kept you obscure, had you therefore a mind by some very wicked exploit to make yourselves to be taken notice of? " 53 Yet they had been in priest's orders, and had had each of them a place or employment in that office : but the benefices belonging to them were it seems but small. Because he says : " If the places wherein you minis tered as presbyters afforded you but little gain, would you therefore resolve to turn all into confusion and profaneness ? " Peter had had a church or parish, but was turned out of it ; and, as this writer insinuates, for some misdemeanour. Henry had been a monk, and had deserted the monastery. For so he adds : " Because one of you was for a reason (he knows why) turned out of the church which he had, &c. The other throwing off the monk's habit, turning an apostate," &c.

The places where Bruis first made a party and gained proselytes, were in that country which is since called Dauphine. For the book which Peter of Clugny writes against them, is by way of a letter to three bishops within whose dioceses this had happened; and the bishops were Eberdunensis, Diensis, and Wapiensis — the bishops of Embrun, Die, and Gap. In the preface (which was written some time after the book, and after Bruis was dead) there is added the Archbishop of Aries, in Provence. But it is said in the book that the City of Aries itself was free from the infection, only some parts of his province had been drawn into this persuasion. It was in the mountainous and wild parts of the said dioceses that it first took footing, for so Cluniacensis writes, "I should have thought that it had been those craggy Alps, and rocks covered with continual snow, that had bred that savage temper in the inhabitants ; and that your land being unlike to all other lands had yielded a sort of people unlike to all others; but that I now perceive," 54 &c.

The time that it began, he mentions to have been twenty years before. And at the time when the book was writ (which was 1146) those foresaid dioceses were, he says, clear of it. By the care of the said bishops it had been rooted out there, but that the preachers, when expelled thence, had planted it in the plain countries of Provincia Narbonensis. And there, says he, " the heresy which among you was but timorously whispered or buzzed about in deserts and little villages, does now boldly vent itself in great crowds of people and in populous towns." And the places specified in the book are the places about the mouth of the Rhone, the plain country about Toulouse, 53 Answer to their Fourth Article. 54 Prope initium Epistolse.

146 The History of Infant Baptism.

and particularly that city itself, and many places in the province of Gascoigne. About the year 1144, Bruis being then in the territory of St Giles's, where he had made many proselytes, he was, by the zeal of the faithful people (so Cluniacensis calls it) taken, and in that city. according to the laws then, burnt to death. The time I compute thus : Cluniacensis had wrote that letter to the bishops aforesaid, but under standing that Bruis was put to death, and the doctrine expelled out of their dioceses, he suppressed the publishing of his letter ; but hearing that Henry, whom he calls the heir of Bruis's wickedness, did still propagate it in several places, and that there was danger of its reviving where it seemed to be extinct, he put a new preface to his work and published it. Which was in the year 1146.

Of the morals of Peter Bruis this writer gives no account, save that he describes in how tumultuous and outrageous a way things were managed by him and his party, where they prevailed : " The people rebaptised ; the churches profaned ; the altars dug up ; the crosses burnt ; the priests scourged ; monks imprisoned," 55 &c. And he tells how they would, on a Good Friday to choose, get together a great pile of crosses which they had pulled down, and making a fire of them, would roast meat at it, on which they would make a feast in defiance of the fast kept by Christians on that day.

As for Henry, after he had gone about preaching in many cities and provinces of France, he was in the year 1146 or 1 147, found in the said territory of the Earl of St Giles's, when St Bernard and some bishops came to those parts to confute these new doctrines. And of him Bernard does give a character in his letter to that Earl, and it is a very scurvy character for a preacher.

" The man," says he, " is a renegado, who, leaving off his habit of religion, (for he was a monk), returned as a dog to his vomit, to the filthiness of the flesh and the world, and being ashamed to stay where he was known, &rc., he became a vagabond ; and being in beggary, he made the Gospel maintain him (for he is a scholar), and setting to sale the Word of God, he preached for bread. What he got of the silly people, or of the good women, more than would find him victuals, he spent in gaming at dice, or some worse way; for this celebrated preacher, after the day's applause, was at night often found in bed with whores, and sometimes with married women. Enquire, if you please noble sir, how he left the city Losanna, what sort of departure he made out of Mayne, and also from Poictou, and from Bourdeaux : to none of which places he dares return, having left such a stink behind him." If any one shall think that in the credit one is to give to this description there ought to be some allowance made for the malice of his enemies, I have nothing to say against that.

55 Trope ab initio.

All National Churches are Padobaptists. 147

He that writes the life of St Bernard 56 says that upon this mission Henry fled, and lying hid for some time, but nobody being willing to receive him, was at last taken and delivered chained to the bishop (the Bishop of Ostia, I suppose, who was a Cardinal, and the chief man of the mission), but what was done with him, it is not said. But of the people it is said, " that those who had erred were reduced, the wavering were satisfied, and the seducers so confuted that they durst nowhere appear." And a little after this, Bernard has a letter to the people of Toulouse 57 congratulating their recovery from the confusions that had been among them on account of those opinions.

Their way of preaching against the other Sacrament of the Lord's supper is thus represented by Cluniacensis : " Your words as near as I can learn them are these : ' Oh good people don't believe your bishops, presbyters, and clergymen that seduce you. As they deceive you in many other things, so they do in the office of the altar ; where they tell you this lie, that they do make the body of Christ and give it you for the salvation of your souls. They lie notoriously. For the body of Christ was only once made by Himself at the Supper before His Passion, and was once only, viz., at that time, given to His disciples. Since that time it was never made by anyone, nor given to anyone."58

As the people of this way were from Peter Bruis commonly called Petrobrusians, so they were from Henry sometimes called Henricians.

CHAPTER VIII.

OF THE PRESENT STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY. THAT ALL THE NATIONAL CHURCHES IN THE WORLD ARE P^EDOBAPTISTS. OF THE ANTIP^EDO- BAPTISTS THAT ARE IN GERMANY, HOLLAND, ENGLAND, POLAND, AND TRANSYLVANIA.

§ i. A LL the opinions that had any great number of abettors in the •**• ancient times, though they may have been condemned by general councils, yet have so contained or sprung up afresh that they have in some country or other become the general opinion. So Nes- torianism, Eutychianism, &c., have each of them found some place in which to this day they do prevail as the national constitution.

As for antipsedobaptism, whatever be judged of the proofs brought to show that there have been some societies of men that have owned it, as the Petrobrusians lately mentioned, &c., there is no pretence that it has been or is now the opinion of any national Church in the world. Wherever there are at present any Christians of that persuasion, they are as dissenters from the general body of Christians in that place. If c6 Gaufrid., 1. iii. c. v. 57 Ad Tolosanos., Epist. 241. n8 Ad Artie, quartum

148 The History of Infant Baptism.

this admit of any exception, it is in the country of Georgia or Circassia, of which I shall speak presently.

This, for all Europe, is notorious. The papists do not only own in fant baptism, but do generally still hold that an infant dying unbaptised, though by misadventure, cannot come to the Kingdom of Heaven, but must go to the region of Hades called limbus infantum. And they have scarce any antipaedobaptists mixed among them in the countries where they have the government.

In many of the Protestant or reformed countries there are some of this persuasion, in some more, in some fewer, and in some none at all. But in none of them has it prevailed to be the established religion. And though the contrary be not at all pretended, yet Mr Walker has taken pains to prove this by reciting l their several confessions, wherein they own infant baptism, and among the rest that of the Waldenses or Vaudois assembled at Angrogne.

The Church of England is taken notice of by some to speak very moderately in this matter. " The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable to the Institution of Christ."2 Yet they own, as I showed before,3 the "necessity of this sacrament where it may be had." And they do not think fit to use the office of burial, in which the deceased is styled a brother, for infants that die without it.

The Greek Christians also of Constantinople, and other parts of Europe under the Turk's dominion, are known to baptise infants. Sir Paul Ricaut among others has given a full account of their manner of doing it,4 and wherein they differ from the ceremonies of the Latins.

The same may be said of the Muscovites, who were from their first conversion a part of the Greek Church, but do of late choose a patriarch of their own. Of their practice in this matter for the last centuries Mr Walker has recited evidences in the chapter aforesaid, and for their present practice everyone knows it. They are said formerly to have baptised none before the fortieth day, except in case of necessity ; but Dr Crull, who has wrote latest of them, says,5 that now " they baptise their children as soon as they are born."

§ 2. In all the countries of Asia the Government is either Mahometan or Pagan. Yet in many of them, and especially of those under the Turks, the greatest part of the people are still Christian. There are also many Christians in several of the countries that are under the Persian Government, and some in those of the Mogul. These have all continued now a long time under persecution and daily hardships, and in great want of the means of instruction, yet have kept most of the main articles

1 Modest Plea, ch. xxvii. 2 Article 27. 3 Ch. vi. § 8.

1 Present State of Greek Church, ch. vii. 5 Present State of Muscovy, vol. i. c. xi.

Armenians — Maronites, 149

of Christian religion. They are some of them Nestorians, as those who acknowledge the patriarch of Mosul ; some Eutychians, as the Jacobites, the Maronites (and the Armenians, as most say, but Sir Paul Ricaut judges otherwise of them). An account of their several tenets is given by Brerewood in his Inquiries, Heylin in his Cosmography, &c. They do all hold and practise infant baptism.

•Coll. Danvers 6 says that the Armenians are confessed by Heylin, Microcos., page 573, "to defer baptism of children till they be of grown years." Heylin in his youth wrote a short tract of geography called Microcosm, and afterwards living to a more mature age he wrote a large volume on the same subject called Cosmography, wherein he added a great many particulars concerning each nation that were not in the former piece ; also several things he altered and amended upon better in formation, and he left out such things as he had not found to be con firmed. Now in that former piece he had divided Armenia into three parts — i, that which is properly so called; 2, Georgia; 3, Mengrelia. And of the Christians of Armenia properly so called, had said — that one of the things in which they differ from the western Christians is "in receiving infants to the Lord's Table presently after their baptism." Which he also confirms in the later book.7 Of the Georgians, he had indeed said in that former piece that " they baptise not their children till eight years old." But in the later and larger tract, says no such thing : but on the contrary says, " They are agreeable in doctrinal points to the Church of Greece, whose rituals also the people do to this day follow : not subject for all that to the patriarch of Constantinople (though of his communion) but to their own metropolitan only."

For what he had said of them in his former piece, " that they baptise not till the eighth year," he had quoted in the margin Brerewood. But. Brerewood, in the edition that I have (London, 1622) does not say this of the Georgians : but making one chapter (Chap, xvii.) of the Georgians, Circassians, and Mengrelians (whom he makes three several people all bordering together), of the Georgians says the same that Heylin does in his later book, viz., that they are conformable to the Greeks: but says, "that the Circassians baptise not their children till the eighth year, and enter not into the Church (the gentlemen especially) till the sixtieth, or as others say, the fortieth year, but hear divine service standing without the temple ; that is to say, till through age they grow unable to continue their rapines and robberies, to which sin that nation is exceedingly addicted : so dividing their life betwixt sin and devotion, dedicating their youth to rapine, and their old age to repentance."

Concerning these Georgians and Mengrelians [or Circassians], I shall speak more particularly presently. But for the Armenians ; both Brere-

6 Treat., Pt. I. ch. vii. cent. 16. 7 Lib. iii. in Turcomania.

1 50 The History of Infant Baptism.

wood in his Inquiries 8 and Heylin as I quoted before, and all others, do agree that they constantly baptise infants. And if the reader need any larger satisfaction, he may have it from Sir Paul Ricaut, who writes distinctly of them, not from remote report, but from the converse he had with them : for many of this people do frequent Smyrna, Constan tinople, &c. He gives 9 a full account of their baptism of infants ; " and that they esteem it necessary, as being that which washes away original sin." And also that (as Heylin and Brerewood had said) " they ad minister to the child after it the Holy Eucharist, which they do only by rubbing the lips with it."

The Maronites give baptism to infants with this particularity,10 that they baptise not a male child till he be forty days old, nor a female till eighty days : which is the time limited, Lev. xii., for the purification of the mother. Also they, as well as the Armenians, give the Eucharist to infants presently after their baptism.

Of all these sorts of Christians the western part of the world has all along had some knowledge and account : but it is otherwise of those in India, called the Christians of St Thomas, inhabiting about Cochin, Cranganor, and all that vast tract or promontory lying between the Coast of Malabar and the Coast of Coromandel. These were utterly unknown and not heard of by us of the west for a thousand years and more, viz., till about the year 1500, when those parts were discovered by the Portuguese. There were then estimated to be fifteen or sixteen thousand families of them, living among the heathens to whom they were subject. They were found in the practice of infant baptism : but they did not administer it till the child were forty days old, except in the case of danger of death. An account of the state of religion in which they were found, and of this among the rest, is given by Hieron, Osorius de rebus gestis Emanuelis.11 And of the methods by which they were one hundred years after brought over to a communion with the Church of Rome, by Mr Geddes in his account of the Synod of Diamper. The practice of these Indian Christians may convince our antipaedobaptists of their mistake in thinking that infant baptism began in the known parts of the world but of late years : for how then should it have been communicated to these men, who had never heard of such a part of the world as Europe ?

In short, there can be no question made of the practice of any Christians in Asia as to this matter, unless it be of those I mentioned before, that inhabit the countries of Georgia and Mengrelia [or Cir- cassia]. And therefore I will be a little more particular about them.

Georgia was formerly called Iberia: and Mengrelia [or Circassia] was called Colchis. They border together, lying in the remote part of

* Cap. iv. 9 Present State of the Armenian Church, ch. viii.

10 Heyhn, Cosmograph, Syria. n Lib iii. prope finem.

The Georgians and Mengrelians, 151

Asia between the Euxine and Caspian Sea : and are in religion much the same.

It is to be noted that these people were converted to the Christian faith in the time of Constantine, by the means of a Christian servant maid ; much after the same manner as Naaman the Syrian was to the knowledge of God. The maid by prayer to Christ cured the Queen of Iberia of a sickness : this and some other evidences converted the King : and he sent messengers to Constantine to desire some preachers to be sent to instruct the people, which was readily granted : and the nation became Christian. This is related by authors that lived about that time, such as Rufinus,12 Socrates,13 &c.

And as they received the faith from that Church under Constantine, so they are recorded in the succeeding times to have held communion with the same, viz., the Greek Church. And how that Church (as well before their division from the Latins, as since) managed in the matter of baptism, has been already shown. In after times the Saracens, and then the Turks, possessing those parts of Asia that lie between the Greeks and them, must needs break off the correspondence in great measure ; and they themselves as well as the Greeks, have been since conquered by the Mahometans. Yet they have and do still keep up some face of Christianity, though in great ignorance. And the gener ality of late historians and geographers do still speak of them as con formable to the Greek Church, so far as they practise any Christian worship at all, as I showed even now that Heylin in his last book does.

But Sir Paul Ricaut, who was Consul at Smyrna, and travelled in some other parts of the Levant about the year 1677, heard the same report of them that Brerewood and Heylin at first heard : Heylin of the Georgians, and Brerewood (as he distinguishes them) of the Circassians. Sir Paul Ricaut's words are these :

"The Georgians, which in some manner depend on the Greek Church, baptise not their children till they be eight years of age. They formerly did not admit them to baptism until fourteen, but by means of such preachers as the Patriarch of Antioch sends among them yearly, they were taught how necessary it was to baptise infants ; and how agreeable it was to the practice of the ancient Church. But these being a people very tenacious of the doctrines they once received, could hardly be persuaded out of this error, till at length, being wearied with the importunate arguments of the Greeks, they consented as it were to a middle way, and so came down from fourteen to eight years of age, and cannot as yet be persuaded to a nearer compliance." u

When I read this first, I thought that we had at last found a Church of antipsedobaptists (though a great way off), and that a national one,

12 II. E., lib. x. c. xi. 13 II. E., lib. i. c. xxi.

14 Present vState of Greek Church, c. viu

1 5 2 The History of Infant Baptism.

as far as it may be called in a nation mostly Christians, though under Mahometan government. For the words, as they are placed, do intimate that this people keep off children from baptism by their principle, and that, as is represented, of a long standing.

But as Sir Paul Ricaut could have this only by report, and that from a country very remote from the places where he travelled, and very unfrequented: so it happened that Sir John Chardin was actually travelling in those countries of Georgia and Mengrelia about the same time, and also was acquainted there with a missionary called F. Joseph Maria Zampy, who had lived there twenty-three years, who showed him a MS. account drawn up by himself of the observations he had made concerning the religion of the Mengrelians and Georgians, which account, Sir John says, was perfectly agreeable to all that he himself observed there.15

Now Sir John and the said missionary both do observe that these people do indeed, many of them, put off the baptising of their children for a great while ; and that many of the people there are never baptised at all. But they speak of this, not as a principle or tenet of theirs, that so it ought to be done, but as proceeding from a wretched neglect and stupid carelessness which they show in that and in all other points of Christian religion. Christianity is there, as it seems, almost extinguished, and whoever reads the book, sees the most deplorable face of a Church that is in the world. It may be necessary to recite some passages of the book and of the manuscript there exhibited.

Sir John Chardin himself says : " Their religion was, I believe, formerly the same with that of the Greeks." 16 But for the present state of it, says, " I could never discover any religion in any Mengrelian, having not found any that know what religion, or law, or sin, or a sacrament,°br Divine service is."

The MS. says, " This people has not the least idea of faith or religion. The most of them take eternal life, the universal judgment, the resur rection of the dead, for fables." 17 And a little after, " God only knows the deplorable estate of these wretched priests, or the validity of their priesthood. For it is always uncertain whether they are baptised, and whether the bishops that have ordained them have been consecrated or baptised themselves." 18

And of their baptism, gives this account : 19

" They anoint infants, as soon as they are born, on the forehead. The oil for this anointing is called myrone. The baptism is not administered till a long time after. No man baptises his child till he has means [or unless he have ability, sil n'a moyen] to make a feast at the christening. Hence it comes to pass that many infants die without receiving it. 15 Voyage into Persia, p. 86. i« Page g- 17 Pa™e 86

" Page 89. HI Pa|e 9£

Georg ians — Mengreliaus — CopJiti — A has sens. 153

" When they administer it to any infant they do not carry it to church, but in a common room the priest, without putting on any priestly habit, sits him down and reads a long time in a book. After a long reading the godfather undresses the infant, and washes him all over with water, and then rubs him over with the myrone which the priest gives him. This done, they clothe the infant again, and give him something to eat, &c.

" There is not one priest among them that understands the form of baptism, so that there is no question but their baptism is utterly invalid. On this regard the Fathers Theatins baptise as many infants as they can. They give them baptism under pretence of applying some medicine to them," &c.

Sir John himself at another place in his book tells how the Romish priests that are there, do this. A priest that is called to see a sick child, calls for a basin of water, as it were, to wash his hands, then before his hands be dry, he touches the forehead of the child with a wet finger, as if he observed something concerning his distemper, or by shaking his hand causes some drops of water to fly in the face of a child that stands by, as it were in sport, saying the form of baptism either mentally or with a muttering voice. One would think this as defective a sort of baptising, as that of the ignorant native priests.

Sir John was invited to two christenings there. He went that he might see the fashion of it. He gives an account of one of them.20 It was much after the manner related in the MS. The priest read, but talked at the same time to those that came in and out. The people went irreverently to and fro in the room, and so did the boy that was to be baptised, chewing a piece of pig the while. " He was," he says, " a little boy of five years old."

It is to be noted that the manuscript gives this as the common account of the rites both of the Mengrelians and Georgians. And so Sir John himself, when he comes to the Georgians, has only this of their religion. "The belief of the Georgians is much the same with that of the Mengrelians. The one and the other received it at the same time, viz., in the fourth century : and by the same means of a woman of Iberia that had been a Christian at Constantinople. In a word, the one as well as the other have lost all the spirit of Christianity : and what I said of the Mengrelians (that they have nothing of Christianity but the name, and that they neither observe nor hardly know any precept of the law of Jesus Christ) is no less true of the people of Georgia." 21

This state of the matter, as it is different from what Sir Paul Ricaut

gives (for this people do baptise infants when they think of it, and when

they have got their good cheer ready), so it might give occasion to the

report which he, and Heylin formerly, had heard. For it is probable

20 Page 140. S1 Page 206.

! 54 The History of Infant Baptism.

the Patriarch of Antioch might send to them to be more diligent in baptising their infants. But the arguments that this people needed to persuade them to it, were not such as are used to antipsedobaptists ; but such as we should use to Christians that are falling back into heathenism or total irreligion.

§ 3. In Africa there are but two sorts of Christians— the Cophti of Egypt, who are the remains of the old Christian Church there ; and the Abassens. Both of these baptise their infants, as is clear by accounts given of them by all historians and travellers. Brerewood,22 Heylin,23 and others speak of their particular observations about it. The Cophti baptise none till he be forty days old, though he die in the interim. The Abassens (as we said before of the Maronites in Asia) baptise the male children at forty days, and the female at eighty days after their cir cumcision ; for they circumcise their children of both sexes. But these last do in the case of peril of death baptise sooner. They do both give the Eucharist to infants after baptism.

But here also a mistake in a late book of travels needs to be rectified. M. Thevenot tells in his account of Egypt,24 that while he was at Gran Cair, he had some conference with an ambassador that was there from the Abassens' country, about the religion and other affairs of those parts. This ambassador told him that the Abassens circumcise their children " at eight days old, as the Jews : and fifteen days after, baptise them. Before that the Jesuits came thither, they did not baptise them till thirty or forty years."

Whoever reads what all other historians say of this people, viz., that they baptised forty days after their circumcision, will easily observe that Monsieur Thevenot has here mistaken in the last word of the sentence, years for days. Either he misheard the ambassador, or else mistook in setting it down : or else the French printer mistook it, for it is so in the French as well as in the translation of the book into English. There are a great many of those Eastern Christians that put off the baptism forty days : but if any had delayed baptism till forty years (to which age half of mankind does never arrive), we should have heard more of it than from that hour's conference.

§ 4. This is the account of the practice of the national Churches. But though there be no National Church but what baptises infants, yet there are, and have been for about one hundred and eighty years last past, in several countries of Europe, considerable numbers of men that differ from the established churches in this point. The history of their beginning and progress in Germany is so well known, and so much talked of, that I shall say the less of it. It is, in short, this :

No sooner had the Reformation begun by Luther, anno 1517, taken

22 Inquiries, ch. xxii., xxxiii. *» Cosmogr. Egypt. Ethiopia superior.

24 Travels, torn. i. Pt. II. ch, Ixix.

Antipcedobaptism in Germany, anno 1522. 155

good footing in Saxony and some other parts of Germany, great numbers of people and some princes (who were at this time generally weary of the abuses and corruptions of Popery and longed for a Reformation) greedily embracing it : but that within five or six years there arose a sort of men that pretended to refine upon him. One Nicolas Stork and Thomas Muncer, seconded within a while by one Baltazar Hubmer, preached that the baptism of infants was also an abuse that must be re formed ; and they baptised over again such as became their disciples. They added also other things : that it was not fit, nor to be endured in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, that some should be so rich and others so poor ; or that the boors should be held to such burthensome services by their landlords. Abundance of people flocked to them. And the more, for that there had been before discontents, and some insurrections, of those poorer sort of people, because of their foresaid hardships.

There was this difference between Luther's method and theirs, that he and his partners preached up obedience to all lawful magistrates in temporal things ; but they carried things with a higher hand in defiance of magistracy : and Muncer called himself " the Sword of the Lord and of Gideon."

Luther and the Protestants entered their protestation against their proceedings, as bringing a scandal on the new-begun Reformation. But they went on ; and after some time (great numbers of disorderly people joining with them) became masterless, made a sort of army, com mitted great ravages on the estates of rich men, where they marched. And at last, anno 1534, a strong party of this sort of men, coming mostly from Holland, seized on the city of Munster : where one John Becold, called John of Leyden, being advanced to be their ,king, they pretended to prophecy and revelation ; and did, under the name of Christ's Kingdom, practise several tyrannies and enormities, as polygamy, plundering, &c.

Some regular forces being brought against them, they were subdued : and the king and some of the heads of them being put to death, the rest were dispersed into several parts of Germany : and a great many of them fled into the Low Countries, where there were already great numbers of them.

The antipsedobaptists that are now, do not love to hear of these men, nor do own them as predecessors. Neither is there any reason that their miscarriages should be imputed to them, provided that they renounce and keep themselves from all such seditious practices. Espe cially since many of the people professing that opinion did a little after separate themselves from the tumultuous rabble, and made a declaration of better principles under better leaders, as I shall show by-and-by. Almost all alterations in religion, either for better or worse, have at the beginning some disorders. It is happy where magistrates, pastors, and

1 56 The History of Infant Baptism.

people do all at one time agree and conspire in any reformation that is thought necessary : but it is seldom known.

That which is more material to the history of infant baptism, is to inquire whether this Stork, Muncer, Hubmer, &c., did at that time, viz., anno 1522, set up this tenet as a thing then new, or newly revived; or whether it had been continued and handed down by some dispersed people from the times of the Petrobrusians (of whom I spoke in the last chapter, § 5), to this time. Danvers says, that " the present Belgic ana baptists do with one mouth assert and maintain the latter" 25 The chief reason he brings either of his own or of theirs, is because it appears that there were great numbers of them in several parts of Germany in Luther's time : and that he and others of the first Protestants had dis putations with them in Saxony, Thuringia, Switzerland, &c., "whereby it is evident that they had a being in those parts before Luther's time : for it cannot rationally be supposed that they should all of a sudden be spread over so great a territory as the upper Germany."

But of the sudden increase, both of the Protestants and of these men, I gave some account before. He brings also some authorities. But they are out of books of no credit for anything before their own time. Dutch Martyrology, Frank, Twisk, Merning, &c. If there were any continuation of the doctrine for the said two or three hundred years, it must have been very obscure, and by a very few men : because there is in all that interval no mention of them in any good author. The only authority that I remember to have read after 1260 and before 1522, which may seem to make anything to the purpose of antipaedo- baptism, is a letter written to Erasmus out of Bohemia by one Joannes Slechta Costelecius, dated October 10, 1519, a part whereof is published by Colomesius in his Collection of Letters of Men of Note, Epist. 30. This letter, as it is dated three years before Stork and the rest are said to have begun, so it speaks of a sect that had been then in being in that country for some time. I will recite that part of the letter entire : because, though it be not all to this purpose, yet it is all worth the reading ; that we may see what schemes of doctrine were abroad in the world a little before Luther began to oppose the Church of Rome.

" The third sect is of those whom we call Pyghards : they have their name from a certain refugee of the same nation, who came hither ninety- seven years ago, when that wicked and sacrilegious John Zizka declared a defiance of the churchmen and all the clergy." This was 1420.

" These men have no other opinion of the Pope, cardinals, bishops, and other clergy, than as of manifest Antichrists : they call the Pope sometimes the beast, and sometimes the whore mentioned in the Revelations. Their own bishops and priests they themselves do choose for themselves, ignorant and unlearned laymen that have wife and Treatise, Pt. II. ch. vii. p. 257, ed. 2.

The Pighards of Bohemia. 157

children. They mutually salute one another by the name of brother and sister.

" They own no other authority than the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. They slight all the doctors, both ancient and modern, and give no regard to their doctrine.

" Their priests, when they celebrate the offices of the mass [or communion], do it without any priestly garments : nor do they use any prayer or collects on this occasion, but only the Lord's Prayer ; by which they consecrate bread that has been leavened.

" They- believe or own little or nothing of the sacraments of the Church. Such as come over to their sect must everyone be baptised anew in mere water. They make no blessing of salt nor of the water ; nor make any use of consecrated oil.

" They believe nothing of divinity in the sacrament of the Eucharist : only that the consecrated bread and wine do by some occult signs represent the death of Christ. And accordingly, that all that do kneel down to it, or worship it, are guilty of idolatry. That that sacrament was instituted by Christ to no other purpose but to renew the memory of His Passion ; and not to be carried about or held up by the priest to be gazed on. For that Christ Himself, who is to be adored and worshipped with the honour of latreia, sits at the right hand of God, as the Christian Church confesses in the Creed.

" Prayers of the saints, and for the dead, they count a vain and ridiculous thing, as likewise auricular confession, and penance enjoined by the priest for sins. Eves and Fast Days are, they say, a mockery, and the disguise of hypocrites.

"They say, the holidays of the Virgin Mary, and the Apostles and other saints, are the invention of idle people. But yet they keep the Lord's Day, and Christmas, and Easter, and Whitsunday," &c. He says there were great numbers of this sect then in Bohemia.

Where it is here said that they rebaptised, it is not certain whether they did it as judging baptism in infancy invalid, or as judging all bap tism received in the corrupt way of the Church of Rome to be so. The coherence of the words seems to incline to the latter ; and Ottius, Hist. Anabap., anno 1521, affirms the latter to be true.

There is, I think, no doubt but these Pyghards were the same that ^nseas Sylvius gives an account of in his Hist. JBohem., written sixty years before, and calls Picards. He, in that history, says nothing of their denying infants' baptism, as I observed in the last chapter, § 6. Baltazar Lydius and Burigenus do both of them recite the confessions of these men, offered by themselves to King Uladislaus, in which they expressly own it. John Huss, whose doctrine these men followed, is never said to have denied it ; only he is accused to have consented to

158 The History of Infant Baptism.

that opinion of Wickliff, that a child that misses of baptism may possibly be saved.28

These Pyghards do in their confessions say that they are falsely called Waldenses. I am apt to think they had this name of Picards or Pyg hards from the old Beghards, which was one of the sects that we do now comprehend under the name Waldenses, though the Waldenses, so called by Pilichdorf, did, as he says, abominate the Beghards.27 One of the authors in Gretzer's collection of writers against the Waldenses, called Conradus de Monte Puellarum, says, "That this sect was then rife in all Germany, and that the men of it were called Beghards, and the women Beguines," but has nothing about their baptism. And I have heard that there are now popish monasteries in Flanders of men called Beghards, and women Beguines. I know not what signification that name may have in any language that can make it applicable to such different constitutions (for the old Beghards did, as all the rest whom we call Waldenses, abominate the Church of Rome) unless it signify the same as our English word beggar ; and so they should have their name from their poverty, as some sorts both of the Friars and also of the Waldenses had.

I said that the antipsedobaptists dispersed from Munster, fled some into several principalities of the Upper Germany, and some into the Low Countries. They that continued in Germany found but cold entertain ment ; partly because of their new doctrine, and partly because of the disorders they had committed during that short time of their reign. The papists generally reproached the Protestants that they were a sect sprung from them, and would call all Protestants, in scorn, anabaptists ; but the Protestants disowned them, and wrote against them. And Sleidan gives several instances wherein the Protestant princes and states declared against harbouring them, and made answer to the reproaches of the papists that they took more care to rid their countries of them than they themselves did. And there are said to be very few of them now in either the popish or the Protestant countries of the Upper Germany.

§ 5. Those of them that retired into the Belgic Provinces found there more partisans than anywhere else. At Amsterdam particularly they were near acting the same tragedy they had done at Munster. One John Geles sent out of Munster by John of Leyden to get supplies of men, and to stir up other cities, had formed a design to surprise Amster dam, May 12, 1535, which, by his numbers in the town and some from other places, he was like to have effected ; but they were defeated and killed. Also one John Matthew set up for a chief, and chose to him self twelve apostles, and found a great many disciples to his doctrine. They prophesied that the end of the world would be within a year, and w Fox, Martyrol., John Huss, 1415. * See ch. vii. § 7.

Menno of Friezcland, Theodoric, &c. 1 59

filled peoples' heads with many other enthusiastical notions. Being sup pressed by the magistrates, and some of them put to death, they are said to have endured it with great constancy.

Cassander mentions 28 also one John Batenburg, who, after the ceasing of the sedition of Munster, began another. There were several other disturbances of less moment, which I pass by.

, But Cassander and all agree that a little while after this, one Menno, a countryman of Friezeland, a man of a sober and quiet temper, that held the doctrine of antipaedobaptism, did disclaim and protest against the seditious doctrines and practices of those at Munster and of Batenburg ; and taught that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, which they had pretended to set up by external force, consisted in patience, meekness, and suffer ing quietly if occasion should be. That one Theodoric succeeded this Menno in the same doctrine. And Cassander says, that in his time, which was about one hundred and forty years ago, "Almost all that continued the profession of that opinion in the Belgic Provinces were followers of this Menno." And so to this day they generally call them selves Mennonists, or by abbreviation, Minnists.

He gives them this character : " Most of them do show signs of a pious disposition, and it seems to be rather by mistake than by any wilful wickedness that they, carried by an unskilful zeal, have departed from the true sense of the Scripture, and the uniform agreement of the whole Church." And says, that "they seem worthy rather of pity and due information, than of persecution or being undone."

One thing he says29 of this Menno that is particular, viz., that, " whereas the credit of antiquity and perpetual tradition carries great authority with it, even with those that set up new doctrines," &c. And accordingly " some of these men had at first endeavoured to fix the origin of infant baptism upon some Pope of Rome ; Menno had more sense [or was more wary, prudentior\ than so. He was forced to own that it had been in use from the Apostles' time ; but he said that the false apostles were the authors of it."

Cassander does there confute this nothing with so good reasons, that I wonder he should call it a more wary one than the other. For as it had been indeed an unwary thing in Menno to deny that the baptising of infants was in use in the ages next the Apostles ; when he might, for aught he knew, be convicted of falsehood by the remaining acts and records of those times : so to maintain that all the books that were pre served by the Church were such as were written by the followers of the false apostles, and none by the followers of the true, is an imagination rather more absurd than the other. There were false apostles indeed : but they set themselves to slander and speak and write against the true ones, as appears by what St Paul and St John do say of them. But the

28 Prsefat. ad Ducem Clivise. * Prsefat. ad Testimonia contra Anabaptistas.

160 The History of Infant Baptism.

books and writings which the Church has preserved are of such as do own the authority of the apostles.

As for the present state of the Minnists, a late writer of those parts, an extract of whose book is given by Mr Boval,30 says, "Except Holland, where they live peaceably, they are almost extinct." By Holland I suppose he means the United Provinces.

In those provinces there are considerable numbers of them, especially in Holland and Friezeland. They have the repute of being very fair traders and very sober men. They use a plainness in their garb to some degree of affectation, as the Quakers in England do. And they hold opinions something like theirs, against the lawfulness of oaths of war, &c.

The other tenets attributed to them,31 are, that there is no original sin. That only the New Testament is a rule of faith. That Christ had His flesh, not of the Virgin Mary, but from heaven. That it is possible to live without sin in this life. That departed souls sleep till the resur rection, &c.

But some that have lived in that country say that all these opinions are not common to them all : but that some churches of them hold some of these opinions, and other churches others of them. For their general humour is to divide into several churches on the least difference of opinions. Those of the old Flemish way keep a very strict discipline and excommunicate people on very nice occasions. The Friezelanders receive all. Some of them allow of no baptism but by immersion, or putting the baptised person into the water : but the most part of them admit of baptism by affusion of water. In short, every congregation of them almost does espouse some particular tenets : only they do all of them renounce infant baptism.

One cannot impute this as any peculiar fault or folly to the Minnists, that they are apt to divide and separate from one another on any small differences of opinion. It is a humour too general and prevailing among many other people of that country (as well as of ours) to think that they ought to separate from all that hold anything in religion different from what they themselves hold. Whereas the great aim and interest of religion is unity and communion in the worship of God, not withstanding different sentiments in points not fundamental; and schisms and parties are forbidden, as courses that will certainly ruin it : there is no sin that such people think to be a less sin than schism is. The papists do upbraid the Protestants in general with his humour, as if it were the natural principle, and the millstone on the neck of Protestantism. It is too true that the Protestant religion and interest have been much impaired by it in many countries, where it has grown and increased in spite of the best endeavours of the ministers in showing declaring to the people the sinfulness of it. About which the

50 Hist, of Works of Learned, July 1699. si Stoup> Religion of the Hollanders,

Dutch Antipcedobaptists coming into England. 161

papists of all men should make no noise, because they are the only men that get ground by it : they, and some few designing persons who propose an interest by heading of parties. But they cannot say that this is true of all. There are some Protestant countries so happy as to keep their people in great union and uniformity.

But some of the Minnists do differ from the rest, and from all Catholic Christians in points more material, and such as are indeed in consistent with communion. For about the year 1658 the Socinians that were grown to a considerable number in Poland were expelled thence. Many of them sought a refuge in these parts. They had most of them added the opinion of antipasdobaptism to what Socinus had taught them against our Saviour's divinity : and the common name by which they had in Poland been called was Anabaptists. So when they came to Holland they essayed mostly to strike in with the Minnists ; and they have since brought over many of them to their opinion concerning the nature of Christ. One sort of the Minnists, called Collegians, are generally Socinians, believing in nothing but the human nature of Jesus Christ, and holding it unlawful to pray to Him ; wherein they surpass the impiety of Socinus himself. These hold a general assembly twice a year at Rhinsburg, where it is said they observe this order, that he that comes first distributes the communion to all the assistants, for they have no regard to the ordination of ministers.

Others of the Minnists are Arians, of which opinion one Galenus, now living in Amsterdam, is said to be the chief patron. And so these are by some called Galenists.

And, generally speaking, the Minnists, though they do not all profess these opinions derogatory to our Saviour's divinity, yet do refuse the use of the words Trinity, Person, &c., and such other words concerning the nature of God, as are not in Scripture, but are used by the Church to express the sense thereof.

The first Socinians that were in Holland (for there were some few before the year I spoke of) had, as Socinus himself had, but a slender opinion of infants' baptism : yet did not absolutely refuse it. For at the Synod of Dort, anno 1618, "was read the confession of the two brothers, John and Peter Geysteran, Remonstrant ministers : and was re jected by all with detestation. For it appeared that they, under the name of Remonstrants, and under pretence of the five Articles, did maintain the horrid and execrable blasphemies of Socinus and the anabaptists." So say the Acts 32 of the Synod. But all that their Confession says of baptism is, " That infants are baptised not by any positive command of God, but to avoid scandal." And that " they value the baptism of the adult more than that of infants."

§ 6. In England there were now and then some Dutchmen found of

32 Acta Synod. Dordrecht, Sess. 138. II. F

K52 The History of Infant Baptism.

the antipsedobaptist opinion ever since the time that it had taken foot ing in Holland : but none of the English nation are known to have embraced it in a long time after. Danvers, indeed, would find some of this opinion in England even before those of Munster. He would per suade33 that the Lollards held it. But they held nothing but what I mentioned before, ch. vi. § 7, that infants dying unbaptised may yet be saved, as I showed then, and appears more fully by Fox.34

In the year 1533, twenty-fifth of Henry VIII., John Frith (who was martyred that year) wrote a short tract, which he calls a Declaration of Baptism (it is published with his other works, Lond. 1573)- In it he takes notice of the antipaedobaptist opinion as then lately risen in the world (it was about eleven years' standing in Germany, and was but lately got into Holland, for this was a year before the outrage and dis persion at Munster). What he says of it is this, " Now is there an opinion risen among certain, which affirm that children may not be baptised until they come into a perfect age ; and that because they have no faith. But, verily, methinks that they are far from the meekness of Christ and His Spirit; which when children were brought unto Him, received them lovingly," &c. And after a short discourse, he breaks off from that point thus : " But this matter will I pass over. For I trust the English (unto whom I write this) have no such opinions. And that the English Lollards had been all along free from any such opinion is evident from a very ancient tract of theirs which they presented to the Parliament, which is recited by one Dinmock, who writes an answer to it, and dedicates that answer to King Richard II., which must be about or before the year 1390. This tract is brought to light from some ancient manuscripts at Cambridge by the learned Dr Allix, at the end of his Remarks on the History of the Churches of the Albigenses. In it the Lollards, complaining of popish abuses, reckon this for one ; the forbidding of marriage, and keeping men from women ; from whence did follow effects worse than those of fornication itself committed with women. For, they say, though slaying of children ere they be christened be full sinful ; yet Sodomy was worse.

The Convocation, anno 1536, do take notice of the antipaedobaptists' opinions, of which they must have heard from Holland and Germany (the Munster business having been two years before), and do pass some decrees against them. The rather because some people in England began to speak very irreverently and mockingly about some of the ceremonies of baptism then in use.

The Lower House of Convocation sent to the Upper House a pro testation, containing a catalogue of some errors and some profane say ings that began to be handed about among some people : craving the

33 Treat., Pt. II. ch. vii. pp. 303, 304. M In Henry VI., p. 608.

Dntcli Antipcedobaptists coming into England, 163

concurrence of the Upper House in condemning them. Some of them are these : 35

" 17. That it is as lawful to christen a child in a tub of water at home,

or in a ditch by the way, as in a fontstone in the church." I think it may probably be concluded from their expressions that the ordinary way of baptising at this time in England, whether in the church or out of it, was by putting the child into the water.

" 1 8. That the water in the fontstone is only a thing conjured.

" 19. That the hallowed oil is no better than the Bishop of Rome's

grease or butter.

" 63. That holy water is more savoury to make sauce with than other water, because it is mixed with salt ; which is also a very good medicine for a horse with a galled back : and if there be put an onion thereto, it is a good sauce for a gibbet of mutton." But there is none of all these foolish sayings that reflects anything on infant baptism. Yet the King and Convocation (apprehensive, I suppose of what might be), setting forth several articles about religion, to be diligently preached for keeping people steady in it, have these about baptism —

" i. That the sacrament of baptism was instituted and ordained in the New Testament by our Saviour Jesus Christ, as a thing necessary for the attaining of everlasting life : according to the saying of Christ, Nisi quis renatus fiierit, &c. : ' Unless one be born of water/ " &c.

" 2. That it is offered unto all men, as well infants, as such as have the use of reason, that by baptism they shall have remission of sins," &c. " 3. That the promise of grace and everlasting life, which promise is adjoined to the Sacrament of Baptism, pertaineth not only to such as have the reason, but also to infants," &c. ..." they are made thereby the very sons and children of God. Insomuch as children dying in their infancy shall undoubtedly be saved thereby : otherwise not.

" 4. Infants must needs be christened, because they be born in original sin, which sin must needs be remitted ; which cannot be done but by the grace of baptism, whereby they receive the Holy Ghost which exercises His grace and efficacy in them, and cleanses and purifies them from sin by His most secret virtue and operation.

" 6. That they ought to repute and take all the anabaptists' and Pela gians' opinions contrary to the premises, and every other man's opinion agreeable unto the said anabaptists' and Pelagians' opinions in this behalf for detestable heresies, and utterly to be condemned."

35 Fuller's Church History, 1. v. sect. 4. F 2

!64 The History of Infant Baptism.

These precautions show, if there were at this time in England no doc trines held by any against infant baptism, yet that they feared lest such should be brought over hither. And two years after, anno 1538, Fuller 30 recites out of Stow, that four anabaptists, three men and one woman, all Dutch, bore faggots at Paul's Cross ; and that three days after, a man and woman of their sect were burned in Smithfield. And says : " This year the name of this sect first appears in our English chronicles."

But Fox had spoken of some two or three years before. For, taking notice of the influence that Queen Ann Boleyn had over Henry VIIL, he observes,37 that " during her time we read of no great persecution, nor any abjuration to have been in the Church of England, save only that the registers of London make mention of certain Dutchmen counted for anabaptists, of whom ten were put to death in sundry places of the realm, anno 1535; other ten repented and were saved." This must have been the year before the said Convocation.

The Bishop of Salisbury, Hist, of Reform, Ft. 1. 1. iii. p. 195, mentions these men, but not under the name of anabaptists. He says, that in May this year, 1535, "Nineteen Hollanders were accused of some heretical opinions, ' denying Christ to be both God and Man, or that He took flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, or that the sacraments had any effect on those that received them : ' in which opinions fourteen of them remained obstinate and were burned by pairs in several places." Here is nothing peculiarly about infants' baptism. But the circumstance of time, May 1535, leads one to think that they were some of them that were to have made a part in the insurrection at Amsterdam. For the author of an English pamphlet, written 1747, called A Short History of the Ana baptists (who has made a good collection out of Sleidan, Hortensius, &c.), says that many Dutchmen from several parts who had been ap pointed to assist John Geles in the surprise of Amsterdam before- mentioned, hearing the ill success, fled into England in two ships. Now that insurrection was on this very month. And that author reckons those two shiploads to be the first seminary of Dutch antipaedobaptists in England. But, however that was, there were no English among them.

But although during this king's reign (and for a good while after, as we shall see) there were no Englishmen that held any opinion against infant baptism ; yet, as I said that in Germany the papists upbraided the Protestants with the name of anabaptists, so it was done here also in the latter times of this reign. For this King Henry VIIL, in a speech made at the proroguing of the Parliament, December 24th, 1545 (recited by the Lord Herbert at that year), complaining of the great dis cord among his subjects, and of the reproachful names they gave one to another, says : " What love and charity is there among you, when one 88 Fuller, Church History, 1. v. sect. 5. 37 Martyrol., pag. 956, ed. 2.

Henry VIII. — Edward VL — Queen Mary. 165

calls another heretic and anabaptist, and he calls him again papist, hypocrite, and Pharisee ? "

In King Edward's time, in the third year of his reign, Heylin says : " At the same time the anabaptists who had kept themselves to them selves in the late king's time began to look abroad, and disperse their dotages ; for preventing which mischief before it grew to a head, some of the chief of them were convened," 38 &c. He does not say whether these were Dutch or English. And the same year, 1549, Ottius, in his Anna!. Anabaptist, recites a letter from Hooper to Bullinger, wherein he complains that England was troubled with a sort of anabaptists ; but, reciting their tenets, he mentions nothing of infant baptism, nor does he say whether they were English or foreigners.

In Queen Mary's time, Philpot had, a little before his martyrdom, an occasion to write a letter 39 to a fellow-prisoner of his to satisfy him in some doubts that he had concerning the lawfulness of infant baptism. This shows that the question was then ventilated in England. Philpot, besides the arguments from Scripture, brings some of the quotations from antiquity that I have produced, and concludes : " The verity of antiquity is on our side, and the anabaptists have nothing but lies for them, and new imaginations, which feign the baptism of children to be the Pope's commandment."

But this good man grants a great deal more of the question in point of antiquity than he should have done, when he says in his letter : " Auxentius, one of the Arian sect, with his adherents, was one of the first that denied the baptism of children, and next after him Pelagius the heretic ; and some other there were in St Bernard's time, as it does appear by his writings. And in our days the anabaptists," &c.

The ground of his mistake concerning the Arians, that they should be against infants' baptism, is, that the Arians are by some old writers called anabaptists ; but that was because they rebaptised all that had been baptised by the Catholics, in infancy or at age, not that they disliked infants' baptism : as I showed before.40 And the particular mistake concerning Auxentius must have been caused by those words of St Ambrose in his oration against Auxentius : " Why then does Auxentius say, that the faithful people who have been baptised in the Name of the Trinity must be baptised again ? " Where anyone that will read the place will see that Auxentius's reason for saying so was not any difference that the two parties had about infants' baptism, but the different faith they had about the Trinity, in whose name baptism was given.

Pelagius denied original sin : from whence Philpot by too visible a mistake, concluded he had denied infants' baptism.

38 Hist, of Reformation, p. 73. 39 Fox, Martyrol., page 1670, ed. 2.

40 Ch. iv. § 3.

!66 The History of Infant Baptism.

In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, as there were no Eng lish antipsedobaptists, so there were very few left in Holland ; till, after the revolt of those provinces from Spain, they increased again.

For Bishop Jewel in his Defence of his Apology, written about the seventh year of this Queen, being twitted by Harding with the anabap tists, "Are not these your brethren?" And Harding having said that the Roman Catholic countries were cleared of them (among which he expressly there reckons Base Almaign, i.e., the Dutch Low Countries), Jewel replies to him, "They find harbour amongst you in Austria, Silesia, Moravia, and such other countries where the Gospel of Christ is suppressed : but they have no acquaintance with us either in England, Germany, France, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, or any other place where the Gospel of Christ is clearly preached."

From whence we may gather, that this sort of people were at this time (which was about forty years after their rise), almost totally sup pressed in all these parts of the world.

But yet about the sixteenth year of Queen Elizabeth, a congregation of Dutch antipaedobaptists was discovered without Aldgate in London : whereof twenty-seven were taken and imprisoned. And the next month one Dutchman and ten women were condemned. One woman re canted : eight were banished : two were burnt in Smtthfield, as Fuller 41 out of Stow relates. Their tenets are recited thus, " Infants not to be baptised. Christians not to use the sword. All oaths unlawful. Christ took not flesh of the Virgin Mary." This agrees in every point with the account given before of the doctrine of the Minnists. These were the first that that Queen ever caused to be burnt for any opinion in religion.

Fox that wrote the Book of Martyrs was then living ; and he ventured to intercede with the Queen for the life of those two : but could not prevail ; she showing such a sense of the necessity of suppressing any new sect by severity at the beginning. In his letter to her 42 there are these words : " As for their errors indeed, no man of sense can deny that they are most absurd. And I wonder that such monstrous opinions could come into the mind of any Christian. But such is the state of human weakness ; if we are left never so little a while destitute of the Divine Light, whither is it that we do not fall ? And there is great reason to give God thanks on this account, that I hear not of any Englishman that is inclined to that madness," &c. He entreats the Queen that these two may be banished, as the rest were ; or otherwise punished. ." But to roast alive the bodies of poor wretches, that offend rather by blindness of judgment than perverseness of will, in fire and flames raging with pitch and brimstone, is a hard-hearted thing, and more agreeable to the practice of the Romanists than the custom of the Evangelics."

41 Ch. Hist., 9th Book, sect. iii. "2 Ibid.

The Increase of Antipcedobaptism in England. 167

From his words Fuller concludes that this opinion had not then taken any footing among the English : for Fox was likely to know if it had.

At what time it began to be embraced by any English I do not find it easy to discover. But it is plain that no very considerable number in England were of this persuasion till about sixty years ago. The first book (except some books taken in a Jesuit's trunk, which he had brought over on purpose to spread this opinion, which I must mention by-and-by : but except them) the first that ever I heard of, that was set forth in English, upholding this tenet, was a Dutch book, called, A plain and well groiinded Treatise concerning Baptism. This was translated and printed in English, A.D. 1618, the sixteenth year of King James the First. But neither in that King's reign, nor in that of his son King Charles the First, till towards the latter end of it, have we any account of any considerable number of people of this way, very little mention of them, or of that question, in any English books.

Dr Featly, who wrote 1645, says in his preface — " This fire in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth, King James, and our gracious Sovereign till now, was covered in England under the ashes ; or if it broke out at any time, by the care of the ecclesiastical and civil magistrates it was soon put out. But of late since the unhappy distractions — hundreds of men and women together rebaptised in the twilight, in rivulets, and some arms of the Thames," &c. And in his letter to Mr Downham, mentioning the great increase of monstrous sects and heresies at that time, especially of papists and anabaptists, he says — " They boast of their great draught of fish ; the papists of 20,000 proselytes, the ana baptists of forty-seven churches." Upon which view of sects arising in such times, he does in another place of his book set forth the mischiefs of a general toleration in any state: which observation of the doctor's made upon the first toleration that had ever been in England, the experience of all times since following has shown to be a just one. None can deny but that this evil does follow upon it; how necessary soever it may sometimes be on other respects.

It was during the rebellion against King Charles I. and the usurpation of Oliver Cromwell that this opinion began to have any great number of converts to it. In those times of stirs, they boasted in their books that that prophecy was fulfilled : " Many shall run to and fro, and know ledge shall be increased."43 That usurper gave not only a toleration, but great encouragement to all sorts of religions that opposed the Church of England and the Presbyterians. Neither of these could he trust : but laboured to weaken them what he could. And the more dissenters and separaters there were from these, the safer he reckoned he sat. The event, of these joining afterwards together to vindicate

43 Daniel xii. 4.

1 68 The History of Infant Baptism.

their country from tyranny and utter confusion, showed that he was in the right.

In these times of general liberty this opinion increased mightily : many owning it out of conscience (we must in charity judge) as thinking it to be the truth ; but many also for advantage. For Oliver, next to his darling Independents, favoured this sort of men most; and his army was in great part made up of them. You must suppose, then, that they left out of their scheme of doctrines that tenet of the Minnists, " that the sword is not to be made use of by Christians," for they had many of them the places of troopers, captains, major-generals, committee-men, sequestrators, &c.

It appears by a passage in the life of Judge Hale,44 how much that party was favoured at that time. For it is there related how that judge, having the case brought before him " of some anabaptists who had rushed into a church, and disturbed a congregation while they were re ceiving the sacrament, not without some violence ; was minded to pro ceed severely against them. For he said it was intolerable for men, who pretend so highly to liberty of conscience, to go and disturb others, &c. But these were so supported by some great magistrates and officers, that a stop was put to his proceedings. Upon which he declared he would meddle no more with trials on the Crown side : " yet some time before the death of the usurper, many of the antipaedobaptists, as well as of the other separate parties that had raised him, fell into a dislike of him, and he of them. So far that he, as one Captain Dean relates, cashiered several of them : and they, as the Lord Chancellor Clarendon relates, entered into several conspiracies to assassinate him. I have been advertised that I ought in this second edition to insert, in order to their vindication, their address to King Charles II., recited by that noble lord in the fifteenth book of his excellent History of the Rebellion. I will therefore give the substance of it in short, being sorry that it does not tend more to their credit than it does. They (as well as all the other parties of that time except the churchmen) seem to have returned to their allegiance to the king, not out of conscience, but because they found themselves undone without him.

Several sorts and sects of men joined in the address : but it was sent to the king, being then at Bruges, by a gentleman, an antipaedobaptist of special trust among them. They recount how under King Charles I. there had been " many errors, excesses, irregularities, &c., as blots and stains upon the otherwise good government of that king : " whom they own to have been " of the best and purest morals of any prince that ever swayed the English sceptre : " that the Parliament had raised war to free him from evil counsellors : tha,t they among the rest had on this account taken arms : and that though they are since sensible that under pretence of 44 Burnet's Life and Death of Sir Matthew Hale, p. 44.

The Present State of A ntipcedobaptism in England. \ 69

reformation and liberty the secret designs of " wicked and ambitious persons" had been hid; yet that they themselves had "gone out in the simplicity of their soufs," having never had thoughts of " casting off their allegiance, or extirpating the Royal Family : " but only of " restraining the excesses of Government." " Thus far," they say, " they had gone right, and had as yet done nothing but what they thought themselves able to justify" [strange that they could say this]. But that in all their motions since, they had been " roving up and down in all the untrodden paths of fanatic notions ;" and now found themselves " involved in so many laby rinths and meanders of knavery," that they know not how to extricate themselves. " Into what crimes, impieties, and unheard-of villainies have we," say they, " been led, cheated, cosened, and betrayed by that grand impostor, that loathsome hypocrite, that detestable traitor, that prodigy of nature, &c., who now calls himself our Protector? — We have trampled under foot all authorities, we have laid violent hands upon our own sovereign, we have ravished our Parliaments, put a yoke of iron on the necks of our countrymen, broken oaths, vows, covenants, engagements, &c., lifted up our hands to heaven deceitfully, and added hypocrisy to all our sins. — We were sometime wise to pull down : but we now want art to build. We were ingenious to pluck up : but have no skill to plant. Strong to destroy : but weak to restore. Whither shall we go for help ? If to Parliaments ; they are broken reeds. If to the army, they are a rod of iron to bruise us. If to him who treacherously has usurped, and does traitorously exercise power over us ; he says, ' I have chastised you with whips, and will henceforward with scorpions.' — At last, we began to whisper among ourselves, why should we not return to our first husband ? " &c.

And so (after many long turns of canting expressions) they come at last to this, that they find themselves engaged in duty, honour, and conscience to make this humble address, &c. But yet declare, that "lest they should seem altogether negligent of that first good cause, which God had so eminently owned in them," &c., they think it necessary to offer the following propositions (which his Lordship justly calls "extravagant and wild ones"), to which, if His Majesty would condescend, then they would hazard their lives to re-establish him.

1. That the King do resettle the Long Parliament, with the excluded

members.

2. That he ratify all the concessions made by his father at the treaty

in the Isle of Wight. [Now those concessions were (as this noble historian observes in another place. Book xvi., p. 723, &c. Ed. Ox., 1706), "Such as in truth did, with the preserva tion of the name and life of the king, near as much establish a Republican Government, as was settled after his murder. And

1 70 The History of Infant Baptism.

such as His Majesty yielded to with much less cheerfulness than he walked to the scaffold."] ,

3. That he should set up an universal toleration of all religions.

4. Abolish all payment of tithes.

5. Pass a general Act of Oblivion.

The gentleman added in a letter of his own, that he desired the sum of £2000 to be remitted to him from the King: which sum not being at that time in His Majesty's power, this proposal came to nothing.

It was by reason of the increase which had been of this opinion in those times, that the Convocation which sat presently after the restora tion of King Charles II., when they made a review of the Book of Common Prayer, found it necessary to add to it an office for the baptism of those who, having been born in those times, had not yet been baptised ; whereof there were many that were now grown too old to be baptised as infants, and ought to make profession of their own faith. They give in the preface to the said book an account of the, occasion that made this necessary then, though not formerly, in these words : " Together with an office for the baptism of such as are of riper years. Which although not so necessary when the former book was compiled ; yet by the growth of anabaptism, through the licentiousness of the late times crept in among us, is now become necessary."

The Parliament assembled upon the said Restoration, expressed the dislike the nation had conceived against the tenets and behaviour of these men ; when making an Act for the confirming all ministers in the possession of their benefices, how heterodox soever they had been, provided they would conform for the future ; they excepted such as had been of this way.

It is to be noted, that when this opinion began first to increase, they did not all of them proceed to separation from the Established Church : they held it sufficient to declare their sentiment against infant baptism, to reserve their own children to adult baptism, and to be baptised with it themselves, without renouncing communion in prayers and in the other sacrament with the paedobaptists. In the year 1645, when Marshal had in a sermon objected to the antipaedobaptists the sin of separation ; Tombs answers.45 that this was practised only by some ; that it was the fault of the persons, not of the principle of antipaedo- baptism ; that he himself abhorred it ; and he quotes as concurring with him, " the Confession of Faith in the name of seven churches of antipaedobaptists in London," Art. 33.

But these that continued in communion were not for Oliver's turn. There was great care taken to instil into them principles of total separa tion, which proved too effectual : and within a while they did all, or 43 Examen., Pt. II. § 2.

The Present State of Antipcedobaptism in England. 171

almost all, renounce the settled congregations, and became great enemies to them. In which separation they do still, almost all, continue.

The present state of them is this :

They that are now, are as commendable as any other sort of men are, for a sober and grave, quiet and peaceable way of living. They profess obedience to magistrates ; and they will commonly express a dislike and abhorrence of those plunderings and other violences committed by some of their party, as well as by the rest of the army of that usurper aforesaid of odious memory. They are particularly commended for main taining their poor liberally (which is a way that never fails to attract the good-will of the multitude, and to make proselytes), as also for passing censures upon such members of their own congregations as live disorderly.

This character of obedient subjects, is what they now own and pro fess ; and what I hope is the real sentiment of most of them. One Mr Hicks, did indeed about twenty years ago (if what was informed against him were true), give a most ugly and reproachful account of the whole body of this people as to this point.

There was at that time, 1683, a villainous conspiracy headed by Shaftesbury, Monmouth, &c., against King Charles, either to murder or at least to depose him. The conspirators sent their emissaries about, to see what numbers and parties of the people could be drawn in to join in the rebellion. And amongst other discoveries made afterwards of this treason, there was this following information given upon oath by one Mr West of the Temple, which is printed in the account of that plot. Copies of Information, p. 41.

" This examinant further says, that Mr Roe told this examinant, that he had discoursed with one Mr Hicks, a tobacconist, an anabaptist preacher, a great ringleader of the anabaptists ; and that the said Hicks had told him that the anabaptists could, and he believed upon good consideration would, make up an army of 20,000 men, and 1500 of the 20,000 would be horse : and though perhaps there would be a necessity of making use of some great men at the beginning (and this examinant thinks he mentioned the Duke of Monmouth), yet when the anabaptists were once up, they would not lay down their arms till they had their own terms."

If Hicks never did say so, he ought to have publicly disowned it. And if he did, the antipsedobaptists ought to'have disowned him from being a leader. Whether either of them were done, or whether Hicks be now living, I know not. God Almighty keep all sorts of people from such leaders, as will lead them in a way to which the Scripture expressly assigns damnation. But, however, there were but two men of the twenty thousand that appeared then to have been guilty : and those two were among some of the first that made an ingenuous and voluntary

172 The History of Infant Baptism.

confession. And besides, it is not credible that that party of men could at that time have made up such a number, if they had been never so unanimous in the wickedness. P.S. — I hear since that Hicks is dead : but that he lived in London many years after this ; and that the fore- said accusation was not made good against him : but that King Charles II., upon a hearing of his case in Council, discharged him.

The number of them had been considerably abated upon the Restora tion and the re-settling of the Church of England. Many at that time returned to the Church, and brought the children which they had had in the meantime to be baptised according to the order thereof. And during the remainder of King Charles's reign the number of them stood much at a stay, or rather decreased. But since the late times of general liberty and toleration they have increased again. In some of the counties of England they are the most numerous of any sort of men that do separate from the Established Church. This is chiefly in the south-east parts — Essex, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, &c. There are very few in those parts that make any separation from the Church but they. Which is the occasion that I, as I am placed in those parts, have the more minded what I have read in any ancient book relating to that question : from whence have sprung the notes that make the first part of this work. In other parts of England they are much over-numbered by the Quakers. There are also great numbers of them in London and the suburbs. And it is observed from some late passages, that the Presbyterians look as if they would court their friendship, and as if they aimed to add this stick** also to the other two.

Their tenets are, besides the denying of infants' baptism, these :

i. They do many of them hold it necessary, as I said, to renounce communion with all Christians that are not of their way. Many of them are so peremptory in this, that if they be in the chamber of a sick man, and any paedobaptist, minister or other, come in to pray with him, they will go out of the room. And if they be invited to the funeral of any psedobaptist, they will go the house and accompany the corpse with the rest of the people to the church door : but there they retreat ; they called it the steeple-house. They seem to judge thus : those that are not baptised are no Christians, and none are baptised but themselves. So they make not only baptism itself, but also the time, or age, or way of receiving it a fundamental.

It is strange to see how deeply this principle of division is rooted in some of them by the care that many of their teachers take to cultivate it. If anyone that has been one of them, be afterwards prevailed on to go ordinarily to church, and hold communion in all things that he can, though he keep still his opinion of antipaedobaptism, they of them that

* A sermon of Mr Mead-, an Independent minister, was printed to recommend the union of the I resbytertans and Independents, with this title, Two Sticks made One.

\

The Tenets of the English Antipcedobaptists. 173

are of this principle bemoan him as a lost man ; and speak of him as we should do of one that had turned an apostate from the Christian religion. If any man, being not satisfied with the baptism he received in infancy, do desire to be baptised again by them, but do at the same time declare that he means to keep communion with the Established Church in all things that in conscience he can ; there are (or at least • have been) several of their elders that will not baptise such a man. To renounce "the devil and all his works," &c., has been always required of persons to be baptised into the Christian religion : but to require them to renounce communion with all Christians that are not of their opinion, is to baptise into a sect. It is a clear case from Scripture, and particularly from Phil. iii. 15, 16, that the duty of Christian unity does require that they (and the same is to be said of all others that differ not in fundamentals) should hold communion as far as they can : even though they do still continue in their opinion for adult baptism. Of which I shall say something more in the last chapter.

I said before that this scrupulous stiffness is not universal among them. Tombs, and several more had, and some of them still have, truer sentiments concerning "the communion of saints in the Catholic Church ; " and I have received of late a credible account, that the most considerable men, and of chief repute among them, do more and more come over to these sentiments.

2. They are, more generally than the antipsedobaptists of other nations, possessed with an opinion of the absolute necessity of the immersion or dipping the baptised person over head and ears into the water. So far, as to allow of no clinical baptism, i.e., if a man that is sick in a fever," &c. (so as that he cannot be put into the water without endangering his life) do desire baptism before he die; they will let him die unbaptised, rather than baptise him by affusion of water on his face, &c.

They are contrary in this to the primitive Christians. They, though they did ordinarily put the person into the water, yet in case of sickness, &c., would baptise him in his bed.

They bring three proofs of the necessity of immersion or dipping.

1. The example of John baptising Christ, of Philip baptising the

Eunuch, and generally of the ancient Christians baptising by immersion.

2. That baptism ought, as much as may be, to resemble the death

and burial and rising again of Christ.

3. That the word, to baptise, does necessarily include dipping in its

signification ; so that Christ by commanding to baptise, has

commanded to dip.

To which these answers are commonly given. The first proves what was said before, that in Scripture times and in

The History of Infant Baptism.

the times next succeeding, it was the custom in those hot countries to baptise ordinarily by immersion : but not that in cases of sickness, or other such extraordinary occasions they never baptised otherwise. Of this I shall speak in the next chapter.

The second proves that dipping, where it may safely be used, is the most fitting manner. But our Saviour has taught us a rule, Matt. xii. 3-7, that what is needful to preserve life is to be preferred before outward ceremonies.

The third, which would if it were true be more conclusive than the rest, is plainly a mistake. The word /3acnr/£fij in Scripture signifies ' to wash ' in general, without determining the sense to this or that sort of washing. The sense of a Scripture word is not to be taken from the use of it in secular authors, but from the use of it in the Scripture. What /3a-7rr/£w signifies among Greek writers, and what interpretation critics and lexicons do accordingly give it, is not much to the purpose in this case to dispute (though they also, as Mr Walker in his Doctrine of Baptism has largely shown, beside the signification immergo, do give that of lavo in general) when the sense in which it is used by the penmen of Scripture may otherwise be plainly determined from Scripture itself. Now in order to such a determination, these two things are plain.

First, that to baptise is a word applied in Scripture not only to such washing as is by dipping into the water the thing or person washed; but also to such as is by pouring or rubbing water on the thing or person washed or some part of it.

Secondly, that the sacramental washing is often in Scripture expressed by other words beside baptising, which other words do signify washing in the ordinary and general sense.

For the first there are, besides others, these plain instances.

The Jews thought it a piece of religion to wash their hands before dinner : they blame the disciples, Mark vii. 5, for eating with unwashen hands. The word here is vi<xr<a, an ordinary word for washing the hands. Their way of that washing was this : they had servants to pour the water on their hands, 2 Kings iii. n. "who poured water on the hands of Elijah," i.e., who waited on him as a servant.47 Now this washing of the hands is called by St Luke the baptising of a man ; or, the man's being baptised, Luke xi. 38. For where the English is : " The Pharisee marvelled that he had not washed before dinner ; " St Luke's own words are : on ou irpurov sfiavriadr) <xfi rot apiarou, ' that he was not baptised before dinner.' And so they are translated in the Latin. A plain instance, that they used the word, to baptise, for any ordinary washing, whether there were dipping in the case or not.

Also that Which is translated, Mark vii. 4, " the washing of pots, cups,

47 Dr,J>ocock has largely proved from Maimon and others that this was the Jews' way. Non lavant inctn»s nisi I vase affns& a»jnd. A ot. Misc. c. ix.

Concerning Separation — Immersion. 175

brazen vessels, tables," is in the original, the baptising of pots, &c. And what is there said, " When they come from market, except they wash, they eat not : " the words of St Mark are : " Except they be baptised, they eat not." 4S And the divers washings of the Jews are called didtpopoi Pawn's/Ml, 'divers baptisms,' Heb. ix. 10. Of which some were by bathing, others by sprinkling, Numb. viii. 7 ; xix. 18, 19.

For the second there are these.

Baptism is styled \ovrpbv TO\J udarog, ' the washing of water,' Eph. v. 26 ; Xourpbv rric, -raX/yygvstr/as, ' the washing of regeneration,' Tit. iii. 5. And to express this saying: "having our bodies baptised with clean water." The Apostle words it : XiXou/j,'svot rb ffuaa, ' having our bodies washed? xal tppavriffpivoi rag xapdtag, 'and our hearts sprinkled/ Heb. x. 22. These words for washing are such as are the most usual for the ordinary ways of washing : the same, for example, with that which is used, Acts xvi. 33, ' He washed their stripes.' No man will think they were put into the water for that.

They had several words to signify washing. And they used them promiscuously for the sacramental washing and for other washings. It is the Christians since, that have appropriated the word baptise to the sacramental washing : much after the same rate as they have appropri ated the word Bible, which in Greek is any book, to the book of God ; or the word, Scripture, which in the Scripture itself signifies any writing, to the Divine writings. But to proceed with the tenets of the antipsedo- baptists of England.

3. As exact as they are in imitating the primitive way used in the hot countries ; they do not baptise naked : which those ancient Chris tians always did, when they baptised by immersion ; as I show in the next chapter. They usually spoke of " the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh " as a thing signified by the unclothing of the person to be baptised. I suppose it is for preserving modesty, that they dispense with that custom. So it seems in some cases they can allow of dis pensing with the primitive custom.

4. But a more material thing, in which some of them do deviate both from the express command of our Saviour, and the received practice of the Church, is in the form of baptism. One sort of them do count it indifferent whether they baptise with these words : " In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ; " or with these : " In the Name of the Lord Jesus." And do in their public confession 49 allow either of the forms. And I have heard that some of them do affectedly choose the latter. But I am told by one who should know, that, whatever has been done formerly, they that do so now, are very few ;

48 This was not dipping, Lavantes aforo totum corpus non mersabant. Pocock, Not. Misc. c. ix.

48 Confes. of Anabapt. Reprinted Lond., 1691.

176 The History of Infant P>aptism.

and those, men not well thought of by the general body of them, but only such as are suspected to be underhand Socinians : for they have many such among them ; and it is not for the use of those that have a mind to obliterate the belief of the Trinity, to baptise their proselytes into the faith and name of it. I believe one reason why Socinus had such a mind to abolish all use of baptism among his followers was because persons baptised in " the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," would be always apt to think those names to ex press the Deity in which they were to believe, which he did not mean they should do. And some of his followers have been so disgusted with that form of baptism that they have given profane insinuations 50 that those words were not originally in the Scripture, but were taken from the usual Doxology into the form of baptism, and then inserted into the text of Matthew xxviii. 19.

Those that baptise only in " the Name of the Lord Jesus," plead the examples of the Apostles, Acts viii. 16 ; it. xix. 5. But though in those passages where the matters of fact are related in short, there be men tioned in the recital only the Name of the Lord Jesus, because that was the name that the Apostles found it most difficult to persuade the Jews to own (" they having already," as St Cyprian says,51 " the ancient baptism of Moses and of the law were now to be baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ ") yet interpreters have taken it for granted that in the conferring those baptisms, the Apostles used the whole form which our Saviour had prescribed. — Origen in Rom. vi. ; Didymus, 1. ii., De Spiritu Sancto ; Cyprian, Epist. ad Jubaianum ; Augustinus passim ; Canon Apostol. 41, 42, aliis 49, 50. And Athanasius says, " He that is baptised only in the Name of the Father, or only in the Name of the Son, or without the Holy Spirit, &c., receives nothing." 52 In short, it is true which St Austin says,53 that in Church history " you shall oftener meet with heretics that do not baptise at all, than with any that do baptise with any other words," viz., than those of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Yet we dp find one sort of heretics that did so. It was one sect of the Eunomians, who, Sozomon says,54 were the first that ever did it. And he gives his opinion that they are in as ill case as if they were not baptised at all.

5. Some other singular opinions they hold that do not at all relate to baptism. Some of them (but I think it is but few in England) do hold that error which has of old been attributed to the antipjedobaptists of Germany, and is said to be still held by the Minnists of Holland, that Christ took not flesh of the Virgin Mary, but had it from heaven ;

"> The Judgment of the Fathers, &c., Pt. I. p. 22. 51 Epist. ad Jubaian.

Epist. ad Serapionem. »3 Lib- vi contra Donatist. c. xxv.

ri Lib. vi. c. xxvi.

The Origin of the Flesh of Christ. 177

and only passed through her as water through a pipe, without receiving any of His human substance from her. The Belgic Confession 57 calls this the " heresy of the anabaptists."

It is strange to observe in how many heresies, old and new, this odd opinion, so plainly contrary to Scripture, has made an ingredient. It was first invented by the Gnostics and Valentinians, for they explained all that they believed of our Saviour's human nature in this manner, as we perceive by Irenasus.56 Also by Tertullian 57 we understand that beside them Marcion and Apelles (that was one of his followers) held the same, but with this difference, Marcion said our Saviour had no real flesh at all, but only in appearance : Apelles owned real flesh, but not of human race, but made of the substance of the stars and heavenly bodies, which was brought into the Virgin's body only to pass through her. Athanasius also ascribes this opinion58 to the Marcionites. Gennadius,59 besides that he also names Marcion, says that Origen and Eutyches taught that Christ's flesh was brought from heaven. And Gregory Nazianzen, in an Epistle to Nectarius,60 tells him that he had met with a book of Apollinarius the heretic, that " maintained this heretical tenet, that in the dispensation of the Incarnation of the only Son of God, He did not take flesh from without to repair our nature : but there was the nature of flesh in the Son of God from all eternity." But I hear that Canisius 61 has found and published an epistle of his, wherein he disowns it. I showed before 62 that this of Christ's flesh only passing through the body of the Virgin, made one of the monstrous tenets of one sort of the Cathari, spoken of by Reinerius, who were Manichees in the main. The old Manichees held that He had properly no flesh at all, that he was not born of Mary, but came from the first man, which first man was not of this earth.

Most of the old heretics that taught this, did it because they would not yield that our Saviour did really condescend so far as to take on Him human nature, and be properly a man made (as St Paul expresses it) of a woman : so they made use of it to impugn His humanity. But we have reason to judge that most that hold it now, do it to impugn His Divinity : for by this subterfuge, that His flesh was sent originally from heaven, and only passed through the body of the Virgin, they evade the arguments for His Divinity and pre-existence, taken from those places of Scripture which speak of His " coming from heaven, coming forth from the Father, and coming into the world," &c., expounding these texts, not of an eternal pre-existence, but of His flesh made in heaven and sent down. For they do not understand it, as

E5 Artie. 18. >G Lib. i. c. i. circa medium, it. 1. iii. c. xvii.

57 De Carne Christi, c. vi. &c. 58 De Salutari adventu adv. Apollinaristas.

59 De Eccl. Dogm., c. ii. 60 Apud Sozom., 1. vi. c. xxvii.

el Antic. Lect., t. v. 62 Ch. vii. § 4.

178 The History of Infant Baptism.

Apollinarius is said to have done, that this heavenly flesh was from eternity ; but made at a certain time before the world, as the Arians said His Divine nature was.

So that this opinion, as well as the former, fits those antipaedobaptists best that are inclined to Socinianism. But what, then, will these men make at last of our Blessed Saviour ? The old heretics, some of them denied Him to be God, and others of them denied Him to be properly man ; but these deny both, and say that He is neither God, nor pro perly man, as not being made of a woman, nor the seed of David. Will they make no more of Him than the Jesus Christ of the Quakers, many of whom speak of Jesus Christ as being nothing else but some thing within themselves, a notion of their brains ?

Whereas Gennadius imputes, as I said, this opinion to Origen. I did suspect it (when, in the first edition, I wrote it down) to be Gennadius's mistake (having never observed any saying of Origen tending this way), and I do since find that Huetius has proved it to be so. He must have mistaken it for another, which Origen did indeed hold, and which is in the consequence so near akin to this, that they are by Athanasius both condemned in one sentence. He held a pre-existence (not of Christ's flesh, but) of His human soul.

He had imbibed from Plato's notions a fancy that all souls were created at the beginning ; and then he thought it probable that in that pre-ex- istent state some of these souls behaved themselves better than others, and so were put into better bodies. And then (according to that ram bling faculty that he had of building castles in the air, one on the top of another), he imagined that there might be some one soul among these that might behave itself far better than any of the rest, and so might be chosen by God out of the rest to be assumed by the Xo'yog. To which sense he interprets Ps. xlv. 7, making it to be said to this soul : " Thou hast loved righteousness, &c., therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." After which he finds out a great many pieces of work for this soul to do before the time that it was united to the body that was born of the Virgin Mary.

The Christians of those older times took great offence at his thus bring ing the romantic notions of the heathen philosophers and the fictions of his own brain into the most sacred points of the Christian faith, the main property whereof is, that it be kept whole, undefiled, unmixed, and un altered, and (as Tertullian says), " not to be mended." And when his works came abroad in the world, there was for several ages a debate among the Churches whether they should receive his books and honour his memory as of a Catholic Christian, or hold both in execration as of a heretic. And though the admiration they had of his great parts, learn ing, memory, pains, &c. (which were greater than had been in any Chris tian before, or perhaps have been since), and their love to the piety that

Pre-existence of Christ's Human Soul. 1 79

he had shown, did much prejudice them in his favour ; yet because of this and other heterodox tenets, he was by the greatest part condemned (such a zeal the Christians of that time showed against anyone that went about to bring any alteration into their form of sound words), but many on the other side did attempt apologies for him. The first and best of which is, that which was drawn up by Pamphilus, the martyr, assisted by Eusebius, in six books, which I know not how some come to call Six Apologies.

Some of his tenets these apologists do endeavour to justify by giving a qualifying explication of them ; and some that were imputed to him they show to be imputed wrongfully. But this which I have been speak ing of, there is not one of them pretends to justify ; but yet they say he ought not to be accounted a heretic, because he did not affirm it posi tively, or teach it dogmatically, or hold it obstinately, but only proposed it to the consideration of the hearers or readers whether such a thing might not be. So Pamphilus (after he had endeavoured to refute the rest of the accusations against him from his own words), when he comes to this (which is the eighth of the nine capital errors there dis cussed), says, "I must make answer here myself." The answer he makes is, that " Origen, knowing that that tenet of the soul is not plainly contained in the doctrine of the Church, did (whenever some words of Scripture gave him occasion, or a hint rather, of disputing of it, and he did discuss and handle what seemed probable to him there on) propose his thoughts to be judged of and approved by the readers, not denning anything as a plain [or positive] point [dogma] or having the authority of an article [sententia] and did generally add to it such qualifying words as these, ' If that account which I give of the soul do seem to anyone to have any probability in it.' " 63 And that he never wrote any treatise particularly of the soul (as he had done of almost everything else), which Pamphilus says is a sign that he "did not venture to define anything dogmatically about it,"

This part of the apology is true. For whereas there are but two places in his works where he insists purposely on this pre-existence of Christ's soul: one Contra Cels., 1. i.; the other nip! "gx^f, 1. ii. c. vi. (in other places he only touches it by-the-by). In the first of these, he (as soon as he begins to talk of that matter of the pre-existence of souls, upon which it is that he proceeds to speak of Christ's soul) admonishes the reader thus : " I speak this according to the notion of Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus often quotes." 64 And in the later of them, where he purposely insists on the article of Christ's Incarnation, he first confesses it to be a miracle and mystery which it is beyond the power of the Apostles, or even of the highest angels, to explain. But yet in the next words ventures on the explication of it (which he gives to the

6:! Pamphili Apolog. prope finem. M C. Cels., I. i pag. 26, eel. Cant.

1 80 The Histoty of Infant Baptism.

purpose aforesaid, of a soul pre-existing and united to the Xo'/oj and then incarnated) but premises that he will not define rashly \temeritate aliqua\ but propose rather his own guesses [or imaginations, suspicions nostras] than any positive affirmations. He does not say : " It is every whit as clearly revealed as any article of faith whatever ; " or, " No Christian doctrine is more clearly delivered than is this of my discourse."

These excuses did alleviate, but not quite take off the scandal taken at this innovation in the faith. When a man in his station, a presbyter of the Church, does vent any such odd and singular fancy in religion — though he do it with never so much caution and declaration that he is not positive in it — yet it always does some hurt because of the inclina tion and itch that people have to catch at a new-fangled opinion ; and it cannot be so absurd but that it will meet with some sorts of men or women at least, whose brains stand awry in that particular enough to make them embrace it. It is always remembered among the heads of accusation afterwards brought against him; and in that solemn and authoritative denunciation of him for a heretic given out by Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria,65 as the pre-existence of souls in general makes the first, so this pre-existence of Christ's soul in particular makes the sixth of the thirty-five errors there imputed to him. And the patri arch is particularly enraged at his perverting the sense of that text, Phil, ii. 6, 7, txsvuafv iavrbv, by giving a new interpretation of it adapted to his new hypothesis.

I believe Theophilus must have taken this from some book of his not now extant, for he never, as I remember, misapplies it so in those that are. He often appb'es that text, as other Christians do, to the Xoyoj. I will give an instance in the next chapter, § 10. And so for John i. 10 ; Col. i. 15, 1 6. He even in the midst of his dreams did never dream of a Man-Creator.

The place of Athanasius, where he condemns in one sentence, as I said, both this opinion of the human soul, and the other of the flesh, of Christ pre-existing, is in his epistle to Epictetus. 'E/xoYwj xarayvuaovTai rfg irph r^g Mapiag i7vai Tqv !£ aur/jj adpxa, x.ai <irpb &v6pu<ffiv^v rov ®eov X«yof, Kai sv avrfj vrpb rqg swidqfj,ir»t.$ ' So they will all condemn themselves that think Christ's flesh was before Mary ; and that before her God the WORD had a human soul, in which He was before His coming into the world.' God Almighty preserve to us the old Christian religion, and keep us in the love of it, and deliver us from all new ones, and from any such hankering after them as may argue our being weary of the old. But to return to the tenets of the English antipaedobaptists.

6. Another opinion which they hold more generally is the millenary opinion. They do, many of them, take that prophecy, Rev. xx. 4, 5, 65 Epist. Paschal, i.

TJie Millennium — Eating of Blood — Sleep of Soul. 1 8 1

of the " Souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus," &c., "and which had not worshipped the beast," &c., "living and reigning with Christ a thousand years," in a proper sense. So as to reckon that the saints shall rise from the dead one thousand years before others shall. And they think that Christ will then come down and be here upon the earth (though that be not said in the text) for that thousand years ; and then, Satan being let loose to deceive the nations for some time, the general resurrection and end of the world will be.

In the reciting and inculcating this doctrine to other people that are not of their way, many of them are apt, instead of saying the saints shall rise before the wicked, to say we shall rise before yoit.

7. Another thing which almost all the antipsedobaptists in England do hold is, that that decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem, mentioned Acts xv. 29, " of abstaining from blood and from things strangled," does still oblige all Christians. So they will eat of no such things.

In these two last-mentioned opinions they have many of the most ancient Catholic Fathers on their side. And in the later of the two, the Greek Church has all along been and still is of their opinion.66 The Council in Trullo, which is accounted a general one, forbids " the mak ing of the blood of any animal into a sauce."67 And so does one of the canons called apostolic forbid "the eating of blood, or anything strangled or torn by beasts." ^

8. They do many of them (but not all) hold the opinion which Calvin in a treatise on purpose,69 confutes as held by the German antipaedo- baptists, and which by the foregoing account is said to be still held by the Minnists of Holland, from whom our antipaedobaptists must have had it, that the soul sleeps or is senseless from the time of a man's death till the resurrection of his body.

This opinion is very wide from that of the primitive Christians, yet many of the most ancient of them held an opinion that is middle between this and that which is now commonly held. They held that the soul at death goes not to heaven (at least, none but martyrs' souls) but to Hades ; and that after the general Resurrection, the soul and body united again are received to heaven. That the souls of the Patriarchs were in Hades, and that Christ's soul went to Hades. By Hades they mean the general receptacle, or state, of souls good and bad till the Resurrection : save that some few of them make Hades the place of the bad, and Abraham's bosom of the good ; but generally they speak of Abraham's bosom as one part of Hades. So that it was counted a place or state quite different from heaven and from hell, as we English do commonly now understand the word hell.

It is great pity that the English translators of the creed and of the

66 Sir Paul Ricaut, Hist, of Or. Church, ch. xx. * Can. 67.

68 Can. 63. 69 Psychopannychia.

1 82 The History of Infant Baptism.

Bible did not keep the word Hades in the translation, as they have done some original words which had no English word answering to them. By translating it hell, and the English having no other word for Gehenna (which is the place prepared for the devil and the damned) than the same word hell likewise ; it has created a confusion in the understanding of English readers. We say, " Christ descended into hell." We ought to mean Hades, for so it is in the Greek, xarg/3>j l/e "Adou. And sa St Peter, Acts ii. 31, "His soul was not left sif'Adou 'in Hades."' But when we read of hell, Matt. v. 20, 22, 29, 30, and such other places where the original word is Gehenna, we ought to understand the hell of the damned. And the import of these two words in the original differs so much, that whereas all Christians ever believed that Christ descended into Hades ; yet if any had said he descended into Gehenna, he would have been accounted to blaspheme'. And yet the English expresses both by the same word.

To give an account at once of all the places in the Bible where the word hell is used : where we read hell in these texts following, it is in the original Gehenna, or else Tartarus ; and ought to be understood the hell of the damned. Matt. v. 22, 29, 30; Matt. x. 28; Luke xii. 5 ; Matt xviii. 8, 9; Mark ix. 43-48; Matt, xxiii. 15, 33 ; James iii. 6; 2 Peter ii. 4. But where we read hell or gram in these texts following, the word is Hades; and ought to be understood only, the state or receptacle of departed souls, or in some of them, no more than in general a state of dissolution. Matt. xxi. 23; Luke x. 15 ; Matt. xvi. 18 ; Luke xvi. 23; Acts ii. 27, 31; i Cor. xv. 55; where it is translated grave. Rev. i. 1 8 ; it. vi. 8; it. xx. 13, 14. And in the Old Testament, wherever we read hell, it is to be understood Hades. Jacob, and David, &c., whenever they speak of their dying, call it their going to Sheol, Hades. Which words our English translates sometimes hell, sometimes grave, &c. And this shows St Austin's observation to be a mistake ; for he says 70 that infernum, which is the translation of Hades in many places, is never taken in Scripture in a good sense, or as the fate of a good man.

It is plain that Tertullian took it otherwise by the following passages, beside many other. In his book De Anima, c. vii., he speaks of the different state of departed souls, receiving either " torment in fire, or comfort in Abraham's bosom, in carcere sen diversorio inferum, ' in the prison or receptacle of Hades.' " And in his book De Idololat., c. xiii., he speaks of Lazarus being apud inferos in st'nu Abrahce, which, trans lated into English in our common way of speaking would be, " in hell in Abraham's bosom." It must be translated Hades.

Note that in all the texts of the Revelation, death and Hades, tidvarog xa.1 d&ns, are joined together. And that at the general Resurrection, " death and Hades deliver up the dead that are in them," viz., to be tried

70 Epist. 99.

Sleep of Soul — Hades. 183

at the great judgment, and then "death and Hades are cast into the lake," &c., i.e., there is to be no more death nor Hades ; but all is to be either heaven or hell, i.e., an eternal and unchangeable estate of woe or of bliss.

Beside the places aforesaid, several, if not all, of the most ancient copies of the Acts of the Apostles, had the word cidqg in ch. ii. 24. For where we read, " having loosed the pains of death ; for it was not possible," &c., they for davdrou read rofASov 'the pains of Hades.' So reads Irenaeus, 1. iii. c. 12 ; St Austin, Epist. 99, and other places, and Polycarp, Epist. ad Phillipp.

Now the ancients did not think that the state of the soul in Hades was to sleep, or be senseless. On the contrary our Saviour in the parable, Luke xvi. 22, 23, represents Dives and Lazarus both in Hades (or one in Hades and one in Abraham's bosom, if we take Abraham's bosom as out of Hades), but a great way off from one another, in very different states ; neither of them asleep, but one in torment, the other in repose. And all the ancients do instance in this parable as a proof that before the general judgment there will be a difference made between the state of good men's souls and those of wicked men. Tertullian 71 speaks of some who argued that there will be no judgment before the great one when the soul and body shall be joined : and answers them, " Quid ergo net in tempore isto ? Dormiemus ? " &c. " ' What then shall we do in the meantime ? shall we be asleep ? ' Souls don't sleep, not even when they are in the bodies," &c. And Eusebius 72 tells of some heterodox people in Arabia who held " that the soul for the present dies together with the body, and is raised to life again together with it." He says Origen being sent thither presently convinced those people.

But as the foresaid Christians of these ancient times did not think that the soul sleeps, so neither were they, generally speaking, of the opinion that the souls of dying men go presently to heaven or to Gehenna. I shall for brevity only recite what Irenseus says. He had been saying "3 that most of the heretics denied the Resurrection of the body ; but held instead of it, that when they died their souls should presently fly away up to heaven : and that some erroneous Catholics held with them in this later tenet, though not in the former. He urges against them the example of our Saviour, "Who," says he, "observed in Himself the law of dead persons, and did not presently after His death go to heaven, but stayed three days in the place of the dead." It is plain then, by the way, that He took that paradise where the thief was to be that day with our Saviour, to be not properly heaven, but a station in Hades. Then a little after he argues thus : " Whenas then our Lord went into the midst of the Shadow of Death, where the souls of

71 De Anima, cap. ult. 72 H. E., 1. vi. c. vii. 73 Lib. v. c. xxxi.

]84 The History of Infant Baptism.

deceased persons abode ; and then afterwards rose again in the body, and was after His Resurrection taken up to heaven : it is plain that the souls of His disciples, for whose sake the Lord did these things, shall go likewise to that invisible place appointed to them by God, and there abide till the Resurrection, waiting for the time thereof ; and afterwards receiving their bodies, and rising again perfectly, i.e., in their bodies, as our Lord did, shall so come to the sight of God. ' For the Disciple is not above his Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his Master.'

" As therefore our Master did not presently fly up to heaven, but waiting till the time of His Resurrection that was appointed by the Father, which had been foreshown by Jonas ; and rising the third day was so taken to heaven : so we must also wait the time of our Resur rection appointed by God, which is foretold by the prophets ; and so rising again be taken up, so many of us as the Lord shall account worthy."

This, as might be shown by many more quotations, was the most general opinion of those times. It is true, indeed, that some Fathers spoke of the soul as going directly to heaven : and that this became afterwards the prevailing opinion in the Western Church : which is also affirmed in a homily 74 of the Church of England, set forth in the time of Queen Elizabeth. So that it seems to have been the general opinion of the Protestants in England at that time. But before the making of that homily, several of our first reformers declared against it. As Tyndal, in his answer to Sir Thomas More, and Frith, in his answer to Bishop Fisher. And ever since the making of it, there have been, and still are, some divines of great note and station in that Church who do plainly enough show their sentiment to be otherwise.

The reasons given by the former, viz., Tyndal, Frith, &c., were to this purpose : that the placing of the soul in heaven does destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and St Paul do prove the resurrection of the body. As when our Saviour proves that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob shall rise again in their bodies ; because God, who is since their death called in Scripture their God, " is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him : " whereas if Abraham's soul had been then in heaven, that had been no proof that his body must arise ; for God then might have been his God though his body had not risen. And St Paul proves to the Corinthians the Resurrection, because else the Christians would be of all men most miserable, as having hope only in this life. And he comforts the Thessalonians concerning their friends departed, not by saying that they were gone to heaven, but that they should rise again at the last day, and so go to heaven. That the opinion of separate souls going to heaven was the invention of the heathen 74 Third part of the sermon concerning prayer.

Of the State of Separate Souls. 185

philosophers, who, knowing nothing of the Resurrection, did so salve the hopes of a future state; and that some Christians (the papists, Tyndal says) had confounded and mixed the Christian and the heathen doctrine together. And again, if the souls be in heaven, "Tell me," says Tyndal, " why they be not in as good case as the angels be : and then what cause is there of the Resurrection ? " All this while these men would not determine in what state the separate souls really are. But Frith says, " I dare be bold to say that they are in the hand of God, and that God would that we should be ignorant where they be, and not take upon us to determine the matter." And Tyndal speaks to the same purpose, and adds concerning the souls of good men, " I believe they are in no worse case than Christ's soul was before His Resurrection."

To these reasons the later divines, of whom I spoke, do add : that by the order of the last judgment, in Matt, xxv., and the pleas there used, and sentence there given, it should seem that the souls had not as yet been sentenced and sent either to heaven or hell. " Come ye blessed, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you," &c. " Go ye cursed into everlasting fire," &c. " For I was a hungry," &c. " Lord, when saw we Thee," &c. And then afterwards, " And these shall go away into everlasting punishment : and the righteous into life eternal," does not look as if they had been called out of heaven and hell to receive a sentence to go to heaven and hell ; but that they had been till this time in expectation of their final sentence. Though the souls had been (as these men do constantly hold against the antipsedobaptists) the bad ones in some degree of torment and horror, the good in a quiet repose and hopeful expectation, and as the office "of burial says, "in joy and felicity," or, as the ancients express it, in refrigerio.

To this may be added : that whereas the general hypothesis is, that the souls of the patriarchs were taken by Christ out of Hades, and carried up with him into heaven at his ascension thither; St Peter, on the contrary, preaching after Christ's ascension, says ex pressly, Acts ii. 34, that David was not then ascended to heaven. The answer to which (being, I suppose, that David was not ascended to heaven in body, as Christ was ; but his soul might be there) seems inconsistent with St Peter's reasoning at that place. For he is showing that that saying of David — " Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades," could not be understood of David himself, who was both dead and buried, and his sepulchre then extant ; but that David being a prophet, and " seeing this before, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that His Soul was not left in Hades : " where St Peter seems to understand it, that David's soul was in Hades (as well as his body in the sepulchre) to that day. The rest of their arguments I leave to be seen in their books.

1 86 The History of Infant Baptism.

But as to the antipsedobaptists' opinion of the sleep of the soul, a late writer 75 that lives in a part of Kent that abounds with them, ascribes to some of them an opinion much worse than the ordinary one of the sleep of the soul till the Resurrection. For he says, some of that sect have been heard to say (and he believes it is the private tenet of others of them), " That infants dying before actual sin, their souls consume with their bodies : and they die never to be any more. Therefore they forbear the giving of baptism, as unnecessary for them." I hope and believe that this can be the opinion of but very few, and those some ignorant people among them. And I am lately assured by a man of chief note among them, that he never knew anyone man of any sort of them that held this. And, indeed, since our Saviour showed such a concern and tender regard for infants, saying withal, " Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven ; " and since God and Nature have implanted in the heart of all pious parents such an earnest desire of the eternal good of their infants : it is an unnatural thought, that neither that concern of our Saviour, nor that desire of godly parents shall ever have any satisfaction in the case of such infants as die ; but that one must despair of them, as persons that will be lost for ever, notwithstanding any means that can be used for their salvation. P.S. — One party of the antipaedobaptists do deny any sleep of the soul. And I have it from good hands, that they that do now hold it, are but few in comparison, and such as are accounted of the more ignorant sort.

9. Many of the antipaedobaptists in England are said to be against any singing of Psalms in Divine worship. I recited before 76 out of Petrus Cluniacensis, that the Petrobrusians held, that " it is a mocking of God to sing in the church." And the Lyonists said, "it is a hellish noise." I believe the disgust taken at that time was against the exces sive regard then given in the popish churches to the sound and music which hindered the attention to the sense of the prayers. But to con demn all singing of praise to God is a thing too contrary to the Scrip tures, both of the Old and New Testament. Some of them do not dislike singing in general, but say that the Psalms of David are not so proper now, as some that may be composed on purpose for the use of the Christian Church. And some others of them are not at all against singing, any more than other Christians are. And it grows of late to be more and more in use with them. Though many of them formerly have scrupled the use of Psalms, as sung by the whole congregation jointly ; yet, of late, that humour is in great degree worn off, and the practice of singing David's Psalms, and in the way that other people do, has generally obtained among them.

10. The same may be said of the use of the Lord's Prayer. Many oHhem do out of an odd and unaccountable humour reject the use of

75 Case of an Infant Dying Unbaptised, page 18. ™ Ch. vii. § 5.

The Use of the Lord's Prayer — The Lord's Prayer. 187

it. But, though this be an imputation laid by some people on the whole body of them, yet I know that some of them, and believe that most of them do both use it, and teach their children to use it. The Petrobrusians, as well as all the other sects of the Waldenses, extolled the use of it.

11. So for extreme unction of the sick, spoken of James v. 14, 15. Mr Russen of Hythe, in Kent, a place that is full of these people, says : "I am sure it is both their opinion and practice, as to some, though probably all do not use it."77 P.S. — This I find to be confessed since by Mr Stennet. But he tells me, it is but rarely practised : and that not (as the papists use it) only or chiefly in cases desperate, but mostly in hopes of recovery, and for that end.

12. Mr Russen mentions also 78 a way of marriage used among them not according to the use of the Church of England, and so of doubtful validity in the law of the land. And he says, " This was introduced to give room for the Jesuits and Romish priests to take women : for they being prohibited marriage, and accounting marriage one of the seven sacraments, durst not take a wife, or be married after the manner of either the Romish or English Church, &c., but would take women in the congregation of anabaptists or Quakers." But he (though writing against them something angrily) confesses, and it is a known thing, that "many of them are married at our churches : but more," he says, "in their private assemblies." But this, all of them, that I can speak with, deny to be true in matter of fact. They are for the most part married in the Church. That scruple diminishes among them.

13. Their way of receiving the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is in a posture that shows, outwardly at least, less of devotion than the way of most other Christians. They receive it sitting at a common table, and (as the foresaid writer expresses it) " with the hat on, and handing the elements one to another."79 P.S. — I find since that the hat on is denied, the sitting confessed.

14. Some of them are Sabbatarians, i.e., they hold it still necessary, even for the Gentile Christians, to keep every Saturday as a Sabbath- day. One Bampfield, a man of note among them, formerly wrote a treatise on that subject, wherein he has, they say, said more for it than one would imagine could be said for so heterodox a tenet. There are however in the country few or none of this opinion : what are, are at London. Whether the same men do keep the Lord's day too, I know not.

15. They differ more among themselves about the practice of con firmation, or laying on of hands after baptism. Some of them do wholly omit and reject the use of that ordinance, as being popish, or having no foundation in Scripture, or at least not now to be continued. And this it seems was the way of those churches or societies of them, that in the times I spoke of, did first openly set up at London. Others

77 Picture of the Anabaptists, ch. viii. p. 60. 78 Ibid., p. 58. 79 P. 57.

1 88 The History of Infant Baptism.

of them account it a necessary thing. And some of these latter making it an order among themselves, as the Church of England does, that none shall be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed (the Church of England adds, " or be ready and desirous to be confirmed "), there necessarily follows a breach of communion between the two parties. And therefore Danvers says,80 "All those Churches of that constitution (which require this ordinance) are founded in sin and schism, as well as in great error and ignorance." He says, " It does not; appear that any baptised Church or people did ever in any age or country own such a principle or practice to this day, except some in this nation in these late times ; " and gives this account of the rise of it: "that about the year 1646 one Mr Cornwell, heretofore a public preacher, then a minister of a baptised congregation in Kent, coming into that baptised congregation meeting in the Spittle, Bishop- gate Street, preached that those who were not under laying on of hands , were not babes in Christ, &c. Whereupon several were persuaded, &c., and made a rent and a separation : and from that very schism propagated the same principle and practice among many others in the nation ever since." But this account of Danvers is looked on by the moderate men that are now among them, to be no just one. They say, that the most of those that do now use confirmation, admit to the communion and receive as brethren, those that scruple the using it : and e contra,

1 6. As to the point of predestination : those of them that are of the Arminian opinion, they call the general men ; as holding a general and universal redemption by Christ : and the Calvinists they call the par ticular men, as holding a particular and absolute redemption of some particular persons. I had said in my first edition that they generally made a different opinion about this, to be a bar against communion one with another. Some of them do tell me, that this is not general ; but only the temper of some hot and eager spirits on both sides : that the country where I dwell, is full of such of them as are of the least repute, but that the major part of their elders or rulers all over England do now admit either sort. I am glad if this last be in fact the truer account of the generality of them : for (as I said then) if the Church of Christ be never to be one, till all Christians do explain themselves alike in the nice disputes that happen in reconciling God's prescience and predestination with man's free-will : it will never be one in this world. All Protestants that make divisions on this account, should learn wit from our common enemies. They, though they do in their books carry this dispute to the height, yet do keep themselves from separation for it : in which practice they are, both in point of interest and of duty, certainly in the right.

The antipaedobaptists may be sure I am not their enemy, when I 80 Treat, of laying on of hands. Conclusion.

Predestination — Orig inal Sin. 1 89

note this their humour of dividing from one another, as an imprudent thing. For as it is the interest of the great enemy of mankind that Christians should be divided as much as is possible ; and of the papists that Protestants should be so : so whoever were an enemy to these men in particular, would wish to see ten parties or divisions for every one that is among them.

i 7. Many (but it seems not all) of the general men are Pelagians in the point of original sin. They own nothing of it. The others do : as appears both by the Confession of Faith 81 of seven churches of them, which I mentioned before; and also by their present profession. Some of the general men say, they wonder how these that own sin in infants, can be against their baptism. The Pelagians that owned no sin in infants, yet granted the necessity of their baptism to obtain the kingdom of heaven : these believe they have sin, yet deny them baptism for the forgiveness of it.

1 8. Socinians they have some that creep in among them : but I have not heard of any Church or congregation of them that makes profession of that doctrine ; but on the contrary, that they that profess it openly are rejected from their communion. And as much as I have said against their divisions, I do not see how they that worship and believe in Christ as God, can join with them that either renounce the worship of Him, or believe Him to be only a creature lately made, and even still to be, in the best nature that He has, of finite worth, dignity, and capacity.

A late Confession published in the name of one hundred churches of them shows those churches to be Catholic as to the faith of the Trinity. But yet some printed papers of much the same date with that Confession passing between some of their congregations, do show that there are great scandals given or taken, by some of them against others on account of Socinian tenets. There are some of these papers signed by several of their messengers, elders, and representatives and printed 1699, renounc ing that assembly of antipsedobaptists, which they call the General Assembly, held at Goswell Street, London, and persuading others to do the like, saying that it is to the reproach of Jesus Christ and the pollu tion of the Churches to hold communion with that assembly, and that it is inconsistent for any who hold the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ to do so.

But all this is not (as far as I can learn) that they charge the General Assembly with Socinian tenets ; but only with refusing to turn out some that are accused of holding them, which accusations they think to be fully proved ; but the others, it seems, say they are not.

Since my first edition, there is printed in 1706, a Socinian pamphlet, entitled, The Unreasonableness of Making and Imposing Creeds. It is without a name, but the author seems to be an antipaedobaptist that 81 Artie. 4, 5, 21, &c.

The History of Infant Baptism.

is angry with two parties of his brethren, one called the General Assembly, the other, the General Association. Which, as he represents, having been at some variance, did, on June 9, 1704, unite on the following terms :

First, they set down two articles of faith concerning God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, containing an orthodox confession of the Trinity, and being much of the same sense as are the two first of the thirty-nine Articles or the Church of England. [This he calls a speci men of " modern creed-making."]

Then they enact, that if any of their members shall publish or say anything contrary to that faith, he shall be " esteemed disorderly, and dealt with accordingly." But they add, that if any member receiving this faith, shall reflect on any member that does not receive it (provided he does not teach the contrary), he also " shall be esteemed disorderly, and dealt with accordingly."

And on these terms, that the Assembly and Association do presently " meet together as formerly, and unite." And they enact, that " all papers that have been published, relating to any difference between them, be suppressed." I suppose they had in their eye the papers that I spoke of.

Upon which this author observes that " they that have not throats wide enough to swallow this rough creed, must not tell their reason why." But if they will hold their tongues and only think, they shall have the favour not to be reflected on Upon which he falls into a vein of the vilest raillery, burlesque, buffoonery, and mockery of the doctrine of the Trinity that this impious age has produced. And it has produced a great deal ; too much, in all conscience, to be borne with. That Socinian doctrine seems to have infected all its disciples (this anti- paedobaptist, as well as the paedobaptist ones) with such a degree of searedness, that they do no longer discourse in any serious way ; but as if they were talking of some play or jest, make themselves sport with the awful mystery of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And since they cannot argue, would laugh us out of our faith. One would think that if their consciences urge them to argue against the God of the Christians, they should, in a Christian nation, be compelled to do it with less effrontery and impudence.

These antipaado baptists, as he tells us afterwards, met again in 1 705, and agreed that none should be a member of the General Assembly (which, it seems, is a body made up of the representatives of particular churches) unless he do subscribe the whole of the foresaid draught of 1704. So that no Socinian can be chosen a representative [or proctor] to sit in the General Assembly. For which he is very angry with them, though all the world besides must think it but a necessary caution.

At last he tells them in a laughing way that, " to make any canons

Pelagianism — Socinianism — Quakerism. 1 9 1

without the Queen's licence, is a pramunire? Which is, I suppose, brought in to insult, and triumph over, the Convocation of the Church of England, for its being under such restraint ; whereas these bodies of men do, in their assemblies, make and publish any rules that they think needful on any emergent occasion, and do actually inflict and execute their Church censures on such of their members as do not observe them.

19. They are generally much inclined to hold public disputations about religion before the multitude. Having plain places of Scripture to produce concerning adult baptism, and several examples of it, they work much on such of the people as had not minded this before, and had not had a right state of the question between the paedobaptists and the antipaedobaptists ; wherein the former grant that in a nation newly converted to Christianity (and such are all the cases mentioned in the Scripture), the adult people must be baptised first before their infants can be baptised.

Their most eager disputes are against the* Quakers. And they have reason. For since so great a part of their zeal is spent in setting the time and manner of baptism right, as they judge ; and it happens among them (as, indeed, the like does among all parties) that there are some that have little religion beside their zeal in that matter, the Quaker gives them the foulest affront possible. He cuts off all their religion at one stroke, saying that all water-baptism, at what age soever it is given, is a useless thing; and perverts all the places of Scripture where it is spoken of, with some far-fetched interpretations — as he does likewise in the case of the other sacrament. And though among people of sense that do own the Scripture (as some, at least of the Quakers, do) one would think that this dispute should quickly be at an end ; yet it is strange to observe what numbers there do continue in many places of England of that enthusiastical sect that can turn the plainest places of Scripture into a riddle.

It is a great discredit to the climate and air of England that that sort of distemper of brain that disposes men to Quakerism should be no where so epidemical as there. The same men in the popish religion would have been visionary saints, hermits, Carthusians, &c. In the Indian religion they would have been Ghebers,82 and their cant now is much like the others' gibberish. In the Mahometan, they would have been of those dervishes that have raptures of crying " Allah, Allah," till their heads grow giddy, and they fall down. If the sets of opinions for the late sects have, as some think, been contrived by the Jesuits, that Jesuit that contrived this showed so dull a faculty for the work, that he might, one would have thought, have despaired of any disciples : and yet it is become one of the most spreading in England. A late author 82 See M. Thevenot's Travels into Persia.

192 TJie History of Infant Baptism,

says83 he has been credibly informed, that a St Omer's Jesuit declared that they were twenty years " hammering out " the sect of the Quakers. It is strange that they could not forge nor smooth it any handsomer. For as all poetry, fiction, and play ought to represent, if not true his tory, yet something that may look, or be conceived, like it ; so they that would frame a religion pretending to be founded on the Scripture, or to be believed together with it, should dress it up with tenets that have some appearance of likeness to the declarations of Scripture, and not make it to renounce such things as the Scripture does enjoin in so plain words as it does the two sacraments. But there is a sort of people that take a malicious pleasure in trying how broad affronts the understandings of some men will bear.

It is the vulgar people among the Quakers that we speak of as thus led by the nose, and possessed with this sort of enthusiasm. Their leaders, and the politic men among them (if they be not of the foresaid Hammerers), seem to have for the bottom of their religion Deism, and to think that reason and human philosophy is a better rule for a man to direct his conversation by, than any tradition or revealed doctrine. For what other than such is the consequent of that principle, that the light within us, which comes at last to be no other than our own reason, is better than any light without us, i.e., than any Scripture ?

20. The English antipaedobaptists have for their church-government elders, or presbyters. These have a ruling power in the congregations. Deacons; these take care of the poor. Teachers; any whom the con gregation approves of for that purpose, as fit to teach : so of these they have abundance. Yet those congregations of them that are accounted the most regular, do not appoint or suffer any (that are not yet ordained elders) to preach publicly, but only in a probational way, in order to be ordained if they continue to be approved : except on some case of necessity, as in the want of elders, &c. They have some whom they call messengers, which is the English word for apostles. And there are of these two sorts. Some are such of their presbyters as being found of the best ability, judgment, &c., are appointed (beside the care of their own congregation) to go sometimes about a certain district, diocese, or province. And when any of these comes to preach in any other man's congregation, or to be present at any meeting of their churches, he is received and heard with greater respect than ordinary, and his authority more regarded than of ordinary presbyters. But for direct and proper jurisdiction over other presbyters or people, he has none: nor any power of ruling but in his own congregation. The other sort is of such as are nothing else but messengers in the ordinary sense of the English word, viz., men appointed as messengers to carry the sense and opinion of some congregations to other congregations at a distance. 83 Foxes and Firebr., Pt. I. p. 4.

Their Church Officers. 193

They have some, whom they call representatives, i.e., men chosen and delegated by the particular churches that they have all over England, to meet at London every Whitsuntide, to consider of the common affairs of their religion. This meeting of representatives is, as I take it, that which is called the General Assembly — something resembling our Lower House of Convocation. The place is in Goswell Street, London. But one congregation does sometimes send two or three representatives.

All these are chosen with the approbation of the people ; only the people themselves are in their approbation much swayed by the advice of their messengers, elders, &c., and by the opinion which they give concerning the fitness of anyone. And then they are ordained by the laying on of an elder's hands.

They do, in the disputes which they hold with people of the Church of England, frequently urge, that this their way, viz., for the people to have their suffrage in the choice of church-officers, is the most regular way : as being that which was used by the primitive Christians. Which is a piece of history that cannot fairly be denied. It was certainly the primitive way for the bishop to choose the presbyters with the approba tion of the people ; and for the presbyters and people together, being for the most part assisted by some neighbouring bishops, to choose a new bishop in the room of one that died. This continued for many hundred years ; and those Christians that have gone about to mend this way have made it much worse.

But the antipasdobaptists have, upon the whole, no reason to boast of the regularity of their management in this matter. For whereas the primitive practice was, as I said, for the bishop to choose the presbyters with the approbation of the people ; the antipsedobaptists, as they have preserved and increased the privilege of the people, have quite shut out the office of a bishop (for by the foregoing account the messenger has not any of the power of a bishop) which of the two is the more necessary. For the multitude, partly for want of judgment concerning the fitness of anyone, and partly by their inclination to faction and party, and being "puffed up for one against another,"84 are found by woful experience, in all churches where that way is used, to be wretched choosers for themselves. The original and primitive pattern is the best.

21. They have this way of adjusting differences that arise among themselves on account of trespasses, dues, or other money matters, which I recite as being worthy of imitation. If anyone of them does wrong to another, or refuses to do, or to pay, what is equitable in any case ; if he will not be brought to reason by a private arguing of the matter, nor by the verdict of two or three neighbours added ; the plaintiff brings the case before the congregation, when they, with their elder, are

84 1 Cor. iv. 6. ii. r;

194 The History of Infant Baptism.

assembled in the nature of a Vestry. And in difficult cases there lies an appeal from a particular congregation to some fuller meeting of their church under a messenger. And he of the two that will not stand to the ultimate determination of the Assembly by their usage appointed, is no longer acknowledged by the rest as a brother.

As this is very much according to our Saviour's 85 and St Paul's 86 direction in such cases ; so I have been told that it has the good effect to prevent abundance of law-suits, and end many quarrels ; very few of them offering to withstand the general verdict and opinion of all their brethren. And there is no reason to doubt but that a like course would, if it were put in practice, have a like good effect among other societies of Christians.

22. The like discipline (of renouncing brotherhood) they use against such of their communion as are known to be guilty of any such immor ality as is a scandal to the Christian profession of a sober and godly life ; for which care of their members there is no man but will com mend them. And therefore I do not mention the ordering of this as particular in them : all churches by their constitution do order the same thing to be done. But the administration or putting in execution of this order is in some churches very slack and negligent ; and in some, very much perverted by corrupt officers of the Courts. The bishop's visiting of every parish in particular (which when it began first to be omitted by some bishops, was so earnestly enjoined by canons),87 is now almost antiquated and forgotten. And there is many times a very huddling work made of a visitation.

So far as this doctrine is omitted or perverted in any Church, so far is that Church fallen into a very dangerous decay. Among all the exceptions made by the several sorts of dissenters against the Church of England, there is none nigh so material as this : nor is there any neglect, the amending whereof would, beside the stopping of the mouths of gainsayers, produce a greater spiritual advantage to their people. In the mean time the dissenters ought to consider and allow these things following : —

i. That this is much more difficult in a national Church than in one of their societies. For none side with them but what do it out of some zeal, whether it be a true and godly zeal, or an ignorant and factious one ; still it is zeal, and may be made use of to a vigorous execution of the orders passed among them. But there is in all nations, besides the zealous men, a sort of " flying squadron " that have really no concern at all for any religion, but being perfectly indifferent, do of course, fall in with the national Church, as being the most fashionable 85 Matt, xviii. 15, 16, 17. se l Con vi t> 2> &c>

37 See Bochelli Decreta Eccl., Gal. 1. 5, Tit. xv. c. ii., v., ix., &c.; it. Bp. Stilling- fleet s Charge at his Primary Visitation, p. 54, &c.

A djusting Differences — Discipline of Excommunication. \ 95

at that time. These, wherever they light, are a great hindrance to the due execution of any canons for discipline. They are either by their riches and power too big, or else by their number too many .for the force of the law. The dissenters, notwithstanding the boasts of their exactness of discipline, would find themselves embarrassed, if this were their case.

2. That though the Scripture does command Churches to excom municate wicked men, yet it does not allow private men to make separations from a Church that does not duly practice that command. Let a man but take care that he do not deserve by his own wickedness to be turned out of the Church : and if others who do deserve it, be not upon a motion made, turned out, that is not his fault, nor will be imputed to him. The Church of Corinth was faulty in this, when St Paul wrote his first Epistle to them, and though he does there88 reprove them for this fault, yet at the time of his second Epistle there were still many wicked men 89 whom they had not yet turned out ; and yet in both his Epistles 90 he charges that none go about to make any division. And from that time to this time there has been no Church free from these " spots in the feasts of charity." It is indeed impossible for any Church, while it is in this world, absolutely to free itself. In the meantime, private Christians are advised to withdraw their familiarity91 and conversation from those that they know to be such. And so far every private man has the power of excommunication in his own breast.

3. That whereas there are but four sorts of men whom the Scripture does command to be excomunicated : — i. Idolaters,92 unbelievers,93 Teachers of false doctrine in the fundamentals of the faith.94 2. Men of vicious and immoral lives.95 3. Such as in points of trespasses, or differences between man and man, will not hear the Church.96 And 4. Those that make divisions in or from a Church. The dissenters and dividing parties should, amidst all the zeal that they show for executing the law upon the three first sorts, remember that the law is as full, as plain, as peremptory against the fourth sort as against any of the other. For there is not a text in all the Scripture that is plainer against any sin, or that does more expressly command any sort of sinners to be excom municated, than is that of St Paul, Rom. xvi. 17 : "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark those which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them." Therefore he that thinks adultery to be a sin, and drunkenness to be a sin, &c., and schism to be none ; or that a man is to be avoided or excommuni cated for the one, but not for the other, is one that does not take Christ's

88 I Cor. v. 2. 89 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21. ^ I Cor. i. 10 ; 2 Cor. xiii. II, 12.

sl I Cor. v. ii. 92 2 Cor. vi. 16, 17. 93 2 Cor. xiv. 15.

94 2 Tim. ii, 16, 17, 18. 90 I Cor. v. 7, 12, M Matt, xviii. 17.

Q 2

I96 The History of Infant Baptism.

commands as they lie in Scripture, but picks out some that he will ob serve, and others that he will slight, according as they please or displease his humour. The Word of God is, that everyone should avoid, or separate from him, that goes about to make a separation. The dis senters, if they apply this, will be inclined to a little more moderation and charity in the censures that they pass upon national churches, for their want of so severe a discipline as they call for.

23. The English antipsedobaptists have, as the other separating parties in England have, some Jesuits that in disguise do every now and then strive to insinuate and get in among them. This society did at first exert the chief of their strength, and employ the ablest men they had, in writing books of controversy against the Protestants ; and they had the repute of having puzzled the cause better than any other popish writers had. This way, however unfairly managed by them, had yet this commendation, that it was fighting in open field. But having been there repulsed with some loss, it is now a long time since, that they have wholly taken to that way which Dr Stillingfleet thirty years ago called their " present way of pickeering and lying under hedges." 97 They will turn themselves into any shape, pretend to be of any religion, put on the disguise of tradesmen, handicraftsmen, soldiers, physicians, &c., to get an opportunity either of making proselytes to the Church of Rome, or of promoting divisions among Protestants. But there is no employment they love so well as that of a preacher in any of the separate congregations. They can act this part notably. They stick not in their sermons to rail as fiercely as any against the Pope of Rome, so that they may use the credit which they thereby get with the deluded people to engage them deeper in principles of separation from the estab lished Church of the countries where they live. Sometimes they have been detected in their lifetimes, and sometimes the cheat has not appeared till a good while after.

The author of a book called Foxes and Firebrands has collected out of histories, records, letters, &c., abundance of instances wherein they have been found instilling or inflaming principles of separation among all the sects or divided parties in England and Scotland ever since the Reformation. And out of him the author of a book called The Picture of the Anabaptists has recited such, wherein they have been concerned with the antipaedobaptists. I shall not here repeat them.

One instance which shows how long it is sometimes before the intrigue is discovered is this : in the former years of Queen Elizabeth's time, there were a sort of people called Puritans that expressed some dislike at some orders or ceremonies of the Church of England, but yet did not proceed to separation, but on the contrary declared an abhorrence of it. But about the year 1567, "there succeeded them," as Fuller, relating m Idolatry of Church of Rome, Preface.

Jesuits Creeping in among the Dissenters. 197

the matter, expresses it, " another generation of active and zealous Non conformists. Of these Coleman, Button, Hallingham, and Benson, were the chief, inveighing against the Established Church discipline, ac counting everything from Rome which was not from Geneva, endeavour ing in all things to conform the government of the English Church to the Presbyterian Reformation."98

Camden " and Heylin 10° do mention the same men with the same character, as opposing the discipline, liturgy, calling of our bishops as approaching too near to the Church of Rome, &c.

Now neither Camden, Heylin, nor Fuller, who recite the names of these men, ever knew anything to the contrary, but that they were really such as they pretended, viz., Protestants puritanically inclined ; much less did the people that were led into separation by them know anything.

But a hundred years after the time that these men and their first associates must have been dead, viz., about twenty years ago, it was dis covered that three of the four, viz., Hallingham, Coleman, and Benson, were Jesuits ; and that by the sagacity of Bishop Stillingfleet l comparing the histories of those times with some Jesuits' letters intercepted about the* same time.

The chief letter to this purpose is recited by the aforesaid author of Foxes and Firebrands, and averred by him to be " a true copy taken out of the registry of the Episcopal See of Rochester in that book which begins anno 2 and 3 Phil, and Mar., and is continued to 15 Eliz."2

What he recites from that book is to this purpose. In the year 1568 one Heth went about the lower parts of Kent, preaching up division and a purer Reformation ; he came to Rochester, and they, not know ing what seditious doctrines he had preached in the country places, admitted him to preach in the Cathedral. The next day there was found in the pulpit a letter that had dropped from him, written to him from one Malt, a Jesuit, at Madrid (which is there recited at large), applauding the course he took, and advertising him of the success of some others sent on the like errand ; and adding these words : " Hall ingham, Coleman, and Benson have set a faction among the German heretics, so that several who have turned from us have now denied their baptism." This and other evidences being brought, he was convicted in the Bishop's Court at Rochester to be a Jesuit, and could not any longer deny it. In his boots were found his beads, and a Pope's Bull for the Jesuits to preach what doctrine they pleased for dividing of Protestants, particularly naming the English. And in his trunk were .several books for denying baptism to infants.

98 Church Hist. lib. ix. »9 Annnal. Elizab. ad Ann. 1568.

100 Hist, of Presbyter. 1. vi. .p. 257. a Unreasonab. of Separation, Preface.

2Pt. I. pag. 15.

198 T/te History of Infant Baptism.

The author of this recital makes no use of this passage of the letter about Hallingham, Coleman, and Benson. But Bishop Stillingfleet shows that they must have been the same men mentioned by the fore- said historians : and that by German heretics are meant any Protestants, that religion being then called the German heresy.

The book from whence this is quoted must probably have been then in the Registry, because the said author (who was accounted a man of credit) would not else so positively have referred to it. But I under stand by inquiry that it is not now there. By what interest it can have been taken away since that time (which was about thirty years ago) is hard to guess. But, however, it seems that Mr Russen, who says 3 at present : " If they look upon this story as untrue, let them search the Register, &c., where they shall find to their ignominy the verity thereof, 'r is mistaken. P.S. — Since the writing of this, I understand that there is good proof that it was stolen away in the late King James' time.

I shall mention but one case more, and that is one which is not taken notice of by the foresaid collectors. All that I understand of it is from a pamphlet printed by one Everard in the year 1664. By which it appears that he in Cromwell's time had been a captain of horse, and a noted preacher against infant baptism. He speaks as if he had ha'd a great many converts. This time at which he printed his pamphlet was a time in which it was impossible for him to carry on that trade in a disguise any longer. So he faces about and endeavours to decoy them over with him to the Church of Rome. To this purpose he pretends that it had pleased God to bring him to an opportunity of discoursing concerning religion with a very grave and judicious gentleman, who, " examining everything from the bottom, and laying the axe to the root of the tree, &c., asked him in the first place whether he was sure and cer tain that the Christian religion in general was more true than the reli gion of the Turks, Jews," &c. In short, this man had by degrees made him see that there is no firm reliance for one's faith either on the Scrip ture, or on the direction of the Spirit, or on reason ; but only on the authority of the Catholic Church, by which he all along means the Church of Rome. So he gives to his pamphlet this title : An Epistle to the several Congregations of the Nonconformists. By Capt. Robert Everard, now by God's Grace a Member of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ : showing the Reasons of his Conversion and Submission to the said Catholic Church, printed, 1664.

But the reasons therein given are so exactly the same with the ordin ary sophisms which the Jesuits commonly use to amaze and confound the minds of ignorant people ; and the writer of them sets them forth with so much of the same art ; that he that reads the book will easily discern that Everard was not now converted, but was a papist before.

3 Ch. vii.

Jesuits on Infant Baptism. 199

We must think that the instances of this nature that have been dis covered are probably but few in comparison with those that never have been so. We oftener find where these men have been, than where they are : and it were happy for England if they had some mark, whereby they might be known.

There is one tenet of the antipsedobaptists in which the Jesuits con cur with them, not only when they are in this disguise, but also in their late books to which they set their names ; that is, that infant baptism cannot be proved from Scripture. The old books of the papists, and even of some Jesuits, do, as well as the books of Protestants, prove it by arguments from Scripture, as Archbishop Laud and Vossius have largely shown. But the late Jesuits have given a politic turn to that point of the Romish doctrine, and say, that it can be proved only by the custom and tradition of the Church. They serve two designs by this device. One is to puzzle the Protestants in general, who maintain that the Scripture is a sufficient rule. The other is to encourage the antipasdobaptists that are among the Protestants in their opinion and separation. To which purpose they do in their books furnish them with answers to all the arguments brought from Scripture.

Col. Danvers says, " A great papist lately in London, going to a dispute about infant baptism, told his friend, ' He was going to hear "a miracle," viz., infant baptism proved by Scripture.' "4

And one Edward Pay, an antipsedobaptist preacher, formerly of Deptford, now, I think, about Dover, in Kent, in a pamphlet which he entitles, A Threepenny Answer, &c., has this remark, " A popish priest confessed to a minister of the baptised way that ' there is no Scripture for baptising infants ; but yet it ought to be done, because the Church has commanded it.' This was a true and ingenuous confession."5 There is no doubt but this priest would, if Mr Pay had given leave, have preached the same in his congregation. And if he might have preached in a vizor, would have said it ought not to be done at all.

But I do not so much wonder at these two as I do at Mr Stennet, who, in his late Answer to Mr Russen, has thought fit to strengthen his cause not only by quoting Cardinal Perron, Fisher the Jesuit, &c., but has spent eleven whole pages in giving us an harangue of Mr Bossuet, a late popish author, written in favour of the antipredobaptists. Is it news to Mr Stennet, too, that the papists for these eighty years past do this against their own conscience, and out of a design against the Pro testants in general ? If it be, let him consult and compare the popish writers, and he will find that before that time they do themselves all of them prove infant baptism by Scripture, and that it is only the later ones that have altered their tale. There seems to have been about that time a consult of the Jesuits, wherein it was resolved to give this cue to the 4 Treat, of Bapt., 2nd edit., p. 134. 5 Page 25.

2OO The History of Infant Baptism.

writers of their side. Cardinal Perron began this course ; and the learned Rivet even then smelt the design, and gave the world notice of it, as I showed, ch. ii. § ix. Yet even still the papists carry it on in new writings every day ; and it takes, it seems (not only as Saffold's bills do with the new folks that come to town every year, but), even with some of the wiser sort. If the discourse that he recites so at length had anything of new argument in it, it might be used, come it from whom it would. But there is nothing of that but what is common, and even trivial, and has been answered a hundred times. It affirms that infant baptism depends solely on the tradition of the Church : but this is said dictator-like.

And for the complying answer that is there given, and fills four or five pages more, which was written, it seems, by M. de la Roque ; I thought at first it had been a sham ; it looks as if the author himself, or some other papist or antipsedobaptist, had framed an answer under the name of a Protestant, such as they would have. But M. de la Roque was, it seems, a learned man in other points, and has well refuted the main of his adversary's book — which is of Communion in one kind ; but having occasion to speak of this matter only by-the-by, and having not studied it, but depending on Grotius, and having not well minded what Grotius says neither, he has yielded even more than his opponent pretended to. The opponent had said that infant baptism depends "solely on the tradition of the Church." The answerer throws away even this grant, and says, "The primitive Church did not baptise infants," p. 188, and proves it by nothing but an allegation that is quite mistaken in matter of fact. He says " the learned Grotius proves it in his Annotations on the Gospel" Let any one read the Annotations, and he will see that Grotius (how much soever he acts the prevaricator at that place), so far from proving, does not pretend that there ever was a time in which the Church " did not baptise infants," but only " Liber- tatem et consuetudinis differentiam : " ' The liberty and difference of the custom,' viz., that some in the Church did, and some did not. And how groundless his pretence even of that is, I have endeavoured to show at the foresaid ch. ii. § ix.

One would think that even the weakest among the antipsedobaptists should apprehend that this new favour and loving-kindness which the priests and Jesuits show to their side is all of the same stamp and design, as was that which the late King James, by counsel of the same men, showed to the dissenters in general, viz., that by furthering the division they might weaken us all. And as all the honest men among the dissenters then did scorn and refuse those favours, when they saw whither they tended : so ought the antipsedobaptists in this case. But if they will not be dissuaded from tampering with the deceitful gifts of the enemy ; then their best way is to do as some have done before

* Antipcedobaptists of Poland, Bohemia, &c. 201

them, viz., to borrow the arguments of the Jesuits without saying where they have them. For people will be never the more persuaded that infant baptism cannot be proved from Scripture because a papist says so.

The English antipgedobaptists are as careful as men in their circum stances can well be against this intrusion of papists in disguise, by requiring an account of any new preacher coming to them ; but it is a thing that can hardly be ever totally prevented without a draught of articles of religion, to which every preacher should subscribe.

§ 7. Of the antipaedobaptists in Poland I have not much to say, save that they were formerly there in great numbers. Lselius Socinus, about the year 1550, and after him his nephew, Faustus, broached there a most desperate opinion against the Divinity of our Saviour Christ, "Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."6 Some heretics of old (but yet none within a thousand years of that time) had held that Jesus was a mere man ; and that the WORD or Ao/og did only come upon Him, or inhabit in Him. But these men taught that even the WORD Himself, of whom St John speaks, was a creature. Which was a heresy perfectly new, and surpassing in impiety almost all that ever were. So they renounced the doctrine of the Trinity. The form of words by which Christians are baptised, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," stood in their way. Socinus, therefore, expressed a very slighting opinion of all water-baptism. He would have it be ac counted needless in a nation that is settled in the profession of Christi anity. He said 7 the Apostles practised it, but they had no command so to do ; and so other Christians might use it as an indifferent thing. That they may baptise, if they will ; or let it alone, if they will. And if they will give baptism, they may give it in infancy, or in adult age : it is much what one. His followers, many of them, took him at this last proposal. They would baptise, but not in infancy.

There were also some other antipsedobaptists that were not Socinians. But they were so generally mixed, that the ordinary name given to all Socinians was anabaptists. About the year 1650, they were, by public edicts, expelled that kingdom, as the Protestants in general have since been.

And the same may be said of Bohemia and Moravia, and some other countries thereabouts. There were for about one hundred years many antipsedobaptists mixed with the Protestants in those countries ; but both one and the other have since been, by popish persecutions, either perverted, or forced to seek new seats.

In Hungary and Transylvania, but especially the latter, there are said to be still considerable numbers of them, some towns and villages

6 Rom. ix. 5.

7 Disp. de Baptismo ; Epist. de Baptismo ad virum nobilem ; Epist. altera de Bapt.

202 The History of Infant Baptism.

consisting mostly of these men. But it is said s withal that they are mostly Socinians. There were in Transylvania, so long ago as the time of the later Socinus before-mentioned, viz., Faustus Socinus, some of these that were deeper in that heresy, if possible, than he himself was. They held, as he tells us, "The doctrines of the TRINITY and of INFANT BAPTISM to be the chief errors of other Churches. So that if anyone would renounce these two, and would firmly hold that all that have been baptised in infancy, must be baptised when they are grown up, they would own such an one for a brother in point of doctrine,"9 &c., though he differed in some other things.

This is a gracious condescension. But yet I question whether, as the case stands, it will induce many to accept of the proposal ; because all people thereabouts know that, by complying but a very little farther, they may be admitted for true Mussulmans, and allowed to wear white turbans in the city of Stamboul : an honour which these gentlemen seem very ambitious of. But as for those that desire to keep the name of Chris tians, God preserve them from the folly of buying the brotherhood of these men at so dear a rate as the renouncing of their God.

CHAPTER IX.

OF THE MOST ANCIENT RITES OF BAPTISM.

§ i. '"PHE rites and circumstances attending baptism have been largely A handled by Josephus Vicecomes. I shall only briefly mention some of the most ancient.

It was the custom of every Church of Christians to require adult per sons that were to be baptised to spend some time in prayer and fasting before their entrance into that holy covenant, that they might come with greater seriousness and steadfastness of resolution to the sacrament thereof. And the Church did use to fast and pray with them and for them.

This fasting, though it be nowhere mentioned in Scripture, yet is ex pressly put among the customs of the Christians by Justin Martyr (who must have been born in the Scripture times) in that apology which he makes to the heathen Emperors concerning the tenets and practices of the Christians. The place I recited before.1

And so it is also by Tertullian.2 " They," says he, " that come to baptism must use the devotions of frequent prayers, fastings, kneelings, and watchings, and the confession of all their past sins, that they may

8 Osiander. Appendix Hist. 9 Epist. de bapt. ad virum nbbilem.

Pt. I. ch. xi. § 3. 2 Lib de Baptismo, c. xx.

Sick People Baptised in Bed. 203

at least do as much as was done in John's baptism. ' They were bap tised,' it is said, ' confessing their sins.' "

I said before,3 that it is probable that this was none of the least rea sons for keeping the Lent Fast, because the baptism of so many people was to be at Easter. The Council of Laodicea do order, " That none be admitted to baptism that Easter that does not give in his name before a fortnight of Lent be out. And that they must all be able to say the Creed by Thursday before Easter ; and that if any be baptised in sickness, when they recover, they must learn and recite it." 4

§ 2. Their general and ordinary way was to baptise by immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant or grown man or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear by an infinite number of pas sages, that as one cannot but pity the weak endeavours of such psedo- baptists as would maintain the negative of it ; so, also, we ought to disown and show a dislike of the profane scoffs which some people give to the English antipaedobaptists merely for their use of dipping. It is one thing to maintain that that circumstance is not absolutely necessary to the essence of baptism ; and another to go about to represent it as ridiculous and foolish, or as shameful and indecent ; when it was in all probability the way by which our blessed Saviour, and, for certain, was the most usual and ordinary way by which the ancient Christians did receive their baptism. I shall not stay to produce the particular proofs of this. Many of the quotations which I brought for other purposes, and shall bring, do evince it. It is a great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true, and may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says.

Before the Christian religion was so far encouraged as to have churches built for its service, they baptised in any river, pond, &c. So Tertullian says : " It is all one whether one be washed in the sea, or in a pond, in a fountain or in a river, in a standing or in a running water : nor is there any difference between those that John baptised in Jordan, and those that Peter baptised in the river Tiber. 'V5 But when they came to have churches ; one part of the church, or place nigh the church, called the Baptistery, was employed to this use ; and had a cistern, font, or pond large enough for several at once to go into the water : divided into two parts by a partition, one for the men and the other for the women for the ordinary baptisms.

On the other side, the antipaedobaptists will be as unfair in their turn, if they do not grant that in the case of sickness, weakliness, haste, want of quantity of water, or such like extraordinary occasions, baptism by affusion of water on the face was by the ancients counted sufficient

3 Pt. I. ch. xvii. § 5. 4 Can. 45, 46, 47.

5 De Baptismo, c. iv.

204 Tfa History oj Infant Baptism,

baptism. I shall out of the many proofs for it produce two or three of the most ancient.

A.D. 251, Novatian was by one party of the clergy and people of Rome chosen bishop of that Church, in a schismatical way, and in opposition to Cornelius, who had been before chosen by the major part and was already ordained. Cornelius does in a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch vindicate his right : and shows that Novatian came not canonically to his orders of priesthood ; 6 much less was he capable of being chosen bishop : for " that all the clergy, and a great many of the laity, were against his being ordained presbyter, because it was not lawful (they said) for any one that had been baptised in his bed in time of sickness [rir tv xXivp dia voaov irepi%u6evTa] as he had been, to be admitted to any office of the clergy."

This shows that at the time when Novatian turned Christian, which could not by this account be much above one hundred years after the Apostles, it was the custom for anyone that in time of sickness desired baptism, to have it administered to him in his bed by affusion : as in another part of this letter is said of him : sv avrfj rfj xXivy r\ IXSITO mpixvditf, ' baptised by affusion in the bed as he lay.' It is true, the Christians had then a rule among themselves, that such an one, if he recovered, should never be preferred to any office in the Church. Which rule they made, not that they thought that manner of baptism to be less effectual than the other; but for the reason expressed by the Council of Neocaesarea held about eighty years after this time : the twelfth canon whereof is : " He that is baptised when he is sick, ought not to be made a priest (for his coming to the faith is not voluntary, but from necessity) unless his diligence and faith do afterwards prove commendable, or the scarcity of men fit for the office do require it."

Another instance about the same time is this ; one Magnus, a country man, writes to St Cyprian,7 desiring to be satisfied in some points relat ing to the schism of the Novatians. One was, whether those that were baptised in that schism must be baptised again if they come over from the schism to the Church ? This, St Cyprian answers, must be : because all baptism given by such as are in a state of division from the Church, is void. The other was, whether they that in the communion of the Church are baptised in bed, as Novatian was, must likewise be baptised again, if they recover ? To this St Cyprian answers as follows :

" You inquire also, dear son, what I think of such as obtain the grace in time of their. sickness and infirmity; whether they are to be accounted lawful Christians : because they are not washed all over with the water of salvation ; but have only some of it poured on them. In which matter I would use so much modesty and humility, as not to prescribe so positively but that every one should have the freedom of his own 8 Euseb. H. E., 1. vi. c. xliii. 7 Cypriani Epist. 69, edit. Oxon.

Baptism by Affusion Sufficient. 205

thought, and do as he thinks best : I do according to the best of my mean capacity judge thus ; that the Divine favours are not maimed or weakened, so as that anything less than the whole of them is conveyed, where the benefit of them is received with a full and complete faith both of the giver and receiver.

" For the contagion of sin is not in the sacrament of salvation washed off by the same measures that the dirt of the skin and of the body is washed off, in an ordinary and secular bath : so as that there should be any necessity of soap and other helps, and a large pool or fish-pond by which the body is washed or cleansed. It is in another way that the breast of a believer is washed ; after another fashion that the mind of a man is by faith cleansed. In the sacraments of salvation, when neces sity compels, the shortest ways of transacting divine matters do by God's gracious dispensation confer the whole benefit.

"And no man need therefore think otherwise, because these sick people, when they receive the grace of our Lord, have nothing but an affusion or sprinkling : whenas the Holy Scripture by the prophet Ezekiel says ; ' I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean,' " 8 &c.

He quotes to the same purpose, Num. xix. 13, it. viii. 7, &c. And having applied them, says a little after : " If anyone think that they obtain no benefit, as having only an affusion of the water of salvation, do not let him mistake so far as that the parties, if they recover of their sickness, should be baptised again. And if they must not be baptised again, that have already been sanctified with the baptism of the Church, why should they have cause of scandal given them concerning their religion and the pardon of our Lord ? What ! shall we think that they have granted to them the grace of our Lord, but in a weaker or less measure of the Divine and Holy Spirit, so as to be accounted Christians, but yet not in equal state with others ? No, the Holy spirit is not given by several measures, but is wholly poured on them that believe," &c.

And having, in order to set forth this equality, alluded to what is said, Exod. xvi. 18, of every man's having an equal omer of manna, he adds, " By which it was signified that the mercy and heavenly grace of Christ, which was to come in after times, would be divided equally to all, and the gift of the spiritual grace would be poured on all God's people without any difference on account of sex, or years of age (which words are another proof of his owning infant baptism), or of respect of persons.

" We see," says he, " this proved by the experience of the thing, that such as are baptised, and do obtain the grace in their sickness when need so requires, are freed from the unclean spirit with which they were before possessed, and do live commendably and approved in the

8 Ezek. xxxvi. 25.

2o6 The History of Infant Baptism.

Church, and do every day proceed by the increase of their faith to an increase of the heavenly grace," &c.

A little after, he argues thus : " Can anyone think it reasonable that so much honour should be shown to the heretics, that such as come from them should never be asked whether they had a washing all over, or only an affusion of water, and yet among us any should detract from the truth and integrity of faith ? " &c. So that it appears, that the several sects did, as well as the Church party, use clinical baptism in case of necessity.

The Acts also of St Lawrence, who suffered martyrdom about the same time as Cyprian, do tell how one of the soldiers that were to be his executioners, being converted, brought a pitcher of water for Law rence to baptise him with. And though these Acts, as they are now, are interpolated and mixed with falsehoods, yet this passage seems to be genuine, because it is cited by Walafridus Strabo,9 who lived before those times in which most of the Roman forgeries were added to the histories of their saints.

Eusebius10 also mentions Basilides baptised in prison by some brethren. The strict custody under which Christian prisoners were kept, their tyrannical jailors hardly allowing them necessaries for life, much less such conveniences as they desired for their religion, makes it very probable that this must have been done by affusion only of some small quantity of water. And the like may be said of the jailor baptised by St Paul in haste, the same hour of the night in which he was converted,11 he and all his straightway.

These are some of the most ancient instances of that sort of baptism that are now extant in records. But the farther one proceeds in read ing the following times, the more frequent they are, in so much that Gennadius 12 of Marseilles, in the fifth century, speaks of baptism as given in the French Church indifferently, by either of the ways, of im mersion or aspersion. For having said, "We believe the way of salva tion to be open only to baptised persons; we believe that no catechumen, though he die in good works, has eternal life ; " he adds, " Except the case of martyrdom, in which all the sacraments of baptism are com pleted." Then to show how martyrdom has all in it that baptism has, he says, " The person to be baptised owns his faith before the priest, and when the interrogatories are put to him, makes his answer. The same does a martyr before the heathen judge, he also owns his faith, and when the question is put to him, makes answer. The one after his confession is either wetted with the water or else plunged into it, and the other is either wetted with his own blood, or else is plunged [or overwhelmed] in fire."

9 De rebus Ecclesiast., c. xxvi. 10 H. E., 1. vi. c. v.

11 Acts xvi. 33. 12 De Eccl. Dogmatibus., c. Ixxiv.

Dipping, when left off in the West. 207

In the times of Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura, immersion was in Italy the most common way, but the other was ordinary enough. Thomas speaks thus, "Baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by affusion of water, or sprinkling with it. But it is the safer way to baptise by immersion, because that is the most common custom ; " 13 and again, "By immersion, the burial of Christ is more lively repre sented, and therefore this is the most common and commendable way. Bonaventura says, " That the way of affusion was probably used by the Apostles, and was in his time used in the Churches of France, and some others;"14 but he says, "the way of dipping into the water is the more common, and the fitter, and the safer."

One would have thought that the cold countries should have been the first that should have changed the custom from dipping to affusion, because in cold climates the bathing of the body in water may seem much more unnatural and dangerous to the health than in the hot ones, (and it is to be noted by the way, that all those countries of whose rites of baptism, and immersion used in it, we have any account in the Scripture or other ancient history, are in hot climates, where frequent and common bathing both of infants and grown persons is natural, and even necessary to the health). But by history it appears that the cold climates held the custom of dipping as long as any : for England, which is one of the coldest, was one of the latest that admitted this alteration of the ordinary way. Vasquez 15 having said that it was the old custom both in the east and the west to baptise both grown persons and infants that were in health, by immersion : and that it plainly appears by the words of St Gregory that the custom continued so to be in his time, adds : " And it continues, as they say, to this day among the English, as Erasmus has noted in the margin of the 76 Epistle of St Cyprian." Erasmus is there observing how the baptism of infants is in different countries variously administered ; and says : " perfunduntur apud nos, merguntur apud Anglos." 'With us [the Dutch] they have the water poured on them ; in England they are dipped/ This is a good authority for so late as the time of Henry VIII., at which time he lived in Eng land. And I produced before 16 a passage out of a Convocation in that King's reign which also shows that the general custom in England then was to dip infants. And it continued so for two reigns more. I will here endeavour to trace the times when it began to be left off in the several countries of the west ; meaning still, in the case of infants that were in health and in the public baptism ; for in the case of sickly or weak infants, there was always in all countries an allowance of affusion or sprinkling to be given in haste, and in the house, or any other place.

13 III. q. 66 art. vii. 14 L. iv. dist. iii. art. ii. q. 2.

15 In tertiam disp. cxlv. cap. ii. 16 Ch. viii. § 6.

208 The History of Infant Baptism.

France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of administering it. Gennadius of Marseilles, whose words I gave before, is the first author that speaks of it as indifferent.

It came more and more into request in that country, till in Bona- ventura's time it was become, as appears by his words last quoted, a very ordinary practice; and though he says, some other Churches did then so use it, yet he names none but France.

The Synod of Angiers, 1275, speaks of dipping or pouring as in differently used ; and blames some ignorant priests, for that they dip or pour the water but once ; and instructs them that the general custom of the Church is to dip thrice, or pour on water three times.

The Synod of Langres mentions pouring only : " Let the priest make three pourings or sprinklings of water on the infant's head," &c.

And so from thence to the year 1600 (and still to this day for aught I know) the Synodical Acts and Canons of the Churches in France do mention sometimes dipping or pouring, and sometimes pouring only : but the practice for a long time has been pouring only. The Synod of Aix, 1585, says: "Pouring or dipping, according as the use of the Church is," and orders that " the pouring of the water be not done with the hand, but with a ladle [or vessel] kept in the font for that purpose." This account of the Synods I have out of Bochell, Decret. Ecd. GallicaruK, 1. ii., de baptismo.

From France it spread (but not till a good while after) into Italy, Germany, Spain, &c., and last of all into England.

For Italy, I have shown already, that dipping was the more ordinary custom at the year 1260. By what degrees it altered is not worth the while to search. In two hundred years time the other became the ordinary way.

In Germany, Walafridus Strabo, 850; Rupertus, 1120, and several others, do so speak of baptism, as that it appears by their words, that dipping of infants was the general custom, except of such as were sick, &c., and must be baptised in haste. But the Council of Cologne under Herman, in the year 1536, speaks of it more indifferently. "The child is thrice either dipped, or wetted with the water," &c. And fifteen years after, the Agenda of the Church of Mentz, published by Sebastian, do recommend and prefer the later : " Then let the priest take the child in his left arm : and holding him over the font, let him with his right hand, three several times, take water out of the font, and pour it on the child's head, Ita quod aqua tingat caput et scapulas, ' so as that the water may wet its head and shoulders.' " Then they give a note to this purpose ; that immersion once or thrice, or pouring of water, may be used and have been used in the Church : and that this variety does not alter the nature of baptism : and that a man shall do

Dipping, Jww long continued in England. 209

ill to break the custom of his Church for either of them. But they add, that it is better if the Church will allow to use pouring on of water. For suppose, say they, the priest be old and feeble, or have the palsy in his hands, or the weather be very cold, or the child very infirm, or be too big to be dipped in the font, then it is much fitter to use affusion of the water. Then they bring the instance of the Apostles baptising three thousand at a time ; the instance of St Lawrence that I spoke of before; and the story (which I suppose is forged) of Chlodoveus baptised in that fashion by Remigius ; and say : " That therefore there may not be one way for the sick and another for the healthy, one for children and another for bigger persons ; it is better that the minister of this sacrament do keep the safest way, which is, to pour water thrice, unless the custom be to the contrary."

In England there seem to have been some priests so early as the year 816, that attempted to bring in the use of baptism by affusion in the public administration ; for Spelman recites a Canon of a Council in that year,17 " Let the priests know that when they administer holy baptism, they must not pour the water on the heads of the infants, but they must always be dipped in the font. As the Son of God gave His own example to all believers, when He was thrice dipped in the waters of Jordan, so it is necessary by order to be kept and used."

Lynwood, who was Dean of the Arches in the time of Henry V., 1422, and wrote the best account of our English constitutions, having spoken of the manner of baptising infants by dipping, adds this note : " But this is not to be accounted to be of the necessity [or essence] of baptism : but it may be given also by pouring or sprinkling. And this holds especially where the custom of the Church allows it." 18 It is to be noted that France had, as I showed just now, before this time ad mitted of the way of pouring water : and Lynwood had lived in France under Henry V. of England, who was king there.

Some do prove from Wickliff that it was held indifferent in England in his time whether dipping or pouring were used, because he says at one place, " Nor is it material whether they be dipped, once or thrice, or water be poured on their heads : but it must be done according to the custom of the place where one dwells." 19 But we ought to take the whole context as it lies in the book. He had been speaking of the necessity of baptism to salvation, from that text, John iii. 5, and then adds : " Et ordinavit ecclesia quod quaelibet persona fidelis in necessitatis articulo poterit baptisari [1. baptisare]. Nee refert," &c. ' And the Church has ordained that in a case of necessity any person that is fidel [or, that is himself baptised] may give baptism, &c. — Nor is it material whether they be dipped,' &c. Such words do not suppose any other

17 Concil. Anglicana, torn. i. p. 331, Synod, apud Celecyth. sub Walfredo.

18 Constit., 1. iii. c. de Bapt. 19 Trialog., 1. iv. c. xi.

2 1 o The History of Infant Baptism.

way than dipping used ordinarily : but only in a juncture of necessity, or fear of the infant's death.

The offices or liturgies for public baptism in the Church of England did all along, so far as I can learn, enjoin dipping without any mention of pouring or sprinkling. The Manuale ad usum Sarum, printed 1530, the twenty-first of Henry VIII., orders thus for the public baptisms : " Then let the priest take the child ; and, having asked the name, bap tise him by dipping him in the water thrice," &c. And John Frith, writing in the year 1533 a treatise of baptism, calls the outward part of it the " plunging down in the water and lifting up again." Which he often mentions without ever mentioning pouring or sprinkling.

In the Common-Prayer Book, printed 1549, the second of King Edward the VI., the order stands thus : " Shall dip it in the water thrice, &c., so it be discreetly and warily done, saying N., I baptise thee," &c. But this order adds, " And if the child be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it, saying the foresaid words." Afterwards the books do leave out the word thrice, and do say, " shall dip it in the water, so it be discreetly," &c. Which alteration, I suppose, was made in the sixth of Edward the VI., for then there was a new edition of the book with some light alterations. And from thence it stood unaltered as to this matter to the fourteenth of Charles II.

From this time of King Edward, Mr Walker 20 (who has taken the most pains in tracing this matter) derives the beginning of the alteration of the general custom. He says that " dipping was at this time the more usual, but sprinkling was sometimes used, which within the time of half a century (meaning from 1550 to 1600) prevailed to be the more general (as it is now almost the only) way of baptising."

But it is not probable that in so short a reign as that of King Edward, who died in 1553, the custom could receive any great alteration. Customs in which the whole body of the people is concerned alter but slowly, when they do alter.

And in Queen Mary's time the custom of dipping seems to have con tinued. For Watson, the Popish Bishop of Lincoln, did, in the year 1558, which was the last of Queen Mary, publish a volume of sermons about the sacraments, in the fourth of which he says : " Though the ancient tradition of the Church has been from the beginning to dip the child three times, &c., yet that is not of such necessity ; but that if it be but once dipped in the water, it is sufficient. Yea, and in time of great peril and necessity, if the water be but poured on the head, it will suffice." A sign that pouring was not in Queen Mary's time used but in case of necessity.

But there are apparent reasons why that custom should alter during Queen Elizabeth's reign.

30 Doctrine of Baptisms, c. x. p. 174.

Left off in Queen Elizabeth's Time. 211

The latitude given in the Liturgy, which could have but little effect in the short time of King Edward's reign, might, during the long reign of this Queen, produce an alteration proportionably greater. It being allowed to weak children (though strong enough to be brought to church) to be baptised by affusion, many fond ladies and gentlewomen first, and then by degrees the common people, would obtain the favour of the priest to have their children pass for weak children, too tender to endure dipping in the water. Especially (as Mr Walker observes) " if some instance really were, or were but fancied or framed, of some child's taking hurt by it."

And another thing that had a greater influence than this was, that many of our English divines and other people had, during Queen Mary's bloody reign, fled into Germany, Switzerland, &c., and coming back in Queen Elizabeth's time, they brought with them a great love to the customs of those Protestant Churches wherein they had sojourned ; and especially the authority of Calvin, and the rules which he had estab lished at Geneva, had a mighty influence on a great number of our people about that time. Now, Calvin had not only given his dictate in his Institutions^- that " the difference is of no moment, whether he that is baptised be dipped all over ; and if so, whether thrice or once, or whether he be only wetted with the water poured on him." But he had also drawn up for the use of his church at Geneva (and afterwards published to the world) a Form of Administering the Sacraments ^ where, when he comes to order the act of baptising, he words it thus : " Then the minister of baptism pours water on the infant, saying, I baptise thee," &c. There had been, as I said, some Synods in some dioceses of France that had spoken of affusion without mentioning immersion at all, that being the common practice ; but for an office or liturgy of any Church, this is, I believe, the first in the world that pre scribes affusion absolutely. Then Musculus had determined, " As for dipping of the infant, we judge that not so necessary, but that it is free for the Church to baptise either by dipping or sprinkling." ~23 So that (as Mr Walker observes), "No wonder if that custom prevailed at home, which our reformed divines in the time of the Marian persecution had found to be the judgment of other divines, and seen to be the practice of other Churches abroad, and especially of Mr Calvin and his Church of Geneva.24

And when there was added to all this the resolution of such a man as Dr Whitaker, Regius Professor at Cambridge,25 "Though in case of grown persons that are in health, I think dipping to be better ; yet in the

21 L. iv. c. xv. § 19.

2- Tractat. Theolog. Catcchismus, p. 57, ed. Bezse, 1576.

23 Loci Commun. de Baptismo, p. 431. ~4 Ch. x. § 107.

a3 Praelectiones be Sacr. de Baptismo, q. i, c. ii.

2 1 2 The History of Infant Baptism.

case of infants and of sickly people, I think sprinkling sufficient." The inclination of the people, backed with these authorities, carried the practice against the Rubric, which still required dipping, except in case of weakness. So that in the later times of Queen Elizabeth, and during the reigns of King James and of King Charles I., very few children were dipped in the font. I have heard of one or two persons now living, who must have been born in those reigns, that they were baptised by dipping in the font, and of one clergyman now living that has baptised some infants so, but am not certain. But the children were, however, all that time carried to it : as much as to say, the minister is ready to dip the child, if the parents will venture the health of it.

Mr Blake, who wrote in 1645 a pamphlet entitled Infants' Baptism Freed from Antichristianism, says, p. i (in answer to his adversary, who had said that infants pretended to be baptised by the ministers of the Church have not true baptism, since they are not "dipped," but " sprinkled "), " I have been an eye-witness of many infants dipped, and know it to have been the constant practice of many ministers in their places for many years together." And again (p. 4), speaking of the pre sent practice of that time, says : " Those that dip not infants, do not yet use to sprinkle them ; there is a middle way between these two : I have seen several dipped ; I never saw nor heard of any sprinkled, or (as some of you use to speak) rantised. . . . Our way is not by aspersion, but perfusion ; not sprinkling drop by drop, but pouring on at once all that the hand contains." And for sprinkling, says, " I leave them to defend it that use it."

Of what age Mr Blake was when he wrote this, I know not; but in a pamphlet which he wrote the year before, viz., 1644, called The Birth Privilege, and which he dedicates to his parishioners of Tamworth, in Staffordshire, he so speaks as that one may guess him to have been about forty-two years old. He says in the said dedication, " I have served you for Christ a double apprenticeship of years almost complete, which time has seemed to some to have added more than a third to the years of the days of my pilgrimage." What he means by "seem to some," I cannot imagine. But if he at 1644 were about forty-two, and could remember, as he says ; the dipping of infants must have been pretty ordinary during the former half of King James's reign, if not longer. And for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was at 1645, just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have began in the disorderly times after 1641. For Mr Blake had never used it, nor seen it used.

But then came the Directory, which forbids even all use of fonts ; and says, "Baptism is to be administered, not in private places, or privately " (these are the men that have since brought baptism in

The Order of the Church about Dipping. 213

private houses to be so spreading a custom as it is), " but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congregation, &c., and not in the places where fonts in the time of popery were unfitly and superstitiously placed." So (parallel to the rest of their reformations) they reformed the font into a basin. This learned Assembly could not remember that fonts to baptise in had been always used by the primitive Chris tians, long before the beginning of popery, and ever since churches were built ; but that sprinkling, for the common use of baptising, was really introduced (in France first, and then in other popish countries) in times of popery ; and that accordingly all those countries in which the usurped power of the pope is, or has formerly been owned, have left off dipping of children in the font ; but that all other countries in the world (which had never regarded his authority) do still use it, and that basins, except in cases of necessity, were never used by papists or any other Christians whatsoever, till by themselves.

The use was, the minister continuing in his reading-desk, the child was brought and held below him ; and there was placed for that use a little basin of water about the bigness of a syllabub pot, into which the minister dipping his fingers, and then holding his hand over the face of a child, some drops would fall from his fingers on the child's face. For the Directory says, it is " not only lawful, but most expedient," to use pouring or sprinkling.

Upon the review of the Common-Prayer Book at the Restoration, the Church of England did not think fit (however prevalent the custom of sprinkling was) to forego their maxim, that it is most fitting to dip children that are well able to bear it. But they leave it wholly to the judgment of the godfathers and those that bring the child, whether the child may well endure dipping or not, as they are indeed the most proper judges of that. So the priest is now ordered : " If the godfathers do certify him that the child may well endure it, to dip it in the water discreetly and warily. But if they certify that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it." The difference is only this : — by the rubric as it stood before, the priest was to dip, unless there were an averment or allegation of weakness ; now he is not to dip unless there be an averment or certifying of strength sufficient to endure it.

Except such antipaedobaptists as do not allow of affusion in any case (and I think there are few such but in England), all the rest of the world will agree that this order is the most unexceptionable of any that could be given, and does keep as close to the primitive way as the coldness of our region, and the tenderness to which infants are now used, will admit. But in the practice, the godfathers take so much advantage of the refer ence that is made to their judgment, that they never do certify the priest " that the child may well endure it," and the priests do now seldom ask that question. And indeed it is needless, because they do always bring

2 1 4 The History of Infant Baptism.

ifpnd it

the child so dressed in clothes as to make it plain that they do not intend it shall be dipped. When dipping in the font was in fashion, they brought the child wrapped up in such a sort of clothing as could presently and without trouble, be taken off and put on again. I think they called it a chrysom, or some such name. And, besides, the fonts that have been built since the times I speak of are, many of them, built so small and basin-like, that a child cannot well be dipped in them if it were desired.

Since the times that dipping of infants has been generally left off, many learned men in several countries have endeavoured to retrieve the use of it, but more in England than anywhere else in proportion.

Sotus gives his opinion,26 that " baptism ought still to be given by dipping, so as that it is not lawful to give it otherwise, unless for some necessary, or creditable, and reasonable cause." But Vasquez 27 takes him up for this with some anger ; and he maintains that nowadays, since it is grown the common custom, affusion is perfectly as well as dipping. This he says of affusion, or pouring on of water. But for sprinkling of water, he says : " That is not at all in use, and so cannot be practised without sin, unless for some particular cause." Estius also does much commend dipping, but now that the other is the common custom, would have nothing altered.

In England Mr Mede showed his inclination to retrieve the ancient custom plain enough (indeed he carried the argument for it too far) when he said,28 that " there was no such thing as sprinkling or rhantism used in baptism in the Apostles' days, nor many ages after them." If he takes sprinkling strictly (as it is distinguished from pouring on of water), it may be true ; but if he say so of pouring water, it is not true, unless he limit it to ordinary cases.

Bishop Taylor in his Rule of Conscience, and also Mr Dan. Rogers in his Treatise of Sacraments, have said so much on this head, that Danvers the antipsedobaptist catches hold of their words, and brings them among his authorities that to baptise is nothing else but to dip.29 But he is forced to curtail and misrepresent their words, for they do both of them in their own words (which he has left out) own that baptism by affusion is true baptism. But so much is true, that they do both of them plead hard that it ought not to be used but in case of necessity, and that the ministers should in no other case dispense with the act of immersion. And indeed, as the rubric then stood, it required immersion positively, unless the child were weak. Here, by the way, I cannot but take notice how much trouble such an adventurous author as this Danvers is able to give to such a careful and exact answerer' as Mr Walker. Danvers does in this place deal with above twenty other writers after the same rate as he does with the two I mentioned, viz., Scapula, Stephanus,

28 In 4 Dist. 3, q. unica. Art. 7. * In tertiam. Disp. 145. c. ii.

'•* Diatribe on Tit. iii. 5. -'•> Treat, of Bapt., Pt. II. ch. iv.

Learned Men plead for the Restoring of Dipping. 2 1 5

Pasor, Vossius, Leigh, Casaubon, Beza, Chamier, Hammond, Cajetan, Musculus, Piscator, Calvin, Keckerman, Diodat, Grotius, Davenant, Tilenus, Dr Cave, Wai. Strabo, and Archbishop Tillotson. He does in the space of twelve pages 30 quote all these in such words as if they had made dipping to be of the essence of baptism. Mr Walker shows that he has abused every one of them, by affixing to some of them words that they never said, by adding to others, by altering and mistranslating others, and by curtailing the words of the rest. But what a trouble is this, to go upon such a man's errand from book to book, search the chapters (which he commonly names wrong), recite the words first as he quotes them, and then as they really are in the book ? This cost Mr Walker three large chapters.31 And what would it have been to answer the whole book, which is all of a piece ? This is the book that is so much handed about among the antipaedobaptists of England.

But to go on to mention some more learned men of England that have wished for the restoring of the custom of dipping such infants as are in health. Sir Norton Knatchbull says thus : " With leave be it spoken ; I am still of opinion that it would be more for the honour of the Church, and for the peace and security of religion, if the old custom could conveniently be restored."32 Yet he there declares himself fully satisfied with the lawfulness of the other way, so far as that nobody ought to doubt of its being true and full baptism. For avoiding the danger of cold he thinks it advisable to restore another ancient custom, also of baptism only at certain times of the year, except such infants as are like to die. But infants were, as I showed before,33 by that ancient custom excepted from any obligation to stay till those times. And Easter is in our climate no very warm season. And there is nothing commoner than for infants to die suddenly.

Mr Walker has taken the most pains (I may venture to say it) of any man in the world to show that baptism by pouring, or sprinkling, is .true baptism, and is valid; and that baptism so given ought not to be reiterated ; and that all ages of the Church have been of that opinion ; and that the antipaedobaptists have no reason to separate on that account. And yet in the same book he does in several places declare that he thinks the other way more advisable for the ordinary use. In one of the chapters 34 which I mentioned, where he is vindicating the words of Mr Dan. Rogers from the force which Mr Danvers had put on them ; and where he confesses of Mr Rogers thus much : " Mr Rogers was for retrieving the use of dipping, as witnessed to by antiquity, approved by Scripture, required by the Church (as then it was except in case of weakness) and symbolical with the things signified in baptism ; " he adds his own opinion in these words : " Which I could wish as well

30 From 192 to p. 204. 31 Ch. xi., xii., xiii. 32 Annot. on I Pet. iii. 20.

33 Pt. I. ch. xvii. § 3. 34 Ch. xi. § 52.

216 The History of Infant Baptism.

and as heartily as he, in order to making of peace in the Church, if that would do it." And in the next paragraph : " If I may speak my thoughts, I believe the ministers of the nation would be glad if the people would desire, or be but willing to have their infants dipped after the ancient manner both in this and in other churches, and bring them to baptism in such a condition as that they might be totally dipped without fear of being destroyed." And in the conclusion of that book 33 he thus bespeaks the antipaedobaptists : " And as some learned persons, who have defended the lawfulness of sprinkling, have yet in some respects preferred dipping before it : so, though I blame your holding an indispensable necessity of it, &c., yet in order to the peace of the Church by your re-union with it, and the saving of your souls by rescu ing you from under the guilt of schism, I could wish the practice of it retrieved into use again, so far as possibly might be consistent with decency of baptising and safety to the baptised." He speaks often to the same purpose in his Modest Plea.

Dr Towerson, in his Explication of the Catechism?* having recited the arguments for immersion, says : " How to take off the force of these arguments altogether, I mean not to consider; partly because our Church seems to persuade such an immersion ; and partly because I cannot but think the forementioned arguments to be so far of force as to evince the necessity thereof, where there is not some greater necessity to occasion an alteration of it."

Dr Whitby says,37 " It were to be wished that this custom [of immer sion] might be again of general use ; and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in case of the clinici, and in present danger of death."

These (and possibly many more) have openly declared their thoughts concerning the present custom. And abundance of others have so largely and industriously proved that a total immersion was, as Dr Cave says, " the almost constant and universal custom of the primitive times," 18 that they have sufficiently intimated their inclinations to be for it now. So that no man in this nation, who is dissatisfied with the other way, or does wish, or is but willing, that his child should be baptised by dipping, need in the least to doubt but that any minister in this church would, according to the present direction of the rubric, readily comply with his desire, and as Mr Walker says, be glad of it.

And as for the danger of the infants catching cold by dipping, Sir John Floyer has in a late book38 endeavoured to show by reasons taken from the nature of our bodies, from the rules of medicine, from modern experiences, and from ancient history, that washing or dipping infants in cold water is, generally speaking, not only safe, but very useful : and that though no such religious rite as baptism had been in-

58 Page 293. * Of Baptism, p, 20, 21, 22. w Comment on Rom. vi.

'" Primitive Christianity, Pt. I. ch. x. 39 Qf Cold Baths.

What Churches do still Dip Infants. 2 1 7

stituted, yet reason and experience would have directed people to use cold bathing both of themselves and their children : and that it has in all former ages so directed them. For (besides that the Jews by God's law used it on many occasions, and the Christians made it the far most usual way of their baptism) he shows that all civilised nations, the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, &c., made frequent use of it, and gave commendations of it ; and that nature itself has taught this custom to many barbarous nations — the old Germans, Highlanders, Irish, Japanese, Tartars, and even the Samoieds who live in the coldest climate that is inhabited.

This learned physician gives a catalogue of diseases for which it is good : some of them, for which it is the best remedy that is known. And he says he cannot advise his countrymen to any better method for pre servation of health than the cold regimen — to dip all their children in baptism ; to wash them often afterwards, till three-quarters of a year old ; to inure them to cold air, drinking of water, few clothes ; to use them, when boys, to bathing in rivers ; when men, to cold baths, &c.

He prognosticates that the old modes in physic and religion will in time prevail when people have had more experience in cold baths, and that the approbation of physicians would bring in the old use of immer sion in baptism. If it do so, one half of the dispute (which has caused a schism) between the psedobaptists and the antipaedobaptists will be over. There are more of the first who are brought by the arguments of the other to doubt of the validity of their baptism, for that they were not dipped at the receiving it, than there are for that they received it in infancy. Neither was there ever an antipsedobaptist in England, as I showed in the last chapter, till this custom of sprinkling children, instead of dipping them, in the ordinary baptisms had for some time prevailed.

What has been said of this custom of pouring or sprinkling water in the ordinary use of baptism is to be understood only in reference to these western parts of Europe, for it is used ordinarily nowhere else. The Greek Church, in all the branches of it, does still use immersion ; and they hardly count a child, except in case of sickness, well baptised without it. And so do all other Christians in the world except the Latins. That which I hinted before is a rule that does not fail in any particular that I know of — viz., all the nations of Christians that do now, or formerly did, submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, do ordi narily baptise their infants by pouring or sprinkling. And though the English received not this custom till after the decay of popery, yet they have since received it from such neighbour nations as had begun it in the times of the pope's power. But all other Christians in the world, who never owned the pope's usurped power, do, and ever did, dip their infants in the ordinary use.

2 1 8 The History of Infant Baptism.

And if we take the division of the world from the three main parts of it, all the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third part of Europe are of the last sort : in which third part of Europe are compre hended the Christians of Gratia, Thracia, Servia, Bulgaria, Rascia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Russia, Nigra, &c., and even the Muscovites, who, if coldness of the country will excuse, might plead for a dispensation with the most reason of any. Dr Crull gives this account of them, " The priest takes the child stark naked into his arms, and dips him three times into the water, &c. ; the water is never warmed over the fire, though the cold be never so excessive ; but they put it sometimes in a warm place to take off a little the cold." 40 If they warmed it more, I do not see where were the hurt. The Latins that stayed behind at the Council of Florence do determine it to be " indifferent whether baptism be administered in warm or in cold water." 41 And an archbishop of Samos, who has written the history of that island, says, at p. 45, that they use hot [or warm] water.

We have no reason to think that the Muscovites do submit to this as to a hardship put upon them by the Christian religion, for they commonly, when they come sweating out of a hot stove, do suddenly throw themselves into cold water, and think it medicinal so to do, as the said doctor relates. And the neighbour nations thereabouts, even those that are not Christians, do ordinarily put their infant children into the coldest water they can get, for health's sake, and to harden them. For so the same author tells of the Crim Tartars, that the " mothers do use to bath their infants, once a day at least, in cold water, wherein a little salt is dissolved, to make them hardy."42 And the success answers : for these are one of the healthiest, hardiest, and most vigorous nations in the world.

But whereas the said doctor says " that the Muscovites glory that they are the only true Christians now in the world ; forasmuch as they are bap tised, whereas others have been only sprinkled ; which is the reason they allege for re-baptising all such of what persuasion soever that embrace their religion."43 This is neither consistent with the account given by himself in the same chapter of their rebaptisations, "that even Mus covites that having changed their religion in another country, are willing to return to their own Communion, must first be rebaptised ; " nor with the account of the practice of other Greek Christians, who do all baptise ordinarily by immersion as well as the Muscovites ; nor with the account given by other writers of the practice of the Muscovites themselves. For though Mr Daille 44 do say much the same of them as

40 State of Muscovy, vol. i. c. xi.

41 Cap. de unione Jacobinorum et Armenorum.

42 Ch. vii. p. 112. 43 Ch- xi at the beginning. 44 L. ii. De usu Patrum, p. 148.

The Ancient Christians baptised naked. 219

Dr Crull says here (he does not say quite the same ; he says, " The Muscovites say that the Latins are not duly and rightly baptised.") Yet other writers say that the Muscovites themselves do in case of the weakness of the child baptise by affusion. Joannes Faber, in an epistle that he has written purposely of these peoples' religion, says, " If the child be strong, he is thrice plunged all over. Otherwise he is wetted with the water. But this last is seldom used : Conspersio enim minus sufficiens judicatur, ' for they count sprinkling not so well [or not so sufficient].' " And another author quoted by Mr Walker out of Purchas Pilgrim, Pt. III. page 229, says, " That in such a case a pot of warm water is poured on the child's head." And another, " The priest pours a whole gallon of water upon the child," &c.

Since the writing of this, I find_ that Mr Russen, ch. v. (quoting for it Alvares, c. v.), says, "The Abassens baptise in the church porch, without fonts, with a pot full of water only." I know not what credit is to be given to this. I know that Brerewood does often note Alvares as an unfaithful relater. And Brerewood himself, though he say nothing of the manner of their baptising infants (only that they do it on the fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female child), yet speak ing of their yearly baptising themselves on Twelfth-day (not using it as a sacrament, but as a customary memorial of Christ's baptism on that day), says that they do it in lakes or ponds (ch. xxiii.), which makes that which Alvares says very improbable.

§ 3. What was just now mentioned of the Muscovites baptising stark naked, and dipping three times, is perfectly agreeable to the ancient practice in both the usages. The ancient Christians, when they were baptised by immersion, were all baptised naked ; whether they were men, women, or children. Vossius45 has collected several proofs of this, which I shall omit because it is a clear case. The English antipsedo- baptists need not have made so great an outcry against Mr Baxter for his saying that they baptised naked, for if they had, it had been no more than the primitive Christians did. They thought it better re presented the " putting off the old man," and also the nakedness of Christ on the cross : moreover as baptism is a washing, they judged it should be the washing of the body, not of the clothes.

They took great care for preserving the modesty of any woman that was to be baptised. There was none but women came near or in sight till she was undressed, and her body in the water; then the priest came, and putting her head also under water, used the form of baptism. Then he departed, and the women took her out of the water, and clothed her again in white garments.

There is an account given by Sozomen 46 of an insult made by the soldiers in the great church at Constantinople against St Chrysostom De Baptismo, disp. i. c. vi., vii., viii. ^ H. E., 1. viii. c. xxi.

220 The History of Infant Baptism.

and his adherents, and how on Easter Eve they rushed in armed ; and he adds, " There was a great tumult at the font, the women shrieking in a fright, and the children crying : the priests and deacons were beaten, and forced to run away with their vestments on. What else must needs happen in such a confusion, they that have been baptised do apprehend, but I shall not express it, lest some that are not Christians do light upon my book."

But St Chrysostom himself in a letter of complaint of this matter to Innocent, then Bishop of Rome, describes the foulness of the outrage more particularly : " The women who had undressed themselves in order to be baptised, were forced by the fright of this violence to run away naked ; not being permitted in that amazement to provide for the modesty and credit of their sex. And many of them were also wounded, the font was stained with blood, and the holy waters of it dyed with a red colour."

§ 4. The way of trine immersion, or plunging the head of the person three times into the water, was the general practice of all antiquity. Tertullian, in a dispute against Praxeas, who held but one person in the Trinity, uses this among other arguments ; 47 our Saviour commanded the Apostles, "That they should baptise unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Spirit ; not unto one person, for we are not plunged once, but three times, once at the naming of each name." And the fiftieth [alias 42] of those canons that are very ancient, though without reason called apostolic, orders any bishop or presbyter that does not use the trine immersion in baptism to be deposed.

The ancients do themselves own that there is no command in Scripture for this ; yet they speak of it as brought into use by the Apostles. And it is common with them to urge this custom and some others, as instances that some rites or orders are derived from the Apostles' practice, and yet not set down in Scripture. Tertullian,48 arguing against some that pleaded that " in all pretence of tradition one must produce some written authority," gives an answer which I shall here recite at large, because he instances in this and several other customs then received.

" Let us try then, whether no tradition ought to be allowed that is not written, and I shall freely grant that this need not to be allowed, if the contrary be not evinced by the examples of several other customs, which without the authority of any Scripture are approved, only on the account that they were first delivered, and have ever since been used.

" Now to begin with baptism. When we come to the water we do there (and we do the same also, a little before, in the congregation), under the hand of the pastor, make a profession that we do renounce the 47 Cap. xxvi. « De Corona Militis, c. i., ii., iii.

They Dipped the Head Three Times. 221

devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Then we are three times plunged into the water, and we answer some few words more than those which our Saviour in the gospel has enjoined. When we are taken up out of the water, we taste a mixture of milk and honey. And from that day we abstain a whole week from bathing ourselves, which otherwise we use eyery day.

" The sacrament of the Eucharist which our Lord celebrated at meal time, and ordered all to take, we receive in our assemblies before day, and never but from the hands of the pastor.

"We give oblations every year for [or in commemoration of] the dead on the day of their martyrdom. We count it an unfitting thing to keep any fasts on the Lord's day, or to kneel at our prayers on that day. The same liberty we take all the time from Easter to Pentecost.

" We are troubled at it, if any of our bread or wine fall to the ground. At every setting out, or entry on business ; whenever we come in or go out from any place ; when we dress for a journey ; when we go into a bath ; when we go to meat ; when the candles are brought in ; when we lie down, or sit down ; and whatever business we have, we make on our foreheads the sign of the cross.

" If you search in the Scriptures for any command for these and such like usages, you shall find none. Tradition will be urged to you as the ground of them ; custom as the confirmer of them ; and our religion teaches to observe them."

Of the oblations and prayers which they made for [or in commemora tion of] the dead ; as I said before in the first part, chap. xx. § 3, that they were nothing of the nature of the popish ones ; so here it appears : for they used them for martyrs themselves. And though we see here, that the papists were not the first that used the sign of the cross ; yet they are the first that ever taught that it is to be worshipped.

In an epistle of St Hierom in form of a dialogue 49 one of the parties makes the same use of the same instance of trine immersion as Tertul- lian does here : saying thus of the custom of confirmation after baptism, which he there proves by Scripture, but adds : " And if there were no authority of Scripture for it ; the consent of the whole world in that matter would obtain the force of a precept. For many other things which are by tradition observed in the Church, have got authority as if they were written laws : as, in the font of baptism, ter mergitare caput, ' to plunge the head thrice under water,' " &c. St Basil speaks just after the same manner of the same thing.50 And St Chrysostom says, " Our Lord has delivered to us one baptism by three immersions." 51

The Eunomians had the oddest way of baptising that ever was heard of. For besides that they differed from all other Christians in the words

49 Epist. contra Luciferianos. 50 Lib. De Spiritu Sancto., c. xxvii,

61 Horn, de Fide.

222 The History of Infant Baptism.

used at baptism, one sect of them baptising only in the name of Christ, as I said ; b2 another sect instead of saying, " In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," expressed their own impious opinions in these words : " In the name of the uncreated God, and in the name of His created Son, and in the name of the sanctifying Spirit created by the Son who is Himself created."53 Besides this, their manner of baptising was to plunge the person but once into the water : and that not all his body neither. For they said : " all the parts of the body below the waist are abominable, and must not touch the water : " so they used to uncover the person to the waist ; and then holding his heels upwards and his head downwards, they dipped him into the font as far as the waist. They continued this custom till a ridiculous accident happened : M a heavy and unwieldy man coming to be baptised, they that were to hold him with his head downwards let him fall, and he broke his head against the bottom of the font. To prevent which mis chance for the future, they invented another way. It was much the same, as was one of the devices with which the Dutch are said to have tortured the English at Amboyna : only the muffler was larger. They tied one end of it about his waist, and turning the other open end upwards, they poured in water till it covered the head of the person. So it pleases God to suffer heretics to be infatuated that must have new-fangled ways.

The Catholics, though they judged the trine immersion to have been in use from the beginning, yet since it is not found to be enjoined by Christ nor His Apostles, did not count it absolutely necessary to baptism. For about the year 590, some Spanish bishops sent to Gregory, bishop of Rome, for his advice. They told him their custom was to put the head of the baptised but once under the water : but that some Arians in that country kept up the custom of three immersions : and that they made a wicked advantage of it, by persuading the people that thereby was signified that there are three substances in the Trinity, into which they were separately baptised. Gregory makes them answer;55 that though the custom of the Church of Rome and other Churches was three immersions, yet he in that case would advise them to keep to their present custom : that "in the same faith different usages of the Church do no hurt : " that " whereas there is in the three persons but one substance, there could be no blame in dipping the infant either once or thrice. For that by three immersions the three Persons, or by one, the singu larity of the substance was represented. That if they should now on a sudden take up the other custom, the heretics would boast that they were come over to their side," &c. So the Spaniards kept to the use

" Ch- viii- § 6- w Epiph. h£er. 76.

Theodoret, hoeret. Fab., 1. iv. cap. de Eunomio, 85 Epist. ad Leandrum Reg., 1. i. c. xli.

The Forehead signed ivith the Cross. 223

of one immersion for some time. For forty years after, it is confirmed in one of their Councils.56 But Walafridus Strabo says,57 that after a while " the old way prevailed."

The schoolmen among the papists, though they say that either way may do, yet speak of trine immersion, where immersion is used, as much the more fitting. And for the Protestants, Vossius says, " What son of the Church will not willingly hold to that custom which the ancient Church practised all over the world, except Spain, &c. Besides, at present the trine immersion is used in all countries : so that the custom cannot be changed without an affectation of novelty, and scandal given to the weak." 58 He means all countries where immersion is used.

§ 5. Of the circumstances that anciently attended baptism, some are mentioned by Tertullian in the place last recited. One is the signing of the forehead with the sign of the cross. This is spoken of by all the ancient writers as used by Christians upon all occasions. They that now-a-days are against the use of it at baptism, do observe that, though the Fathers do often mention this custom, yet none of them do speak particularly of its being used at baptism. I gave an instance, I think, plain enough to the contrary in the first part, ch. xiv. § 5. And, besides, when they say, as Tertullian here does, that it was used on every occa sion that was never so little solemn, they, I think, sufficiently intimate its use at baptism, which is the most solemn act of a Christian's whole life. Besides that Tertullian, speaking of baptism, says, "Caro signatur ut anima muniatur."

St Basil mentions this custom of Christians at the same place 59 where he mentions that of trine immersion. And St Cyprian,60 having occasion to recite that text, Ezek. ix. 4, 5, where the executioners of God's wrath are commanded to " Slay all, old and young, maids and little children, that had not the mark upon their foreheads," applies it to the Christians, and says, " It signifies that none now can escape, but those only that are renatiet signo Christi signati : " ' baptised and signed with Christ's mark.' And he frequently, in other places, speaks of it as a thing used by all Christians. And Rufinus says,61 it was the custom for every one " at the end of the creed, frontem signaculo contingere, ' to make the sign on his forehead,' " and we know that everyone repeated the creed at his baptism, either by himself or his sponsors, as Rufinus himself, in his Explication of the Creed, mentions, and calls it "the ancient custom."

It was a noble thing that they designed by this badge of the cross. It was to declare that they would not be ashamed of the cross of Christ ; never be abashed at the flouts of the heathens, who objected to them that the person in whom they trusted as their God, had been executed

56 Cone. Tolet. iv. can. v. 57 De increment, Eccl. c. xxvi.

58 De Baptismo, disp. ii. thes. iv. 69 De Spiritu Sancto, c. xxvii.

"° Ad Demetr. prope finem. 61 Apol. J. statim ab initio.

224 The History of Infant Baptism.

for a malefactor : never be scandalised if it came to be their fortune to suffer it themselves. On the contrary, they voluntarily owned it as their share and allotment in this world. This was according to our Saviour's rule, " to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him." He that does this with a firm resolution is the man that has overcome this world.

§ 6. Another custom that Tertullian instances in, is the giving to the new baptised person a mixture of milk and honey. There is none of the ceremonial circumstances that accompanied baptism of which so early mention is made as there is of this, if Barnabas's epistle be so ancient as learned men do think. For as Tertullian, one hundred years after the Apostles, here speaks of it as a thing generally and constantly used, so it is also plainly intimated in that epistle ; which, because the interpreters of it have not minded, nor have taken any notice that the place does at all refer to baptism, I shall recite it something at large, and it will appear that this custom used at the Christian baptism gives some light to it, which otherwise seems to have none at all.

He had been showing that many sayings of the Old Testament do in an allegorical way refer to the Church of Christians that was to be. He instances for one in that description given by Moses of the Promised Land, where he calls it, ".A land flowing with milk and honey." To explain how this belongs to the Christian, he says, cap. vi.|: Eve! </5x avaxaivlffag %{&&$ sv rfj apeaei ruv apaprtuv, iwoJqffev, r^ag aXXov TVVOV ug Katd/ov t%tiv rqv •vj/u^jji', ug av xai' avairXaaaoftsvoug [1. avaw'XaaaofAsvog] ai/rog fiftag, &c. "Since God, having at the forgiveness of our sins [i.e., at baptism] renewed us, has caused us to have our hearts in another form as the heart of a child, just as if He had formed us anew, &c. Therefore, the prophets thus foretold it : { Enter into the land flowing with milk and honey, and rule in it.'" Idoi) ovv fiftiTg avavevXaoftsda, &c. " Behold, then, we are formed anew ; as also He speaks by another prophet, ' Behold,' says the Lord, ' I will take from them,' that is, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw, ' their hearts of stone, and I will put into them hearts of flesh.' Wherefore we are they whom He has brought into that good land. But what means the milk and honey ? Because, as a child is nourished first with milk, and then with honey, so we being kept alive with the belief of His promises, and the word of His Gospel, shall live," &c. To the same purpose he speaks of baptism as a new formation, ch. xvi.

The coherence which he seems to mean is this. The Christian bap tism does put us into a new state, by God's forgiving us all that is past, and giving us new hearts, we are in the state of children new born. Milk and honey (which are, therefore, given after baptism) being food proper for children, and being the things by which Moses did charac terise the Promised Land ; that character of it does typify the true Land

White Garment, Oil, Chrism. 22$

of Promise, to the enjoyment whereof the Christians are now by baptism called.

The custom of giving milk and honey to the new baptised person, whether he were a grown man or an infant, continued down to St Hierom's time, for he mentions it.62 And how much longer I know not, for I remember no later mention of it. It has, however, for a long time been forborne. It is natural to suppose that this being only an emblem to signify that the new baptised person is as a new-born babe, was left off at such time when, the world being come into the Church, there were hardly any more baptisms but of babes in a proper sense, who needed no such representation to signify their infancy.

It was in those first times of general use among the heretics, as well as Catholics. For Tertullian, objecting to Marcion,63 that his Christ, how much soever he undervalued the God that made the world, yet was forced to make use of His creatures even in his religious offices, says, " He does not for all that reject the water of the Creator, with which he washes his disciples : nor His oil, with which he anoints them : nee mellis et lactis societatem, qua infantat, ' nor the mixture of milk and honey, with which he enters them as infants;' nor His bread, &c., being forced in his own sacraments to make use of the beggarly gifts of the Creator."

§ 7. The white garment, in whjch the new-baptised persons were clothed, is not mentioned, that I know of, by any of the earliest writers. Cyril Q* mentions it, and in the after-times there is much said about it. By it they signified that they were now washed from their sins in the blood of the Lamb ; had put on Christ ; were become children of the light and of the day ; and resolved to keep themselves unspotted from the world. They wore this for a week, and then it was laid up as an evidence against them if they ever revolted from that holy faith and pro fession. This was used in the case of infants as well as of grown persons. I gave an instance before.65

§ 8. There were in some Churches two anointings used at baptisms. One, of the naked body with oil just before the immersion. Of this St Cyril speaks, Catech. Mystag. z • and the author of Qucest. d Gentibus proposit., qu. 137 ; and St Chrysost. Horn. 6 in Epist. ad Coloss.

The other, which was universally used, and is mentioned by the more ancient writers, was after the baptism, with a rich ointment or chrism. I observed before 66 that the first mention we have of this chrism was the use of it by the Valentinian heretics, who, as Irenseus tells us, " anointed the baptised person with balsam, and said, this ointment is a type of that sweetness which surpasses all things." 67 But though this be something more ancient than any mention of it as used among the

62 Adv. Luciferianos. 63 Cont. Marcion, 1. i. c. xiv. 64 Catech. Mystagog. 4. 65 Pt. I. ch. xviii. § r. « Ch. v. § i. 67 L. iii. c. ii.

II. H

226 The History of Infant Baptism,

Catholics, yet it is plain that it was also used by them generally about the same time, because authors a little after this do speak of it as an un questioned custom. Tertullian recites it thus : " Then when we come out of the water, we are anointed with a blessed [or consecrated] oint ment, according to that ancient rite by which men used to be anointed for the priest's office, with oil out of a horn, ever since the time that Aaron was anointed by Moses ; so that Christ Himself has His name from chrism [or unction] ; " and a little after, " Then we have the impo sition of hands on us, which calls down and invites the Holy Spirit," £ And St Cyprian thus : " The baptised person must be anointed also, that by having the chrism, that is, the anointing, he may be the anointed of God." 69 And in the Council of Laodicea the forty-eighth canon is, " Baptised persons must, after their baptism, receive the holy anointing," &c. In a word, there is nothing more frequently mentioned in antiquity than this anointing and laying on of the hands of the bishop, in order to implore the graces of the Holy Spirit on the baptised. And yet St Hierom, when he is in one of his moods says, " We find this done in many places, more for the credit of the episcopal office than for any necessity of the precept."70

The parts of the body that were anointed were not in all Churches the same. In the Church of Jerusalem it was the forehead (which was ever in all Churches one of the places) and the ears, the nostrils, and the breast, as appears by the third of St Cyril's Mystical Catechisms.

The chrism was used presently after the baptism ; and so was the laying on of hands, if the person were adult and the baptiser were a bishop. But if the person were an infant, the laying on of hands was deferred till he were of age with his own mouth to ratify the profession made at baptism. And though the person were adult, yet if it was only a deacon or a presbyter that baptised him, the laying on of hands was ordinarily reserved for the bishop to do ; according to that example of the Church of Jerusalem, who, having heard that many people at Samaria had been converted and baptised by Philip, who was but a deacon, " sent unto them Peter and John. Then they laid their hands on them : and they received the Holy Ghost." n

The Council of Eliberis do order,72 that if a layman or a deacon have in time of necessity given baptism, the person, if he live, must be brought to the bishop for imposition of hands. But they seem to suppose that if the baptism was given by a presbyter, he, in such case of necessity, might give the imposition too, rather than the party die without it.

It was the custom of the Church of Rome, that if the baptiser were under the degree of a bishop, he should anoint the other parts aforemen tioned, but not the forehead ; and the anointing of that was reserved for

68 De Bapt., c. vii. 69 Epist. 70, ad Januar. 70 Adv. Luciferianos.

Actsviii. 14, 15, &c. 72 Can>

The Imposition of Hands. 227

the bishop to do, when he laid on hands, as I quoted before 73 out of Pope Innocent. But the first Council of Orange allows of but one anointing of the baptised, and that to be used presently after the bap tism. " But if anyone," say they, " by reason of any accident, was not anointed at his baptism, then the bishop shall be advised of it when he comes to confirm him. For we have but one benediction of chrism. Not pretending to set a rule to any, but that the anointing may be esteemed necessary." 74

And in the Church of Rome, though the ordinary rule were that none but the bishop should give the chrism on the forehead, as I said, yet in case of scarcity of bishops, or of their negligence in performing their visitations to do this, it was allowed to presbyters to do it. For Gregory the Great, in the ninth epistle of his third book, says that " presbyters may anoint the breast, but none but the bishop the forehead." But in Epist. 26, he revokes this order in the case of want of bishops, and in such a case allows the presbyters to anoint the forehead too. And long before his time, the same liberty had been given to presbyters, in the absence of the bishop, not else, in the first Council of Toledo.75

Novatian, it seems, as he was not baptised in the ordinary way, but in his bed (which was one objection against his being made a bishop), so also he never had had this anointing and imposition of hands ; upon which Cornelius founds this other objection against him : " Neither was he, after he recovered, made partaker of those other things which a Christian ought by the rule of the Church to have, i.e., to be confirmed [or sealed, <s<ppayt<s6rivai] by the bishop, which he not having, how was he made partaker of the Holy Spirit ? " 76

If anyone had been baptised in a schismatical congregation, and after wards desired to be admitted among the Catholics, he was by the rule of some Churches to be baptised anew ; but in the Church of Rome (whose example finally prevailed) he was not baptised anew (provided those from whom he came believed the Trinity, and baptised into it), but he had a new imposition of hands and anointing. For they would never yield that the prayers of schismatics could procure the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Of these two things, the chrism or anointing is not commanded in Scripture ; yet it is still practised by all the Christians of the East and West, except the Protestants. But the laying on of hands is plainly mentioned in the Scripture, Acts viii. 17, Heb. vi. 2, and is yet continued by all Christians, except some very absurd people. It is enjoined in the Church of England, with an excellent office drawn up on purpose for it. But I think there is never a divine of that Church that has not expressed his grief, that it is not more frequently offered, and more

7» Pt. I. ch. xvii. § 6. ™ Can. i.

7* Can. xx. 76 Euseb., 1. vi. c. xlv.

H 2

228 The History of Infant Baptism.

seriously and solemnly accepted and used. I hope so much of what St Hierom says in the place I last quoted from him is true : " That it is not necessary to salvation, for else," as he there says, " they are in a lamentable condition who, in villages and remote places being baptised by presbyters or deacons, do die before the bishop's visitation."

These were the most ancient rites relating to baptism. Many that came up in after-times, and are now used in the Church of Rome, are not worth the reciting ; and it would be tedious to do it.

It is to be noted here that some learned men, who are skilled in the customs of the Jews, do assure us that those three ceremonies of anoint ing the body at baptism, and of the trine immersion, and of the milk and honey, were all used by the Jews in their baptising of a proselyte, whether infant or adult (as well as the requiring undertakers in the case of infants). And this is indeed the most probable account of the way from whence it was that the first Christians had these customs, of which there is no mention in the writings of the New Testament, viz., that they used them by imitation of the Jewish baptism, which does still more confirm (what I discoursed of in the Introduction) that they reckoned their baptism to succeed (with some alterations) in the room of the Jewish baptism of proselytes of the nations.

§ 9. But the most material thing by far that was done at baptism was the professions ; the sincerity whereof is more to be regarded than the external baptism itself, as St Peter testifies i Ep. iii. 21. They were constantly and universally required, in the case of grown persons, to be made with their own mouth in the most serious manner ; and in the case of infants, by their sponsors in their name. That a man may justly wonder at the spirit of contradiction in those people that pretend bap tism does better without them, and do practise accordingly ; as if they had authority to entitle persons to the Kingdom of God, whether they do, when they come to age, keep the commandments or not.

These professions were of two sorts, relating to the two general duties of a Christian : i. Renouncing of wickedness ; and 2. Faith, with obedience to God. Everyone that would be entered into the holy covenant of Christianity must promise to renounce the idolatry and false worship then used in the world, and all other wickedness. The Scripture phrase is, " Repent and be baptised." Pliny's letter to Trajan 78 concern ing the Christians, is, that all the ill that he (by examining some that had been of their sect and were come off from it) could find in them, was : "That they would not sacrifice to the gods, that they kept assemblies before day in which they sang hymns of praise to Christ as their God, and bound themselves (not to any ill thing that he could hear of, but) in a sacrament " — that is Pliny's word ; it signified with them an oath, or solemn obligation — " not to be guilty of any theft, 77 Adv. Luciferianos. 78 Lib. ii. Epist xcvii.

Renunciations used at Baptism — Exorcising. 229

robbery, adultery, cheating, treachery," &c. It was probably the obliga tion entered into at baptism to which he refers, as having heard some general reports of their usage in that matter. Justin Martyr in the passage which I recited in the first part, ch. xi. § 3, speaking of such as they admitted into their society, describes them thus : " They who are persuaded and do believe that those things which are taught by us are true, and do promise to live according to them," &c.

The particular words in which this profession was made, were, by the account of the eldest authors that mention them, much the same as are used now : only shorter, and with some little variety in the several Churches. Tertullian in the place lately quoted 7g recites them thus : " We do renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels." And he has the said words without any alteration in his book De Spectac., c. iv. And in the book De Idololatria, though at c. vi. he mentions only " the devil and his angels," yet at c. xviii. he adds : " since you have abjured the pomp of the devil," &c. So that it is probable those were the very words of the form of renunciation in the Church of Carthage at that time. Origen brings in 80 the devil triumphing over a wicked Christian : " Lo ! this man was called a Christian, and was signed on the forehead with Christ's mark : but he had in his heart my precepts and designs. This is the man that at his baptism renounced me and my works ; but afterwards engaged himself in all my works, and obeyed my laws." But Horn. xii. in Num., he names them thus: "his pomp, his works, his services, and pleasures."

In the Church of Jerusalem, the form, as we read in St Cyril,81 was : " I renounce thee, oh Satan, and all thy works, all thy pomp, and all thy service." And he explains the " works of the devil " thus : " Under the name of the devil's works is comprehended all sin." And he bids them mind, that " what they say at that solemn time, is written down in God's book ; so that what they shall practise afterwards to the con trary, will bring them under the judgment of deserters." St Chrysostom gives us the form of the Church of Antioch to the same purpose : " I renounce thee, oh Satan, and thy pomp, and thy service, and thy angels." 82

St Cyprian in the passage that I recited out of him in the first part, ch. vi. § n, styles it "renouncing the devil and the world;" and he mentions it in the same words, Lib. de bono patienticz, § 7.

When it was an infant that was baptised, these professions were made in his name and stead by his parents, or others that stood as sponsors or godfathers for him, as appears by the words of Tertullian which I recited, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 9, where he objects that " the godfathers are by this means brought into danger : because they may either fail of

79 De Corona Militis, c. ii. 80 In Psalm xxxviii., Horn. ii.

81 C. i. Myst. i. 8- In Ep. ad Coloss., Horn. vi.

230 The History of Infant Baptism.

their promises by death, or be deceived by a child's proving wicked " —mistaking the design of the thing so far, as to think that the godfather stands to the peril of that. And among other Fathers that lived a little after, the mention of the godfathers and of the answers made by them in the name of the infant is so frequent, and I have cited so many passages where it is occasionally mentioned, that there is no need of more. Only in some of them it may be observed that there were, as I said, in several Churches several variations of the words of this renun ciation. St Austin, 1. i. De Pecc. Mer., c. xix., says : " that infants do profess repentance by the words of those that bring them, when they do by them renounce the devil and this world." And Epist. 23, he says; it was asked among other things: "Does this child" turn to God?

The requiring these obligations of the baptised person, was called the exorcising him, or putting him to his oath. Which being become the common word, it was so called also in the case of infants. St Austin pleads against the Pelagians, that " it is in a real meaning, and not in a mockery, that the power of the devil is exorcised [or abjured] in infants, and they do renounce it by the mouths of those that bring them, not being capable of doing it by their own ; that being delivered from the power of darkness they may be translated into the Kingdom of their Lord."™

In the later times of the Church of Rome, this exorcising has been accompanied with so many odd tricks of their invention, that the word now sounds ill in the ears of Protestants ; and they take the name exorcist to signify something like that of conjurer in the vulgar accepta tion. But as both these words in their original signification do import no more than the requiring of an oath or solemn promise ; so the use of exorcising formerly was no more than I have described, and the Protestants do practise ; save that they observed some peculiar gestures, postures, and actions in the time of doing it, which are not worth the particular naming.

§ 10. They were bound also to profess the Christian FAITH. The words in which this was done in every particular Church, were the same which that Church used for a form of the Christian creed. The form of the creed was not in all Churches the same in words, but in substance it was. It is great pity that there is not left any copy of any very ancient creed. We know both by the Scripture, and by their earliest writings, what was the substance of their faith ; but we should be glad to have the very form of words which was used in the offices of each Church, and according to which they put the interrogatories to the competents at baptism. We have some clauses of these left, but no entire form of a creed, till that which was agreed on at the first 88 De Nuptiis, 1. i. c. xx.

Substance of: the Ancient Creeds, &c. 231

general meeting of Christians from all parts of the world, at Nice, A.D. 325. This is the eldest copy of any public creed that is extant.

In the oldest books of all that we have of the Fathers, it is as it is in the books of Scripture : the articles of our faith are found scattered up and down, but not collected into any one short draught or summary. There is nothing more probable than the opinion of those learned men, who judge that at first there was no other creed necessary for the baptised to repeat, than that which is collected from our Saviour's own words, Matt, xxviii. 19, viz., that they should say: "I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit." But the heresies that arose did not suffer the Church offices to continue in that simplicity and brevity.

I think there is nothing more edifying to a Christian than to perceive that the substance of the faith once for all delivered to the Saints has con tinued the same in the Catholic Church from the Scripture times till now. Therefore I will take the pains to set down some of the most remarkable places out of such Christian writers as are elder than any copies of creeds now extant, which do in short contain the sum of their belief, and agreeable to which their creed proposed to the catechumens must have been.

Justin Martyr apologises for the Christians, that they were not atheists (as they were by some traduced to be), for though they did not go to the temples, nor worship the gods ; " Yet," says he, " the true God and Father of righteousness, &c., and His Son, that came forth from Him, and has taught us and the angels, &c., these things ; and the prophetic spirit we do worship and adore." 84 And having said (in the passage of the same apology which I quoted in the first part, ch. xi. § 3, about the Christians' manner of baptism) that they were baptised in the name of these three ; he adds this farther explication : " There is named over the person [or, by the person] that has a mind to be regen erated, the name of the Father, God and Lord of all." Then after a little digression of the reason why the Christians do not affix any name to their God, as it was customary for the heathens, as Jupiter, Bacchus, &c. ; he goes on : " And also the enlightened person [or, baptised person] is washed in the name of Jesus Christ, that was cruci fied under Pontius Pilate; and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who by the prophets foretold the things concerning Jesus."

Irenseus, having to do with the Valentinians, who taught that there was another God above the Creator of the world, and when they were confuted by Scripture, appealed to some secret traditions, says : " It is easy for anyone to know the tradition of the Apostles declared in all the world ; and we are able to reckon up those who were by the Apostles ordained bishops in the Churches, and their successors to this time, who

84 Apol. ii.

232 TJie History of Infant Baptism.

never taught any such thing." 85 Then he recites the succession of some Churches from the Apostles Peter, Paul, John, &c., and says : " Suppose the Apostles had left us no writings, ought we not to follow the order of that tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches ? " And to that purpose he instances in many Christians in the barbarous nations that had ng writings, and yet had the true faith by tradition, "that is," says he,

" Believing in one God, who made heaven and earth, and all things in them by Jesus Christ, the Son of God ; who, out of highest love to His creatures, vouchsafed to be born of a Virgin, uniting in Himself [or, in His own Person] Man to GOD, and suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again, and was received up in great glory, and will come a Saviour of those that are saved, and a Judge of those that are judged ; and will send into eternal fire all that deprave His truth, and despise His Father, and His coming."

Also on much the like occasion at another place,86 having given a long account how strange things some heretics held ; he says : " Anyone that does but keep in his mind unaltered that rule of faith into which he was baptised," will easily perceive their falsehood : and then a little after gives the account of the Catholic faith ; thus :

" For the Church that is extended over all the world to the ends of the earth, having received from the Apostles and their disciples the faith, which is —

" In one God the Father Almighty, that made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things in them : and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was for our salvation incarnated : and in the Holy Spirit, who foretold by the prophets the dispensations of God, and the coming, the birth from a Virgin, the suffering, the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of Jesus Christ our beloved Lord : and His coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to restore all things, and to raise again all the bodies of mankind : that to Jesus Christ, our Lord and GOD, and Saviour, and King, every knee may, ac cording to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, bow ; both of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth : and every tongue may confess to Him : and He may pass a righteous sen tence on all : and may send the spiritual wickednesses, and the angels that sinned and apostatised, and all ungodly and unrighteous and unjust men and blasphemers, into everlasting fire : and give life to the righteous and holy, and to such as have kept His commandments, and have con tinued in His love (some from the beginning, and some by repentance), and may bestow upon them immortality and eternal glory."

This faith, he says, the Church having received, keeps, as if they had all one heart and one soul ; and that neither the Churches in Germany, 85 Lib. iii. c. iii., iv. 86 j^. j. c. i. and ii.

Substance of the A ncient Creeds, 233

nor those in Spain, or in France, or in the East, or in Egypt, or in Africa, or under the middle of the world, had any other belief; and that a learned preacher would deliver no more than this : nor an ignorant layman any less.

Tertullian, writing against Praxeas (who, not being able to believe three persons in one numerical essence, taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but one Person ; and consequently, that the Father was incarnated, and was that Jesus Christ that died), opposes to him the faith of the Church as it had always been held, thus : —

" We believe that there is but one God ; but yet with this dispensa tion or economy, that this one God has His Son, His WORD coming forth from Him ; by whom all things were made, and without Him was not anything made. That He was by the Father sent into the Virgin, and of her born, man and GOD, Son of man and Son of God, and named Jesus the Christ. That this is He that suffered, died, and was buried according to the Scriptures, and raised again by the Father, and taken up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead. Who sent from thence, according to His promise, from the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Sanctifier of the faith of those that believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

" This rule has been derived down from the beginning of the Gospel, before even the eldest of the heretics, much more before Praxeas, who is but of yesterday."87

And then, reciting the objection of Praxeas, viz., that the unity of God can no otherwise be maintained but by holding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one Person ; he answers :

" As if they were not in our sense all one, inasmuch as all are of one, that is, as to unity of the substance ; and yet the mystery of the economy may be preserved, which dispenses the Unity into a Trinity, ranking three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Tres, non statu sed gradu ; nee substantia sed forma ; nee potestate sed specie. ' Three, not in condi tion, but in order [or rank] ; not in substance, but in form [or mode] ', and not in power, but in species [which word I know not how to trans late, being on so awful a subject]; but in one substance, and of one condition, and of one power.' Because they are but one God, out of whom those ranks, forms, and species are reckoned under the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

The same author in another book,88 writing against heretics in general, gives in opposition to all of them, this summary of the Christian faith : —

"That we declare what we hold, the rule of faith is, to believe that there is but one God, and no other but the Maker of the world, who- 87 G. 2. 88 De Preescriptionibus, c. xiii.

234 I'h* History of Infant Baptism.

created all things out of nothing by His WORD first of all sent forth ; that that WORD, being called His 5cm, was Jn divers manners seen by the patriarchs under the name of God, was in the prophets always heard, and at last being by the Spirit and power of God brought into the Virgin Mary, and made flesh in her womb, and born of her, was Jesus the Christ; and that then He preached the new law and new promise of the Kingdom of Heaven, did miracles, was crucified, rose again the third day, was carried into heaven, sat down at the right hand of God, sent in His stead the power of the Holy Spirit to lead them that believe, that He will come in glory to receive the saints into the enjoyment of eternal life and the heavenly promises, and to adjudge the profane to eternal fire, having first raised both from the dead, and restored to them their flesh."

A shorter abstract yet, drawn by the same man upon another occasion, is this : —

" The rule of faith is but one, altogether unalterable, and not to be mended. That is, of believing in one God Almighty, Maker of the world, and in His Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, who arose the third day from the dead, was taken up into heaven, sits now at the right hand of the Father, will come to judge the living and the dead, by raising the flesh itself to life again." 89

Origen, being to write a book of the Principles of Religion, makes a preface 90 to this purpose : that because of the many heretical opinions, it was necessary to set down that which is " the certain line and mani fest rule, and by it to inquire of the rest." This he calls " the eccle siastical doctrine delivered down from the Apostles in the order of succession, and continuing still in the Church." And whereas some men that had better gifts than ordinary, might study and know some other things also ; that this was " delivered by the Apostles for the use of all, even the dullest Christians." And he says, " It is this :

" First. That there is one God, who has made and ordered all things, creating them out of nothing, the God of all holy men from the creation, of Adam, Moses, &c.

" That this God, who is both just and merciful, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, gave both the law and the prophets, and also the Gospel ; the same being the God both of the Old and New Testament.

"That Jesus Christ, who came, was begotten of the Father before all the creation ; that He ministered to [or acted under] the Father in the creation of all things ; for by Him all things were made. That He in the last days humbled Himself to be made man ; He was made flesh when He was God, and continued to be man while He was God. He took a body like unto ours, differing only in this, that it was by the 89 Ce Velnndis Virginibus, c. i. " irepl dpx&v. Prscfat.

Substance of the Ancient Creeds. 235

Holy Spirit born of a virgin. And that this Jesus the Christ was born and suffered truly, not in appearance only, but died truly the common death ; and did truly rise from the dead, and after His resurrection conversed with His disciples, and was taken up.

" Then they have also delivered, that the Holy Spirit is joined with the Father and the Son in honour and dignity."

It may be here observed, by-the-by, first, how Origen explains that phrase of St Paul, Phil. ii. 7, " Bring in the form of God," &c., IKSVUSSV tavrbv, &c. " He, in the last days, seipsum exinaniens homo factus est, ' humbled [or emptied] Himself to be made man.' " He does not interpret it, that when He was a human soul or angel in heaven, He humbled Himself to take an earthly body. Secondly. How Rufinus, according to Origen's sense, translates ^wroroxos Taffjjg xriatug, Col. 15. He does not say, " The first-born of every creature." Much less does he say, "The first of God's creation." But "Ante omnem creaturam natus ex Patre," ' Born [or begotten] of the Father before all the creation.'

These are some of the most ancient passages, wherein the authors undertake to give an account in few words of the faith into which Christians were baptised. They do not say that these were the very forms of the creeds by which the interrogatories were put ; but they must have been to this purpose. And whereas Tertullian says in the place I quoted before, that the custom was for the baptised person "to answer some few words more than those which our Saviour in the gospel has enjoined," we may partly see here what they were. For whereas our Saviour had enjoined only those words of believing "in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; " and whereas some heretics in those first ages, though keeping those words, yet had introduced monstrous opinions : some, of the Father, that He was not the God of the Old Testament, but another ; and some, of the Son, that He was not really a man, nor did really die, as some taught ; or that He was not really God, as others — the Church did examine the candidates, not only whether they believed " in the Father," but whether they believed Him to be " the Maker of heaven and earth ; " and not only whether they believed " in the Son," but whether they believed His divinity, incarna tion, death, resurrection, &c. On these occasions it was that the ordinary forms of the creed were augmented by some words added for explica tion sake. And these were not in every Church the same words ; but each Church added such words as were necessary to obviate the heresies that arose in their country, and were in any particular contrary to the fundamentals of the faith.

And besides such explications concerning each person of the Holy Trinity, they added also some other necessary articles of Christian faith to the creed which the baptised person must make profession of. So we see in these passages (beside the doctrine of the Trinity)^" the re-

236 The History of Infant Baptism.

surrection of the dead," and the " future judgment," and " eternal life " plainly delivered. And more positively than any of the rest, the Article of the Church is by Tertullian mentioned, as recited at baptism, in his book on that subject : 91 where having said that " our faith is sealed [i.e., we are baptised] in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," he adds, " And when the testimony of our faith, and promise of our salvation, are assured by these Three, there is necessarily added a mention of the Church. For where the Three, that is, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are, there is the Church, which is the body of the Three." And also the same man in another treatise 92 mentioning occasionally the Church, calls it " Sanctam Ecclesiam, in quam repromisimus," ' The holy Church ; the belief [or owning] whereof we have vowed.' So that it is plain this Article of " the Church " was in some of the most ancient creeds. The meaning of the profession of this Article which they had was, " I own the Catholic Church," i.e., I am of no sect or schism ; but do adhere to the communion and unity of the body. In explication of which sense were afterwards added these words, " the Communion of saints," that is of Christians. This was their meaning of it ; and they would baptise nobody without it In what sense the sectaries that do renounce this communion, and yet still say those words with their mouth, do take them, I cannot imagine. As for baptism, I think they do, many of them, administer it without any creed at all.

About fifty years after the time of Tertullian, we have in St Cyprian the form in which the baptised were interrogated in his time concerning those other Articles that followed the Confession of the Trinity, or at least a part of it.

In his sixty-ninth Epistle,93 disputing against such as would have baptism given by the Novatian schismatics to be good baptism, he says :

"If anyone object, and say that Novatian holds the same rule as the Catholic Church does, and baptises by the same creed that we do ; that he owns the same God, the Father ; the same Son, Christ ; the same Holy Spirit ; and, therefore, that he may baptise, since he seems not to differ from us in the interrogatories of baptism. Let him that objects this know : First, that the schismatics have not the same rule of the Creed with us, nor the same interrogation. For when they say, ' Dost thou believe the forgiveness of sins, and the life everlasting by the holy Church ?' they express a lie in their interrogation, since they have not [or own not] the Church."

And in his next Epistle, to the. same purpose, "When we say, ' Dost thou believe the life everlasting and the forgiveness of sins by the holy Church [or by the means used in the holy Church] ? ' " &c.

91 Lib. de Baptismo, c. vi. & Lib. v., Contra Marcion, c. iv.

93 Juxta Edit. Oxon.

The Nicene Creed — Eusebius's Creed. 237

§ ii. From these traces we may perceive what was the substance of the most ancient creeds in the several Churches. But we come now nigh those times, since which there are entire copies of the public creeds remaining. The eldest of which is, as I said, that which was at the Council of Nice agreed on, as a form to be owned by all Churches. It was this :

" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father ; His only begotten — that is, of the substance [or essence] of the Father : God of God : Light of Light : very God of very God : begotten, not made : being co-essential [or, of one substance] with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven, and things in earth. Who, for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate, and made man. He suffered and rose again the third day. He went into heaven, He will come to judge the living and the dead.

" And in the Holy Spirit.

" And those that say that there ever was a time when He [Christ] was not ; or, that before He was begotten, He was not ; or, that He was made out of nothing ; or do say, that the Son of God is of any other substance or essence; or, that He was created; or is changeable or alterable : such men the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God does renounce [or anathematise]." 94

When the Council of Constantinople, which was in the year 382, asserts this creed to be the most ancient (as they do in a synodical epistle 95 written to the Church of Rome), they mean it is the most ancient of any that had been established at any general meeting. But the several Churches must have had forms for the use of baptism before.

But yet the creeds used before in the several Churches must have been much to the same purpose, only in this there are some expressions added particularly against the heresy of Arius. Eusebius's Creed, which he drew up and offered to the Council of Nice, as the faith which he says, " He had received from the bishops before him, and at his catechising, and when he was baptised, and which he had held and taught both while he was a presbyter, and since he had been a bishop, differed but little" 96 He says, " The Council accepted of his words, making some additions." The form which he had offered was this :

" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the WORD of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only begotten Son, born before every creature, begotten of God the Father before all worlds; by whom all things were made," &c.

94 Eusebii Epist. apud Socrat. , lib. i. c. viii.

95 Theodoret, H. E., lib. v. c. ix. " Epist. apud Socrat., 1. i. c. viii.

238 The History of Infant Baptism.

This, some learned men °7 do think, was the very form of the creed that had been used time out of mind at Caesarea. If so, then this is the oldest copy extant of any public creed. But I think Eusebius's words do lead one to conceive that this was the substance, but the words his own, because he says, " They accepted of my words with some additions."

At the time when Arius first moved his controversy, Alexander, the bishop of the place, opposed to his novelty, that the steady faith of Christians is, and always was, thus :

" We believe in one unbegotten Father, who has no cause at all of His essence, &c. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God : begotten, not out of nothing, but of the Father. We believe Him, as well as the Father, to be unchangeable and unalterable, &c. And to differ nothing from the Father, but only that the Father is unbegotten, &c. That the Son does ever exist from the Father. He took a body, not in show only, but a real one, of the Holy Virgin. In the end of the world He came among men to expiate their sins ; He was crucified and died without any diminution of His divinity; He arose from the dead ; He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Majesty of God."

" Also one Holy Spirit, which inspired both the holy men of the Old Testament, and the divine teachers of the New."

"Moreover one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the resurrection of the dead." 98

This, it seems, was the substance of what the Christians of Alexandria had ever held, but this could not be the very form ; because it is (with the clauses that I have left out) too long for the use of baptism.

Arius's own creed given in to the emperor, was this :

" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty. And in the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son; begotten of Him before all worlds; God the WORD, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven, and things on earth. He came down, and was incarnated : He suffered and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and the life of the world to come, and the Kingdom of Heaven, and one Catholic Church of God from one end of the world to the other." 9

And he subjoins, that since he had this faith, he entreated that he might by the emperor's means be admitted to the unity of the Church, all questions and needless disputes being laid aside. But he conceals here his worst opinions, viz., that there was a time when God the Son was not, and that He was made out of nothing, &c., and was not very or true God.

97 Dr Cave, Epis. Apologetica. w Theodoret, H. E,, 1. i. c. iv.

89 Socrat., II. E., 1. i. c. xxvi.

The Creeds of Arians. 239

Twelve years after the Council of Nice, Constantine dying, there succeeded in the East for forty years together, except very short intervals, emperors that were Arians. During which time the Arians, bearing the greatest sway in those parts, set up a great many new forms of creeds. Some of them in words tolerably well agreeing with the Catholic sense, Others very disagreeable. But the general answer that the Christians of the West (which were free from the Arian persecution) and the Catholic party in the East, gave, when any of these were proposed to them for their assent, was : " that the Nicene Creed was enough, and they would not entertain any new ones." I will give for a specimen, one of the best, and one of the worst of them.

i. The Council of Arians met at Antioch, A.D. 341, agreed upon this creed :

" To believe in one God of all, the Creator of all things, visible and invisible. And in one only begotten Son of God, who before all worlds [or ages] subsisted and was, together with the Father that begot Him : by whom all things, bdth visible and invisible, were made. He, in the last days, came down by the good will of the Father, and took flesh of the Holy Virgin : and having fulfilled all the Father's counsel, suffered : and was raised again : and went back to heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father : and will come to judge the living and the dead : and continues to be King and God for ever. We believe also in the Holy Spirit. And if we need say any more, we believe the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting." 10°

And three years after, when the heresy of Photinus had in the mean time burst out, meeting there again, they (to give as good satisfaction as they could to the Western bishops) declared their sense of that heresy, and of the exorbitance of some Arians. After the body of their creed, much like the former, they add such clauses as these : " All that say, that the Son of God was made out of nothing, or of any other substance, and not of that of God ; or, that there ever was a time or age in which He was not : such men the holy Catholic Church renounces." l They prove it to be both impious and absurd, " to imagine any time before He was begotten ; since all time and all ages were made by Him." They declare that "neither when they profess three Persons, rpia. Hponuira, they do make three Gods : nor when they say, ' there is one God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the only unbegotten ; ' do they there fore deny Christ to be Qtbv Kpoatuvioy, the Eternal God [or, God before all ages]." They do also own there, that He is " God by nature, perfect and true God." They profess " their abhorrence of Photinus, who makes the WORD to -be av-jKapxTov without a personal subsistence." And say, " As for ourselves, we know Him to be not merely as a word spoken, or as reason in God : but God the WORD, and subsisting by 100 Socrat., lib. ii. c. x. J Socrat, 1. ii. c. xix.

240 The History of Infant Baptism.

Himself, and the Son of God and Christ. And that He was with His Father before the world, not by way of prescience, &c., but the subsist ing WORD of the Father, and GOD of GOD— like to the Father in all things, &c. Moreover," say they, " we, understanding in a cautious sense that which is said of Him, ' The Lord possessed me in the be ginning of His way ' 2 [this text the Greek translators had rendered : Kupioi hrioev f^t. The Lord built or made me] do by no means under stand, that He was begotten in a way like to the creatures made by Him : for it were impious and against the faith of the Church, to liken the Creator to the things by Him made, &c. Thus we believe in the perfect and most holy Trinity, calling the Father, God ; and the Son, God ; we do not mean these to be two, but one God," &c. These men were not very far from the Catholic faith.

2. But about sixteen years afterwards, this sect carried matters to more extravagant outrages. For the Emperor Constantius, a bigoted Arian, being then at Antioch, a party met there, and determined that " the Son is not at all like the Father, neither in essence nor in will : that He was made out of nothing : as Arius had at first said."

Sozomen relating this,3 says that there were among these (who were but few in all) several of the party of Aetius, who, he says, " was the first that after Arius ventured to use openly such expressions, and was therefore called the Atheist." And about this time Eunomius, the partner of Aetius, published his creed to this purpose :

" There is one God, unbegotten and without beginning, &c., the Maker and Creator of all things, and first of His only begotten Son, &c. For He begot, created, and made His Son before all things, and before all the creation, only by His power and operation : not communicating anything of His own essence to Him, &c., nor making Him another like Himself, &c., but He begot Him of such a nature as He thought fit, &c. And by Him He made, first and the greatest of all, the Holy Spirit, &c. And after Him all the things in heaven and earth, &c. There is also one Holy Spirit, the first and greatest of the works of the Only-begotten, made by the command of the Father, but by the power and operation of the Son."

This man had reason to appoint among his followers a new form of baptism ; for the old one did not fit to such opinions. So he laid it aside, and used that impious form of baptising which I mentioned before at § 4, " In the name of the unbegotten Father," &c.

The moderate and general sort of Arians did all the while own all that the Nicene Creed had said of our Saviour to be true, save that they thought not fit to determine that He is " of one substance with the Father : " as neither on the contrary did they think fit to say, as Arius had done, that He was created, or was of any other substance. They 2 Prov. viii. 22. 3 Hist. Eccl., 1. iv. c. xxix.

The Belief of Photinus. 24 1

rejected both those clauses, and said that the substance or essence of God is unsearchable, and nothing ought to be determined about it. Yet Eusebius 4 and Athanasius 5 showed them that every word had been often used by the Christians both of the Greek and Latin Church above one hundred years before. Many of the books out of which they could the,n prove this, are now lost : yet for the Latins, Tertullian does use that very expression in the passage of his that I quoted last. And Pamphilus the martyr in his apology for Origen (or be it Eusebius him self that was the author of that piece) makes it plain, that it was a common expression in the books of Origen that were then extant.

However we see that this sect of the Arians, even the dregs of it among the Eunomians, had not nigh so derogatory thoughts of the nature of our blessed Saviour, as our Socinians have ; who take Him to be a mere man, and to have had no being before His human birth. Photinus indeed did in those confused times broach that opinion which one sort of the Socinians do now fall into ; that the WORD, the Xoyog, of which St John speaks, is eternal : but that this WORD is not a person, nor did take man's nature in Jesus Christ, was not made flesh (as St /ohn says He was), but only inspired, directed, or dwelt in the man Jesus. But he did no sooner say this, but that all sorts of Christians — Catholics, Arians, and Eunomians — joined in an abhorrence of him, as Bishop Pearson 6 shows at large by reciting the condemnations of him particu larly. And he concludes : " So suddenly was this opinion rejected by all Christians, applauded by none but Julian the heretic [leg. Apostate], who railed at St John for making Christ God, and commended Photinus for denying it, as appears by an epistle written by Julian to him ; as it is, though in a mean translation, delivered by Facundus ad Justinian, 1. iv. Tu quidem, Oh Photine, &c. ' You, Photinus, say something like, and come near to good sense. You do well not to bring him whom you think to be God into a woman's womb.' "

And from that time till very lately, whoever embraced that opinion has thought fit at the same time to renounce the Scriptures and the name of a Christian.

What creed the Arians used all this while for their candidates to make their professions by at baptism, I know not ; for their creeds that are upon record they altered almost every day. The Catholics in the East made use of the Nicene, as appears by Epiphanius In Ancorato, where he gives directions that " every one of the catechumens that would come to the holy laver must not only profess in general to believe, but must be taught to say expressly, as their and our mother does, viz., ' we believe in one God, &c., as it is in the Nicene Creed.' " Only in Epiphanius's copy some clauses are put in by a later hand, or by himself afterwards ;

4 Euseb. Epist. apud. Socrat., 1. i. c. viii.

5 Epist. ad. Afros, apud Theodoret, 1. i. c. viii. 6 On the Creed, p. 120.

242 The History of Infant Baptism.

out of the Constantinopolitan Creed, which was set forth four years after the first writing of that book. He dates his book the tenth year of Valens ; and he says, " This is the faith delivered by all the holy bishops together, above three hundred and ten in number." Which must be the Nicene bishops. So that it is certain he in the first edition of his book set down the Nicene, and it was interpolated afterwards with those few additions which the Council of Constantinople made to it. And I, in deed, was of opinion that the same thing had happened to the Jerusalem Creed explained in way of catechism by St Cyril. He wrote those catechisms first in Constantius's time ; and yet there are in them, as they are now, the very clauses of the Constantinopolitan Creed. This, I reckoned, could never have happened so exact, but that he in his old age (for he lived to that time), or somebody after him, had added those clauses which the Council of Constantinople had put in. But I find that Mr Grabe 7 is of another opinion, and thinks that the Jerusalem Creed, and several other ancient Eastern creeds, had those clauses before the time of the Constantinopolitan Council. To whose great learning I willingly subscribe.

There is from this time forward abundant evidence that the Eastern Churches generally made use of the Nicene Creed to be repeated at baptisms. The Council of Ephesus 8 orders " that none do write or propose any other faith [or creed] but that which was agreed on by the holy Fathers assembled at Nice, &c. And if anyone do offer or propose any other to such as desire to be converted to the knowledge of the truth [/.<?., to such as come to be baptised] either from the heathens, or from the Jews, or from any heresy ; if they be bishops or clergymen, they shall be deposed ; if laymen, excommunicated." The Council of Chalcedon confirms the same.9 And so does the edict of Justinian. And several other synods do mention it as the faith " into which they were baptised, and into which they do baptise." Basiliscus, the usurper of the Greek empire, having in his edict mentioned this creed, adds, " into which both we, and all our ancestors that were Christians, have been baptised." 10 And the Emperor Zeno enacts that all baptisms should be by that.

This shows that what I quoted before n out of Gregory Nazianzen (that he would not baptise any Arian) was not singular in him, since the Church in all those parts used at baptism that creed which has the expressions purposely levelled against that heresy.

§ 12. Valens, the great persecutor of the Nicene faith, died in the fourteenth year of his reign. And then the Church had liberty once again to come together from all parts both of the East and West, which they did at Constantinople anno 381. They made no doubt or delay of

7 Annot. in opera Doct. Bull. 8 Act 6. 9 Evagrius, 1. ii. c. iv.

10 Evngrius, 1. iii. c. iv. et xiv. u Pt. I. ch. xi. § 8.

The Constantinopolitan Creed. 243

establishing the Nicene Creed in opposition to all the novelties that had disturbed the world since it. Only inasmuch as some new heresies had sprung up since, especially about our belief in the Holy Spirit, they put in a few clauses against them. Eunomius, Macedonius, and some others had followed Arius's pattern of innovating, so far, that as he had made the Son of God a creature, so they would do the same by the Spirit of God. Arius had had a much better handle to take hold of; for the Son did indeed take on Him a created nature ; and because in that nature He was born, died, &c., there were a great many plausible things to say among vulgar people. But to make the Spirit of God, which St Paul shows to be inward to God, as the spirit of a man is to a man, saying, i Cor. ii. ii, " What man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in him ? So the things of God none knows save the Spirit of God." To make Him a creature too was, we should think, a bold attempt, not only on the honour of God, but also on the reason and sense of men. But so it always happens. Whenever one sort of innovators break in upon any article of faith, there always arises behind their backs a new sect that will refine upon the first, and carry the superstructure farther than they ever intended, and to such extrava gances as the principal heretics are ashamed of. Yet some of the Arians, that the party might be the stronger against the Catholics, struck in with the Macedonians in this too.

The bishops of this council added therefore, as I said, some new clauses relating to our belief concerning the Holy Spirit, and some other plain things to the body of the Nicene. And the creed by them published is oftener called by the name of the Nicene Creed than of the Constan tinopolitan ; and so they themselves desired it should, it being only a second edition of the Nicene with those additions. Nestorius, in his sermons preached at Constantinople about forty years after this time, does often quote the Nicene Creed in defence of his opinion ; but the clauses he produces are the words of this. And generally after this time, when we have mention of the Nicene Creed, or faith, we are to under stand this, unless where the author does expressly make a distinction.

It is the same (except one word) that is nowadays repeated in the Communion Service by almost all the established Churches of Chris tians in the world. So general an affront does that foul mouth give, that says : " All that own it must renounce the numerical unity of God's essence." The copy of it, with a distinction of such clauses as were then added, is this :

" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

" And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, be gotten of His Father before all wvrlds : God of God : Light of Light : very God of very God ; begotten, not made ; being of one substance with

244 The History of Infant Baptism.

the Father, by whom all things were made [in some copies it is added, both things in heaven and things in earth], who for us men and for our salvation came down f rom heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered : and was buried: and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father : and He shall come again to judge the living and the dead : whose kingdom shall have no end.

" And we believe in the Holy Spirit : the Lord, the giver of life ; who proceedeth from the Father ; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified^ who spake by the prophets.

" And we believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."

Whereas in the copies nowadays used in the Western Church, it is said, " The Holy Spirit, &c., who proceedeth from the Father and the Son ; " those words, " and the Son," were added several hundred years after the making of the creed by the Church of Rome, and so passed into all the Western copies, but the Eastern Churches have them not. And how true soever the doctrine may be, it was not fair for any one part of the Church to add the words to the old copy, The Greeks say, He proceeds from the Father by the Son.

The chief thing that this creed has more than the old Nicene is, that the Holy Spirit is Lord and giver of life. The Macedonian heretics had taught that the Holy Spirit is one of the ministering spirits mentioned, Heb. i. 14, only greater than the rest. It was in opposition to this that the Catholics testified their faith, that He is (not a ministering or serving spirit, as the angels that are creatures, but) rb x-^/ov Hviv/ua, ' the spirit that is the Lord/' referring to 2 Cor. iii. 17, where St Paul having at verse 8 called the Gospel the ministration of the Spirit (because in it the power and grace of the Holy Spirit is especially manifested), and having in prosecution of that discourse spoken to this purpose, that as Moses, when he turned his face to the people, put on a veil, so the Jews reading the law had still a veil over their understandings. But as Moses, when he turned to the Lord, put off his veil, so, " when it [the heart of the people] shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away." " Now," say he, " 6 xvpio$ rb nvlu/ict !<m, the Spirit is the Lord (which our English has, ' The Lord is that Spirit ') and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is vapprieia liberty [or an open face without a veil]." And for the other phrase, ^UOTTOIOVV, a quickener [or giver of life], it is an attribute of the Spirit, often mentioned in Scripture.

The Council of Constantinople was not the first that condemned the Macedonian heresy. The Catholics had done it before, from the time of the rise of it, in several particular Councils, as they had opportunities

The Roman Creed. 245

in those times of persecution to assemble together. As in that of Alex andria, mentioned by Socrates, 1. iii. c. vii., and the Illyrican, mentioned by Theodoret, 1. iv. c. viii., and one at Rome under Damasus, mentioned by Theodoret, 1. ii. c. xxii., and one at Antioch, recited by Holstenius, Collect. Rom., p. 166. But this at Constantinople was the first General Council that met after the rise of this heresy.

Whether the Greek Church did after these times in their office of baptism make use of this Constantinopolitan copy of the creed, instead of the Nicene properly called, or whether they still use the old one, I know not. But it seems that in the year 476 they kept the old copy, because Basiliscus, in the edict I cited, after having declared that he will maintain the Nicene faith, " into which he and all his predecessors were baptised," adds : " and all things that were enacted in confirmation of that holy creed in this royal city by the one hundred and fifty Fathers against those that spoke ill of the Holy Spirit." This was the Constan tinopolitan. Therefore what he said before must be understood of the Nicene properly so called.

§ 13. It is wonder that during all the contest about creeds that was in those fifty years of the Arian times, we hear nothing said of the creed used in the Church of Rome. Especially if they had at that time procured their creed to be called the Apostolic Creed, or the Apostles' Creed (as they afterwards did), it could not have failed but that both the parties would have referred themselves to that. But on the contrary, there is not a word said of it. Nor can it be known what form of a creed they used in those times. They all along received and owned the Nicene Creed, and renounced all that would not own it; but they do not seem to have applied that to their ordinary offices of baptism, for that use once begun would not have been left off again ; but to have had a form of their own, as other Churches had, before the Nicene, and to have added to it from time to time such clauses as appeared most necessary against any heresies that arose. But still it is a wonder how they, and the other Western Churches, could reconcile their practice (in baptising by any other creed than the Nicene) with those canons of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which, as I showed,12 did so posi tively enjoin that no other should be used for that purpose from that time forward. For these Councils being general ones, must have been ratified by themselves, as well as by the Eastern bishops ; and their Popes do to this day swear that they will own and adhere to them.

About the year 400 we have some light given us how the words of the ordinary creed in the Church of Rome stood at that time ; but not by any writer of that Church, which had but few, but by one whom they do not love. Rufinus, a Presbyter of the Church of Aquileia, a city in Italy, wrote a comment on the creed as it was worded in his Church -}

12 § 12.

246 The History of Infant Baptism.

and he notes by the way some of the differences or agreements which their Church had with the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches in wording the several clauses. And by his account the Roman Creed at that time must have stood thus : —

" I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, of the Virgin Mary ; crucified under Pontius Pilate ; and buried. The third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven; sitteth at the right hand of the Father : from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.

" The holy Church. The forgiveness of sins. The resurrection ot the flesh."

The clause, " Maker of heaven and earth," was afterwards added out of the Constantinopolitan or other Eastern Creeds.

" The descent of Christ into Hades " (or hell, as we style it in Eng lish) was not as yet in the Roman Creed, but was put in afterwards. It is expressed in the oldest rule or breviat of faith that is in the world, if there be any credit to be given to those records of the Church of Edessa, copied out of the Syriac by Eusebius,13 and translated by him, where it is said that Thaddseus, one of the seventy, being sent by Thomas the Apostle to cure Abgarus the king, and to convert his people, preached to them " how Christ came from the Father ; and of the power of His works, &c. ; and of the meanness and lowliness of His outward appearance, &c. ; and how He died, and lowered His Divinity; how many things He suffered of the Jews ; and how He was crucified ; KU,) xar'efir) fig ri>v "Adqv, and descended into Hades. And how He sits now on the right hand of God, &c. ; and how He will come to judge the living and the dead."

These things were done/ as it is said in that register, the 43rd year ; or, as other copies have it, the 34oth year ; which last, viz., the 34oth year of the computation of years used at Edessa, is the same year u on which our Saviour ascended into heaven.

But suppose these records to be forged, yet they must have been a good while before Eusebius's time.

Excepting this register, the eldest creeds that have this clause, are the Arian ones : viz., that drawn up at Sirmium, and rehearsed at the Council of Ariminum, mentioned by Socrates, 1. ii. c. xxxvii. That at Nice, in Thracia, recited by Theodoret, 1. ii. c. xxi. ; and that at Con stantinople, brought into use by Acacius and his party, reported by Socrates, 1. ii. c. xli.

Rufinus says,15 it was in his time in the Creed of Aquileia, but not in the Oriental Creed, nor in that of Rome, into which last it seems to have been inserted about the year 600, taken perhaps out of the creed 18 H. E., 1. i. c. ult. " Valesius in loc. 15 In Symb.

Chris fs Descent into Hades. 247

called Athanasius's, which about that time is pretended to have been found in some archives at Rome, having never been heard of before.

As for the thing itself, of Christ's descent into Hades, though it were not put in the ancient creeds, yet it was ever believed by all Christians ; nor could it be otherwise, since they used that phrase in the case of any man that died. And so does the Scripture speak of any man that dies, be he good or bad, as going to Sheol (which is the Hebrew word) or Hades (which is the Greek for it). Jacob, Gen. xliv. 29 ; David, Ps. vi. 5 ; the wicked, Ps. ix. 10, all go to Hades. To go down to Hades, or ad in/eros,] was, in their way of speaking, no more than to go down to the dead. And if we believe that Christ rose the third day «TO TUV vtxpuv, a mortuis, ( from the dead,' we must believe that three days before He descended to the dead.

The clause, " everlasting life," is commonly judged not to have been in the old Roman Creed. For Rufinus mentions it not in the Aquileian ; and he notes no difference between that and the Roman in this particular. And yet there is another reason on the contrary, to think that it was expressed there ; because Marcellus, who had made one at the Council of Nice, having several enemies of the Arian party in the East that accused him of Sabellianism, by mistake of his meaning as he pretended, appealed to Julius, Bishop of Rome, and to that Church, as to umpires of the quarrel; and when his adversaries would not agree to refer it to that bishop, nor would come thither, he left there a draught of his belief for his perpetual vindication ; which draught is set down by Epiphanius,16 and is exactly the same with the copy of the Roman Creed, given before out of Rufinus, save that it adds this clause at last : " The life everlasting." And, except this draught, there is no other in antiquity that does very near resemble the Roman Creed. So that it is probable he took the Roman Creed itself for his draught, as thinking that he could not better approve his faith to the Church of Rome, than by expressing it in the words of their ordinary creed. And it is possible that Rufinus might omit the collating the Roman Creed with the Aquileian in this point. If this conjecture be right, this is the oldest copy of the Roman Creed by sixty years ; for this transaction was so long before the time that Rufinus wrote. And not long after Rufinus's time this clause appears in all the copies.

But however it were with the Roman Creed I showed before,17 out of St Cyprian that this clause was in that of Carthage long before ; and it was in several Eastern ones. Bishop Pearson thinks 18 it was not in the creed used for baptism at Antioch in St Chrysostom's time, and he takes the ground of that opinion from St Chrysostom's Horn. 40, in i Epist. ad Corinth. But though he be the most exact man that ever wrote, yet he is mistaken in that. "St Chrysostom is there explaining that difficult 16 Hser. 72. 17 At § 10. 18 On the Creed, art. 12.

248 The History of Infant Baptism.

place, i Cor. xv. 29, of some men being baptised for the dead. He thinks for the dead is as much as to say for their bodies, i.e., for the resurrection of them, or, in hopes of it. " For," says he, " after all the rest, we add that which St Paul here speaks of. After the repeating those holy words, &c. (meaning the creed), we say this at the last of all, when we are to baptise anyone : we bid him say, 'I believe the resurrection of the dead,' and in this faith we baptise him. For after we have owned that together with the rest, we are plunged down into the fountain of those holy waters." But though this would make one think that the resurrec tion was the last article of the creed then used in that Church ; yet before the end of that homily (and Bishop Pearson, it seems, did not at that time read it out) St Chrysostom adds : " And then, since the word resurrection is not enough to signify the whole of our faith in that matter (because many that have risen have died again, as they in the Old Testa ment, as Lazarus, as they at the time of the crucifixion), therefore he [the baptiser] bids him [the baptised person] say, ' and the life everlasting,' that none may suspect he shall die again after that resurrection."

This creed of the Church of Rome has obtained the name of the Apostolic Creed, for no greater or other reason than this : it was a custom to call those Churches in which any Apostle had personally taught, especially if he had resided there any long time, or had died there, Apostolic Churches. Of these there were a great many in the Eastern parts — Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, &c.; but in the Western parts none but Rome, in which St Paul and St Peter had lived a considerable time, and were there martyred. So that anyone that in the Western parts of the world spoke of the Apostolic Church, was sup posed to mean Rome, that being the only one in those parts, and being called emphatically by all the Western Christians the Apostolic Church. And so their bishop came to be called the Apostolic Bishop ; their See, the Apostolic See ; their faith, the Apostolic faith ; and among the rest, the creed that they used, the Apostolic Creed.

This name gave handle enough to some people first to imagine, and then by degrees to report a tradition that this creed was drawn up into this form by the Apostles themselves, and so (by a light alteration of the word) to call it " the Apostles' Creed."

There was a fable trimmed up setting forth when and where the Apostles met and dictated it, and the reasons why they did it ; which, if anyone do still believe, he may have ready cure in a treatise of Vossius,19 or in English, in a treatise of a very learned English gentleman,20 both written on that subject. If the Roman Christians had believed it them selves, they had done very arrogantly to add from time to time new clauses to the Apostles' words.

About the year of Christ 600 it seems to have attained that whole 19 DC Tribus Symbolis. -" Critical History of the Apostles' Creed.

Athanasius's Creed. 249

form of words which it has now. And being used at Rome as the ordinary creed for the baptised or their godfathers to repeat, it has been likewise received by all the Western Churches for the same use. The Greek Church do, I think, catechise by the Nicene Creed, but they own this also. When the two great branches of Christendom in the Eastern and Western Empire could not bring their people to use the same form of faith at baptism ; yet to show their unity in the faith, they did each of them receive the other's creed into their liturgies, and both Churches do own and use and profess both creeds. And so this is by all owned to be an Apostolic Creed in one sense, viz., drawn up according to the doctrine of the Apostles. But whereas the gentle man I mentioned says, " It has been for some hundred years preferred before the Nicene ; " 21 that is, I think, only in the Western Church. And where he says, "that Irenseus repeats the Apostles' Creed,"22 he means only the substance of that faith.

It is general, and it is natural for everyone to say as much as he can in preference of those forms that are in use in his Church. But yet, upon the whole, I cannot see but that the Greek Church have in this the advantage of us in baptising by the Nicene. For (besides that theirs is the elder, and acknowledged and enjoined by the four first General Councils) the main difference between these two creeds being this, that the Western Creed (as it is now) has the descent into hell, which the other has not ; but the other has the Articles of the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit much more full and express ; there is, I think, no body that doubts but the latter are a much more material point of our faith than the former. But yet in the Roman Creed (as it has always been understood), the clause, " God's only Son," does mean His "Son by Nature," and so owns His Divinity, as Bishop Pearson has shown. And since it is the settled and notorious interpretation and meaning ; they that pronounce it, meaning otherwise, do but equi vocate with God and the Church. To believe in a person, is in the phrase of Scripture, and of the Church, to believe Him to be God.

Of Athanasius's Creed there is no occasion of speaking here, both because it was never by any Church used at baptism, and also because the composure of it is not so ancient as the times we speak of. Yet it contains the sense of what Athanasius and the other Catholics main tained in their disputations against the Arians ; but it proceeds also to determine against other heretics that arose long after Athanasius's time; as Nestorius that divided the person of Christ into two ; and Eutyches, that confounded his two Natures into one. And it is penned in a more scholastical style than the ancients had arrived to. The expres sions most like it, that are found in any ancient writing, are in that 21 Critical history, p. 47. w P. 78.

250 The History of Infant Baptism.

declaration of the faith made at the Council of Chalcedon (which con demned all the said heresies together) recited by Evagrius, 1. ii. c. iv.

What creed the antipsedobaptists do require of their candidates to profess I know not ; I am afraid, none at all. I mean no settled form, limited to certain words ; but that it is left to the several elders to judge whether each candidate do understand and believe the necessary points of faith. Which must be a very unsafe one, for either the elder himself may be ignorant, or he may hold privately heterodox opinions in the fundamentals of the faith, as Socinianism, &c. For such an one to have the instructing of any young person in his own way, and then to baptise him, is (as Gregory Nazianzen 23 in a case not so bad ex presses it) not to dip him, but to drown him. The experience of all ages of the Church has shown it necessary to have a " form of sound words " for such a use ; not to be altered, augmented, or curtailed by the caprices of every particular pastor.

§ 14. These professions of Christian Faith, and of renouncing the devil and his works, &c., were by adult persons solemnly made two several times before they were baptised. Once in the congregation, some time before the day of baptism, where they, standing up and speaking in a continued sentence, said : " I renounce the devil and all his works," &c., going on through all the clauses of renunciation. And in like manner repeated the whole creed.

And, again, just when they were going into the water, by way of answer to the interrogatories of the priest, who laying his hand on the party's head, solemnly asked the questions severally : " Do you re nounce the devil," &c. ? He answered : " I do." And so he asked the other renunciations. And then the belief. "Do you believe in God the Father Almighty ?" " I do." And so the several articles of the creed. And at last : " Do you believe the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting? " He said : " I do."

And therefore that clause in Tertullian which I recited at § 4, is to be pointed thus: "We do there (and we do the same also a little before in the congregation) under the hands of the pastor make a profession," &c.

St Austin mentions the former of these times of profession 24 in the case of Victorinus, who was a man in such dignity and repute among the heathen party at Rome, that though he made a pretence of turning Christian, and came sometimes to their assemblies, yet the Christians did not believe that he would really come over to their religion (which was even then in contempt among the great men at Rome) till they saw and heard him at a certain time when he was at their Church, that " when the time came of professing the faith, which is wont to be done at Rome in a place a little raised in the sight of the faithful people by 23 Orat. in Sanct. baptisma, prope finem. u Confess., 1. viii. c. ii.

Infants receiving the Communion. 251

those that would come to the grace [viz., of baptism], he with an assured voice pronounced the faith," &c.

And St Hierom mentions the latter 25 when he says : " Whereas it is customary at the font, after the confession of the Trinity to ask : ' Do you believe the Holy Church? Do you believe the forgiveness of sin? ? ' " &c.

But in the case of infants this could be done but once, viz., at the time of their baptism. The baptiser asked the questions, and the sponsors answered in the name of the child. The questions were put severally for each article of the creed and of the renunciation, as in the case of the adult ; as appears partly by what I quoted out of St Austin, Part I. ch. xv. sect. 5, § 4, and out of the author of the Eccles iastical Hierarchy, Part I. ch. xxiii. § 2. And also by what St Austin says at another place,26 where speaking of an infant going to be baptised he says: "The interrogation is put, ' Does he believe in Jesus Christ?'" " Answer is made, ' He does.' "

There is no time or age of the Church in which there is any appe.ar- ance that infants were ordinarily baptised without sponsors or godfathers. Tertullian mentions the use of them in his time, as I showed.27 And I have recited so many other passages wherein they are occasionally mentioned, that there is no need of rehearsing any more on purpose for that matter. St Austin calls the professions : " Words of the sacra ment without which an infant cannot be baptised." As I showed, Part I. ch. xv. sect. 5, § 5.

§ 15. The baptised person was quickly after his baptism admitted to partake of the Lord's Supper. This was always and in all places used in the case of adult persons, and in some ages and places in the case of infants. Some have spoken of the custom of giving infants the com munion, as if it were anciently as general as the baptising them ; and the antipaedobaptists do confidently say it was so. But this has been by others shown to be a mistake.

Mr Daille, in his treatise called the Right Use of the Fathers, bent himself with all his might to find out errors in the Fathers and ancient Church. Not, indeed, with so wicked a purpose as some have done since, that have made use of his instances to take away all credit from the Primitive Church in conveying down to us the canonical books, and the fundamental doctrines in them delivered ; but yet he has made it hard for us to believe what he there says, that he " enters upon this in quiry into their errors unwillingly," because a man that does so, never makes the faults more or worse than they are. He makes the giving the Eucharist to infants one of their chief errors ; and to prove that this was their practice, he quotes three authors — Cyprian, Austin, and Pope Innocent — and adds : " All the rest of the doctors in a manner of the

21 Adv. Luciferianos. x Serm. 14, de verb. Apost. v Pt. I. ch. ir. § 9.

252 The History of Infant Baptism.

first ages maintained that the Eucharist was necessary for infants ; if at least you dare take Maldonat's word, who affirms that this opinion was in great request in the Church during the first six hundred years after our Saviour Christ." And after this he, several times without any farther proof, says absolutely that so it was : " That the Fathers, down as far as to the end of the sixth century, held that the Eucharist is as necessary to salvation as baptism, and consequently to be administered to infants,"28 and concludes from that, as from one of his two chief instances, how little heed is to be given to the practices of the Primitive Christians.

And yet all that he quotes from Maldonat ; and all that I believe that learned man would say (for I have not the book) is this, " I pass by the opinion of Austin and Innocent I., which was in request in the Church for above six hundred years, that the Eucharist is necessary for infants." »

No man (but one that would fain have it so) would conclude from these words, Maldonat's meaning to be any more than this, that this opinion began in the time of Austin and Innocent, anno 400, and con tinued from thence six hundred years to anno 1000 (as it did indeed in some parts of the Church), not that it was in request for all the first five hundred years.

Before the year 412 there is no author produced but St Cyprian. And whereas Mr Daille speaks with the usual artifice in such cases, as if he singled this out of a great many instances which he could have brought, and says, " that St Cyprian was carried away with the error of his time ; " 30 the truth of the matter, I believe, is, that neither he nor any body else can find any more. And if we examine what it is that he produces from him, we shall perceive that he has, in his case too, much mistaken the matter ; and that, so far from his saying it was necessary, there is no good proof from him that mere infants ever did receive it ; though of children of four or five years of age, that did then sometimes in that Church receive, there is.

The first proof that is brought, and the most material by far, if it were not from a mistaken edition, is out of the fifty-ninth epistle of St Cyprian (which is the sixty-fourth in the late edition), from one word of which epistle he would prove that it was the opinion of Cyprian and of the sixty-six bishops then assembled with him, that the Eucharist must be given to infants. But of that epistle you have all that concerns infants in my PL I. ch. vi., where I have shown at § 10 that Mr Daille's observa tion is a mistake in the reading of that one word, and that there is in the correct editions not one syllable about it.

He produces another passage of St Cyprian, which is the same I 28 Lib. ii. c. vi. et passim.

89 Maldonat. in Joan. 6, 11, 116, apud Dalleum., 1. i. c. viii. *> L. ii. c. iv.

Of Communicating Infants.

quoted out of him in the foresaid ch. vi. § 13. St Cyprian's common place book ran thus, 1. iii., Ad Quirinum :

C. 25. "If anyone be not baptised and born again, he cannot come to the Kingdom of God."

For proof of this he quotes John iii. 5, 6 ; it. John vi. 53.

C. 26. " To be baptised and receive the Eucharist is not available, unless one do good works."

For this he quotes i Cor. ix. 24 ; Matt. iii. 10 ; it. vii. 22 ; it. v. 16.

I did, indeed, bring this place among the proofs of his opinion that infants must be baptised; but owned at the same time, that since infants are not expressly mentioned in it, it would be but a very weak one, were it not that he himself in other places mentions infants by name as contained under the general rule that requires baptism, which he never does in the case of the Eucharist. And anyone sees that this passage, taken alone, has much less force to prove their communicating, than it has to prove the necessity of their baptism. If I should among the testimonies for infants' baptism have set down all the sayings of the Fathers, where they speak of baptism as necessary for all persons; those alone would have made a collection larger than mine is. I confined myself to such as mention infants particularly.

But for youths, boys or girls, younger than do now commonly receive, he does, indeed, quote a plain proof out of the book De Lapsis. It is this story, which St Cyprian tells on purpose to make those that had revolted to idolatry in the late persecution at Carthage, sensible of their guilt and of God's wrath ; and that they ought not without due confession and penitence approach the Holy Table.31

" I will tell you what happened in my own presence. The parents of a certain little girl, running out of town in a fright, had forgot to take any care of their child, whom they had left in the keeping of a nurse. The nurse had carried her to the magistrates; they, because she was too little to eat the flesh, gave her to eat before the idol some of the bread mixed with wine, which had been left of the sacrifice of those wretches. Since that time, her mother took her home. But she was no more capable of declaring and telling the crime committed than she had been before of understanding or of hindering it. So it happened that once when I was administering, her mother, ignorant of what had been done, brought her along with her. But the girl being among the saints could not with any quietness hear the prayers said, but sometimes fell into weeping, and sometimes into convulsions, with the uneasiness of her mind ; and her ignorant soul, as under a wrack, declared by such tokens as it could the conscience of the fact in those tender years. And when the service was ended, and the deacon went to give the cup to those that were present, and the others received it, and her turn came, 31 Lib. De Lapsis, circa medium.

254 The History of Infant Baptism.

the girl by a divine instinct turned away her face, shut her mouth, and refused the cup. But yet the deacon persisted, and put into her mouth, though she refused it, some of the sacrament of the cup. Then followed retchings and vomiting. The Eucharist could not stay in her polluted mouth and body ; the drink consecrated in our Lord's blood burst out again from her denied bowels. Such is the power, such the majesty of our Lord ; the secrets of darkness were discovered by its light, even un known sins could not deceive the priest of God. This happened in the case of an infant who was by reason of her age incapable of declaring the crime which another had acted on her." He goes on to tell how some grown people at the same table, guilty of the same crime but thinking to conceal it, had been more severely handled, possessed with evil spirits, &c.

This child was probably four or five years old. For the heat of the persecution was about two years before this administering of the sacra ment could be, if we reckoned the soonest ; for St Cyprian had been almost all that while retired out of the city, as appears by Bishop Pearson's annals of that time.32 And the child may be guessed by the story to have been two or three years old when she was carried to the idol feast. And so the Magdeburgenses, relating this story,33 conclude from it, puellas ephebas, that young girls did at this time sometimes receive. And so Salmasius, or else Suicerus himself, Suiceri Thesaur. v. 2uva%i$.

This passage might have been added to the other quotations that I brought of St Cyprian for infants' baptism, for no Church ever gave the communion to any person before they were baptised, but I reserved it for this place. This is all, till above four hundred years after Christ's birth.

Innocent the First, Bishop of Rome, does indeed, anno 417, plainly and positively say that infants cannot be saved without receiving the Eucharist, and that in a synodical epistle 34 written to the Fathers of the Milevitan Council. The Council had represented to him the mis chief of that tenet of the Pelagians, that unbaptised infants, though they cannot go to heaven, yet may have eternal life ; which the Pelagians maintained on this pretence that our Saviour, though He had said : " He that is not born of water cannot enter the Kingdom," yet had not said : " he cannot have an eternal life." To this Innocent's words are : " That which your brotherhood says that they teach, ' that infants may without the grace of baptism have eternal life,' is very absurd, since, ' except they eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, they have no life in them,' " &C.35 His meaning is plainly this : they can have no eternal life without receiving the Communion, and they cannot do that

** Annales Cyprianici. w Cent. 3, c. vi. M Apud Augustin., Ep. xciii.

M John vi. 53.

How long continued in the West. 255

till they be baptised. And it is true what Mr Daillb urges : " That St Austin says the same thing eight or ten times over in several places of his books."36 And some of these books are dated a little before this letter of Innocent. But though he wrote a great part of his works before this Innocent was made Bishop of Rome, and in them speaks often of infant baptism, yet it is observable that he never speaks of infants communicating till after Innocent had been bishop some time, which makes me think it probable that Innocent did first bring up this doctrine of the necessity of this sacrament to infants ; for after Innocent had so determined, St Austin oftener quotes him 37 for it than he does any place of Scripture. P.S. — I am glad to find so learned a man as John Frith is of the same mind. Answ. to More.

Among all the passages of St Austin to this purpose, there is need of mentioning but one ; and that because some people have said that he at that place does affirm it to be an Apostolical tradition, from whence they conclude how little heed is to be given to him, when he says infant baptism was so. The place is, DePeccat. Meritis, lib. i. c. xxiv. He is argu ing against the Pelagians, who said eternal life (though not the Kingdom of God) might be had without baptism, and says thus : "The Christians of Africa do well call baptism itself one's salvation, and the sacrament of Christ's body one's life. From whence is this but, as I suppose, from that ancient and Apostolical tradition, by which the Churches of Christ do naturally hold that without baptism and partaking of the Lord's Table none can come either to the Kingdom of God, or to salvation and eternal life ? For the Scripture, as I showed before, says the same. For what other thing do they hold that call baptism salvation, than that which is said ; ' He saved us by the washing of regeneration.' And that which Peter says, ' The like figure whereunto, even baptism, does now save us ? ' And what other thing do they hold that call the Sacra ment of the Lord's Table life, than that which is said, ' I am the bread of life,' &c. ; and ' The bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world ; ' and, ' except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you ? ' If then, as so many divine testimonies do agree, neither salvation nor eternal life is to be hoped for by any without baptism and the body and blood of our Lord ; it is in vain promised to infants without them.' "

There is, as I observed a little before, a great difference between saying, "There is a tradition or order of the Apostles for infants to receive the Eucharist as a thing without which they cannot be saved ; " and saying, " There is a tradition for all to receive it, as a thing without which they cannot be saved." For a rule given in general words may be understood with an exception of infants, or without such exception, according as the nature of the thing or other sayings of the law-giver do 38 L. i. c. viii. S7 Epist. 106 et alibi.

256 The History of Infant Baptism.

direct. All the Israelites that do not keep the Passover shall be cut off. There, infants must be excepted. They must all be circumcised. That includes infants as well as others. Now, in the case of baptism, St Austin and those others whom we have quoted, do say there is a tradi tion from the Apostles for baptising infants ; but all that St Austin says here in the case of the Eucharist is, in general, that there is an Apos tolical tradition that none that do not receive it can have salvation. And that this rule should include infants, is not said as from the Apostles, but is only his own consequence drawn from the general rule ; neither do his words import any more : in which consequence there may easily be a mistake.

§ 1 6. After these times of St Austin and Innocent, there is ever now and then some mention found in the Latin Church of infants receiving, Mercator sub not. 8, in the year 436, Gregory the First, sacramentar, anno 590, and so forward till about the year 1000. But towards the latter end of this term, as we learn by the relation of Hugo de Sancto Victore,38 who lived anno noo, they gave to infants only the wine, and that only by the priest's dipping his finger in the chalice, and then putting it into the child's mouth for him to suck. And after some time this also was left off; and instead of it, they gave the new baptised infant some drops of wine not consecrated, which Hugo dislikes.

This custom of giving common wine to infants seems by some words of St Hierom 39 to be older in the Church of Rome than the custom of giving any consecrated wine. For instead of milk and honey, he speaks there (if there be no mistake in the print) of wine and milk given to the new baptised. " In the churches of the West," says he, " the custom and type still continues of giving to those that are regenerated in Christ, wine and milk."

It is to be observed that about the year 1000 the doctrine of tran- substantiation sprung up in the Latin Church, which created an exces sive and superstitious regard to the outward elements of the Eucharist ; and had among others this effect, that as the wine was kept from the laymen for fear of slabbering, so the whole Sacrament was from infants. And at last the Council of Trent determined that " it is not at all neces sary for them, since being regenerated by the laver of baptism, and incorporated into Christ, they cannot in that age lose the grace of being children of God, which they have now obtained. And yet," say they, " antiquity is not to be condemned, if it did sometimes, and in some places, observe that custom ; for as those holy Fathers had a probable reason of their so doing on account of that time [here they should have added, which did not believe transubstantiation], so it is for certain and without controversy to be believed that they did it not on any 38 L. iii., De. Sacram., c. xx. 59 Comment, in Esaiam, 1. xv., Vide Magdeburgenses Cent. 4, c. vi.

What Churches do still Communicate Infants. 257

opinion of its necessity to their salvation."40 And they pass this anathema: "If anyone shall say that partaking of the Eucharist is necessary for infants before they come to years of discretion, let him be anathema."41

_ It is a brave thing to be infallible. Such men may say what they will, and it shall be true. What is a contradiction in other men's mouths is none in theirs. Pope Innocent, in a synodical letter sent to the Council of Milevis, says : " If infants do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood [meaning in the sacrament], they have no life in them." Pope Pius, in confirming the Council of Trent, says : " If any man say so, let him be anathema."

To deny that those ancient Fathers did it with any opinion of its necessity to the infant's salvation, makes the contradiction yet more palpable, because that is the very thing which they say. The truth, I believe, is that the Trent Fathers knew that some ancient doctors had commended infants receiving ; but not that one of their own infallible bishops had so absolutely determined it to be necessary for their salvation.

How soon, or how late, the custom of infants receiving came in, in the Greek Church, I know not. I do not remember any one ancient writer of that part of the world that speaks of it — I mean of any genuine book — for I know that a mention of it is got into Clem. Constitutions. But it is a known thing that they use it now, and have done for several centuries, at least most of the branches of that Church.

That which I conceive most probable on the whole matter (referring myself to such as have minded this piece of history more) is :

1. That in Cyprian's time, the people of the Church of Carthage did oftentimes bring their children younger than ordinary, to the communion.

2. That in St Austin's and Innocent's time, it was in the west parts given to mere infants. And that this continued from that time for about six hundred years.

3. That sometime during this space of six hundred years, the Greek Church, which ^was then low in the world, took this custom from the Latin Church, which was more flourishing.

4. That the Roman Church about the year 1000, entertaining the doctrine of transubstantiation, let fall the custom of giving the holy elements to infants. And the other Western Churches mostly following their example, did the like upon the same account. But that the Greeks, not having the said doctrine, continued, and do still continue the custom of communicating infants. They think that command of St Paul, " Let a man examine himself and so let him eat," &c., so to be understood, as not to exclude such as are by their age incapable of

40 Sess. 21, cap. iv. 41 Canon 4,

II. I

258 The History of Infant Baptism.

examining themselves, from partaking; but only to oblige all that are capable. As that like command of his, " If anyone will not work, let him have nothing given him to eat," must be so limited to such as are able to work ; as that infants, and such as are not capable to work, must have victuals given them, though they do not work.

The most usual way of giving it to infants in the Churches where it is now used, is to mix the bread with the wine, and to put to the child's lips a drop or two of that mixture quickly after his baptism, after which he receives no more till the age of discretion.

§ 17. From this custom of the ancients giving the Eucharist to infants, the antipsedobaptists do draw an argument (and it is the most considerable that they have for that purpose) that there is no great stress to be laid on the practice of antiquity in baptising infants. For they say, since the ancients gave them the Eucharist as well as baptism, and yet all Christians are now satisfied that the first was an error in them, what reason have we to regard their opinion or practice in the other ?

But i. That is not true that all Christians are satisfied that the ancients did ill in giving infants the Eucharist, for very near half the Christians in the world do still continue that practice. The Greek Church, the Armenians, the Maronites, the Cophti, the Abassens, and the Muscovites, as is related by the late authors Jeremias, Brerewood, Alvarez, Ricaut, Heylin, &c. And so, for aught I know, do all the rest of the Eastern Christians. And it is probable that the Western had done the same, had it not been for the doctrine of transubstantiation coming up in the Church of Rome.

2. It is not true that this custom of giving infants the Eucharist was in the ancient Church received either so early, or so generally, as baptism of them was. I have through all the first part shown the evidences of their baptism ; but for their receiving the Eucharist, I know of no other evidences within our period of antiquity than what I have just now recited. Of which St Cyprian does not speak of mere infants, and the other two are dated after the year of Christ 412 ; and that only in the Latin Church. It is a strong presumption that there was no use of it, not even in the Church of Carthage, in Tertullian's time, because he who lived there, and pleaded to have the custom of baptising infants to be set aside (except in danger of death) could not have failed to have given his opinion much rather against the admitting them to that other sacrament, if it had then been used.

3. The grounds of these two practices are nothing of equal force. The words of our Saviour to the Jews, John vi. 53, by which Innocent proves the one, do no way appear to belong to the sacramental eating, which was not then instituted. But his words, John iii. 5, do plainly belong to the other. The Passover, which answers to the Eucharist,

Ividence for Infants' Baptism.

259

though enjoined in general words to all, yet was not understood to belong to infants. Circumcision and Jewish baptism, which answer to Christian baptism, were given to infants as well as adults. Baptism has in Scripture the notion and character of an initiating or entering sacrament. The Eucharist not so. Now infants are by the ex press words of Scripture to be initiated, or entered into covenant (Deut. xxix. 10-12).

4. However it be, the antipasdobaptists cannot make any use of this argument till they have granted that the ancient Christians did baptise infants. So long as many of them endeavour to keep their people in an opinion that infants' baptism is a new thing, so long they will forbear to tell them that infants did in ancient time receive the Eucharist : since among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that, that any person should partake of the communion before he was baptised. And if the people among them shall ever be encouraged to search into the history of the Church to find some proofs of the one, they will at the same time find much fuller proofs of the other, as attested by much more ancient authors, and practised more universally, and that when one was left off by the Churches that began it, the other has been still continued in all the National Churches in the world.

CHAPTER X.

A SUMMING UP OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS HERE BEEN GIVEN ON BOTH SIDES.

'"PHOUGH I pretend to manage the part of a relater of the passages for and against infant baptism, rather than of a judge of the force and consequence of them : yet it may be proper, now that I have pro duced all that I know concerning that matter in the eldest times, to sum up in short, for the use of the reader, the evidence that has been given s on both sides.

It appears on one side,

§ i. i. That as Abraham was taken into covenant by circumcision, an ordinance appointed for him and all the male infants of his race, to enter them into covenant : so when God did, four hundred and thirty years after, establish anew that covenant with that nation under the conduct of Moses, he appointed washing?- which is in the Greek tongue called baptism, to be another ordinance of entering into it. And that the Jews, as they reckoned it one of the ceremonies whereby their whole nation, infants as well as grown persons, was then entered into covenant : so when they proselyted or discipled any person of the

1 Exod. xix. 10. I 2

260 The History of Infant Baptism.

nations, they did use to wash or baptise him : because the law had said, " One law and one manner shall be for you and for the stranger [or proselyte] that sojourns among you." 2 And if that proselyte had any infant children, male or female, they baptised them, as well as the parents ; and they counted and called them proselytes or discipled per sons, as well as they did the parents. Also, that if they bought, or found, or took in war any infants whom they intended to make proselytes or disciples in their religion, they did it by baptising them. For this see Introduction, §§ 1-5, 7.

This gives light for the understanding of our Saviour's commission : "Go and disciple all the nations, baptising them."3 Whereas before, only now and then one out of the neighbour nations had been made a disciple or proselyte, they were now all to be discipled ; and (since nothing is said to the contrary) in the same manner as those before had been.

2. That the Jews did use to call that their baptism by the name of regeneration, or a new birth. They told the proselyte, that how unclean, sinful, or accursed soever, he or his children were before, they were now by this baptism dedicated to the true God, entered into a new covenant with Him, put into a new state, and were in all respects as if they had been new born. Also, that the heathens before Christ's time had a custom of baptising; and that they also called it regeneration. See Introduction, § 6. Book, Pt. I. ch. iv. § u.

_ This gives light to our Saviour's expression, where He, after the Chris tian baptism now brought into use by John Baptist and Himself, tells Nicodemus, that to be "regenerated or born again of water and the Spirit " was absolutely necessary for any one's coming to the kingdom of God;4 and to St Paul's styling baptism, "the washing of regeneration." 5

3. That accordingly all the ancient Christians, not one man excepted, do take the word regeneration or new birth to signify baptism; and regenerate, baptised. And that our Saviour's said words to Nicodemus do so stand in the original, and are so understood by all the ancients, as to include all persons, men, women, or children, Pt. I. ch. ii. §§ 4, 5, 6 ; ch. iii. §§ 2-5 ; ch. iv. §§3, 6 ; ch. vi. § 13 ; ch. xi. § 2 ; ch. xii. § 8 ; ch. xin. § 2, and all the other chapters. Pt. II. ch. vi. § i, 7. And that by the kingdom of God there, is meant the kingdom of Glory, is proved from the plain words of the context, and from the sense of all ancient interpreters, Pt. II. ch. vi. § i.

4. The necessity of baptism to entrance into God's kingdom was a declared Christian d octrine before St John had recorded those words of our Saviour, Pt. I. ch. i. §§ 2, 3, 7.

5. Clement, in the Apostles' time, and Justin Martyr, about forty years

2 Npm. xv. 16. 3 Matt- xxviii- ,9>

John m. 3, 5- * Tit. iii. v.

Evidence for Infants' Baptism. 261

after, do speak of original sin as affecting infants, Pt. I. ch. i. § i ; ch. ii. § i. And Justin Martyr does speak of baptism as being to us instead of circumcision, Pt. I. ch. ii. § 2. So also does St Cyprian, Pt. I. ch. vi. § i; and Nazianzen, Pt. I. ch. xi. § 7; and St Basil, ch. xii. § 5; and St Chrysostom, ch. xiv. § i ; and St Austin, ibid. ; the three last expressly calling it in St Paul's phrase, the " Circumcision done without hands ; " and St Cyprian, the " Spiritual circumcision." Origen also says that Christ " gave us circumcision by baptism," Horn. 5 in Jos.

6. Irenseus, born about the time of St John's death, and probably of Christian parents, is proved particularly to use the word regenerating for baptising ; and he mentions infants as being ordinarily regenerated, ch. iii. §§ 2-5. And Justin Martyr before him speaks of infants as being made disciples to Christ, Pt. I. ch. ii. § 7.

7. Origen, Ambrose, and Austin do each of them expressly affirm that baptising infants was ordered by the Apostles and practised in their time, Pt. I. ch. v. § 3 ; ch. xiii. § i ; ch. xv. sect. 4, § 3, and sect. 6, § 2. And Ambrose speaks of it as a thing taken for granted that John the Baptist baptised infants, Pt. I. ch. xiii. § i . Of these Origen had both his father and grandfather, Christians ; and he himself was born but eighty-six years after the Apostles ; so that probably his grandfather was born within the Apostles' time, or at least very nigh it, Pt. I. ch. v. § 9.

8. Tertullian, though he give his opinion inconstantly, and do at one place advise the delay of infants' baptism, yet at the same place speaks of it as a thing customarily received, Pt. I. ch. iv. §§ 3, 4, 5, 9, where he also makes baptism absolutely necessary to salvation.

9. That place of Scripture, i Cor. vii. 14, " Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy " [or, sanctified], is interpreted of their baptism as then given, or to be given before they can actually be reckoned holy, by Tertullian, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 12 ; St Hierom, Pt. I. ch. xviii. § 4 ; Paulinus, ibid. ; St Austin, Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 2 ; Pelagius, ch'. xix. § 19. And that"Ay/o/ 'holy' [or, saints, or sanctified, or Chris tians] is as much as to say, "baptised," Pt. I. ch. xi. § ii ; ch. vi. § i.

10. In St Cyprian's time, a question being put among sixty-six bishops, whether an infant must be kept till eight days old before he be baptised ; not one was of that opinion, Pt. I. ch. vi. § i. And to put the rest together, the words of the Council of Eliberis, Pt. I. ch. vii. Of Optatus, ch. ix. § 2. Of Gregory Nazianzen, ch. xi. §§ 2, 4, 6, 7. Of St Ambrose, ch. xiii. §§ i, 2. Of St Chrysostom, ch. xiv. §§ i, 3, 5. Of St Hierom, ch. xv. § j ; ch. xix. § 26. Of St Austin, ch. \v.,per totum. Of Bonifacius, ibid., sect. 5, § 4. More of St Austin, ch. xix. and xx. per Mum. Of a Council of Carthage, ch. xvi. §§ 3, 4, 5, 6. Of a Council of Hippo, ibid., § 5. Of Siricius, ch. xvii. §§ 3, 6. Of Inno- centius, ch. xvii. §§ 7, 8; ch. xix. § 28. Of Paulinus, ch. xviii. §§ i, 3. Of another Paulinus, ibid., § 6. Of Celestius, ch. xix. §§ 5, 31, 35, 36.

262 The History of Infant Baptism.

Of Pelagius, ch. xix. §§ 29, 30. Of Zosimus, ibid., § 33. Of the Council of Milevis, ibid., § 28. Of another Council of Carthage, ibid. And of another, ch. xix. § 37. Of Vincentius Victor, ch. xx. $ 2, 3, 4, 5. Of Julian, ch. xix. § 38. Of Theodorus, ibid., § 39. Of Pseudo-Clement, ch. xxiii. § i. Of Pseudo-Dionysius, ibid., § 2. Of the author of the Questions ad Orthodoxos, ibid., § 3. Of the author of the Questions ad Antiochum, ibid. The words of these and of all the rest here cited, do show that infants were baptised in their times, and that without con troversy. There is not one man of them that pleads for it, or goes about to prove it, as a thing denied by anyone, save that the Pseudo- Dionysius answers the objections that the heathens made against it ; which are much the same that the antipaedobaptists have made since.

n. St Austin mentions it among the things that "have not been instituted by any Council, but have been ever in use." And says, "The whole Church of Christ has constantly held that infants are baptised for forgiveness of sin." And that "he! never read or heard of any Christian, Catholic, or Sectary, that held otherwise." And expressly says: " That no Christian man of any sort \nullus Christianoruni\ ever denied it to be useful or necessary." Meaning of those that allow any baptism at all, Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 4, § 3 ; sect. 6, § 2 ; ch. xix. § 7, it. 1 7.

12. The Pelagians, who denied that infants have any need of for giveness of sin, and were most of all pressed with that argument : "Why are they then baptised?" did never offer to deny that they are to be baptised, but do expressly grant that they have ever been wont to be baptised ; and that no Christian, no not even any sectary, did ever deny it, Pt. I. ch. xix. §§ 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, &c., ad 40. Pt. II. ch. iv. §§ i, 3.

13. And for the other heretics of these times; there appears not (by examining the many varieties of opinions that they held) any sign that any of them that used any baptism at all, denied it to infants, Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 4, § 4 ; ch. xvi. §§ i, 2 ; ch. xxi. §§ i, 4.

14. It is held by all these ancient Christians, that no children dying unbaptised can come to the Kingdom of Heaven, Pt. I. ch. iv. §§ 3, 6, 7, 8 ; ch. vi. §§ 9, 13, 14 ; ch. xi. §§ 6, 7; ch. xii. § 5 ; ch. xiii. § 2 ; ch. xiv. § 2 ; ch. xv. sect. 3, § 2 ; ch. xvi. §§ 3, 4, 5, 6 ; ch. xviii. §§ 4, 5 ; ch. xix. §§ 24, 28 ; ch. xx. § 6 ; ch. xxiii. § 3. Pt. II. ch. vi. §§ 4, 5, 6. St Austin in the last of these places, says : there was in this matter

Christianorum populorum concordissima fidei conspiratio," ' The most uniform consent of all Christian people [or nations].' And that the Pelagians themselves were overswayed by it, and owned it to be true.

Vincentius Victor was the only man that is known to affirm the con trary. He maintained once, that by God's extraordinary mercy and the prayers of the Church this might be obtained, but lie also recanted,

Evidence for Infants' Baptism. 263

ch. xx. §§ 3, 4, 5, yet they all grant that infants so dying have little or (as some say) no punishment.

But they hold, nemine contradicente, that all baptised infants, dying in infancy, are glorified, Pt. I. ch. vi. § 9; ch. xi. §§ 6, 7 ; ch. xv. sect. 3, S 2 ; it. sect. 5, § 6. Pt. II. ch. vi. § 9.

. 15. They do accordingly speak of it as a great sin in parents, or others that have opportunity, to suffer any child under- their care, or any other person, to die unbaptised, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 4 ; ch. vi. §§ i, 9 ; ch. xv. sect, i ; ch. xvii. § 3. Pt. II. ch. iii. sect. vi. § 7. And they represent it as great piety and compassion in those that procure an infant that has been exposed in the streets by an unnatural mother, to be baptised, Pt. II. ch. vi. 9. And when for the more orderly administration of baptism they enact that none shall be baptised but at certain times of the year, they always except infants and sickly persons, Pt. I. ch. xvii. § 3, for which reason also, many of them allow a layman to baptise in case of necessity, Pt. I. ch. iv. 4.

1 6. They show that they have considered those reasons which the antipaedobaptists do now make use of as objections against the baptising of infants, as that they have no sense, no faith, no actual sin, &c., and yet do not count them sufficient reasons to forbear the baptising them, Pt. I. ch. xiv. § 3 ; ch. xv. sect. 3, it. sect. 5, §§ i, 4, 9 ; ch. xix. § 18.

17. The use of godfathers in infants' baptism is proved to have been the custom of the Jews in baptising the infants of proselytes, Introduct §§ 3, 4, and of Christians afterwards, by quotations from the year after the Apostles 100, and all along this period, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 9 ; ch. xv. sect. 4, § 3 ; it. sect. 5, §§ 3, 4, 5 ; ch. xix. § 7 ; ch. xxii. ; ch. xxiii. § 2. Pt. II. ch. ix. §§ 9, 14.

1 8. This also makes one evidence; that the proofs which some of the antipaedobaptists have, after their best search, pretended to bring of any Church or any sect of Christians in these elder times, that did not baptise infants, are found to be falsely recited, or mistaken, or not to the purpose, Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 4, §§ 3, 4. Pt. II. ch. i. §§ 2, 3, 4, 5 ; ch- "'• § T5 ; 9h- iv. §§ i, 2, 3.

And even the instances of particular men whom they would prove to have been born of Christian parents, and yet not baptised in infancy, do all (or at least all but one) fail of any tolerable proof, Pt. II. ch. iii. per totum.

19. The sense of all modern learned men that do read these ancient books, except those few specified, is, that these books do give clear proof that infant baptism was customary in the times of those authors, and from the Apostles' time, Pt. II. ch. ii. §§ i, 16. There are but three or four that think otherwise. And Menno himself, the Father of the present antipaedobaptists, granted this to be true, Pt. II. ch. viii. § 5.

20. Lastly. As these evidences are for the first four hundred years,

264 The History of Infant Baptism,

in which there appears only one man, Tertullian, that advised the delay of infant baptism in some cases, and one Gregory that did perhaps practise such delay in the case of his children ; but no society of men so thinking, or so practising ; nor no one man saying it was unlawful to baptise infants — so in the next seven hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be found that either spoke for, or practised any such delay. But all the contrary, Pt. I. ch. xxii. per tot. Pt. II. ch. vii. § i.

And when about the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses declared against the baptising of infants, as being incapable of salva tion; the main body of that people rejected that their opinion, and they of them that held that opinion quickly dwindled away, and dis appeared; there being no more heard of holding the tenet till the rising of the German antipaedobaptists, A.D. 1522. Pt. II. ch. vii. §§ 2, 3, 4, &c.

And that all the National Churches now in the world do profess and practise infant baptism, Pt. II. ch. viii. §§ i, 2, 3.

§ 2. The reasons and evidences for the other side ought to be divided into two sorts. For there are some of them, which really have all the force that they seem to have ; but some others of them, must indeed pass for reasons, or for good evidence, to one that understands only the vulgar translation of the Scripture, and only the present state of the nations of the world, and of religion ; but do lose their force, when one searches into the originals of the Scripture, or when one compre hends the history of the state of religion in the world, at that time when the books of the New Testament, or the books of the ancient Christians were written.

I will first sum up that evidence which I take to be ot the first sort

i. It does not appear that the Jewish baptism of infants in our Saviour's time (according to which the paedobaptists suppose the Apostles were to regulate theirs, in all things not otherwise directed by our Saviour) was in all respects like to that which the Christian paedo baptists do practise. For the Jews seem to have baptised the infants of such only as were proselyted, or made disciples out of the heathen nations, and infants taken in war, found, bought, &c. But not their own infants. They thought their own infants to be clean without it ; clean by their birth, being of a nation which had been once universally sanctified by baptism, Introduct., § 3.

^ This, supposing it to have some weight against infant baptism, as the Christians do practise it, yet does not make for the antipsedobaptists' practice neither. For they (as well as the psedobaptists) do hold that all persons are now to be baptised at some age or other (persons born of Christian parents as well as those that are born of heathens). Which being granted, the example of the Jewish baptism directs it to be done

Evidence against Infants' Baptism. 265

in infancy ; for all whom the Jews baptised at all, they baptised in infancy, if they had then the power of them. And besides, the excep tion of Jews or Jews' children from the obligation to baptism was understood by themselves to be a thing that was to continue only till the coming of the Christ, or of the Elias, Introduct., §§ 3, 5, et ult. Since which time the Jews are, as to matter of baptism, brought to the same state as Gentiles. Which does take off all the force of this reason or evidence.

2. As to the argument taken from the practice of the ancient Chris tians, considered in general, it is some weakening of the force of it, that some of those ancients who baptised infants did also give them the communion ; some, I say, but not very many, and those, none of the most ancient, Pt. II. ch. ix. §§ 15, 16, 17. Now, though a man's error in one thing does not necessarily prove that he errs in another ; yet when it is in relation to the same subject, it gives some abatement to his authority. And though it be to this day controverted between the Eastern and Western Christians, whether this be an error or not ; yet the pasdobaptists of these parts of the world must, in their pleas against the antipaedobaptists, yield it to be an error, because they themselves do not use it. And so it is (for as far as its force reaches) argumentum ad hominem at least.

3. As to particular men among the ancients, Tertullian advises the delay of infant baptism (in ordinary cases where there is no apparent danger of death) till they come to the age of understanding, and then farther, till they are married, or else by their age are past the danger of lust, Pt. I. ch. iv. §§ i, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

As for any value that is to be put upon Tertullian's judgment or opinion, as a single man, I ought to have put this among the second sort of evidence, which is of little or no force with such as do under stand the history of that time, because all that do so, do know that he was accounted (both in his own time, and also by those who after his death spoke of him, or his works) a man of odd, rash, singular, and heterodox tenets in many other things, and that in the latter part of his life he turned (as men of that temper commonly do) a downright heretic in some fundamental points of the faith, Pt. I. ch. iv. §§ i, 13. So that his opinion or judgment was never esteemed of any value.

And for his testimony as a witness of the then practice, his speaking against infant baptism is as good evidence that it was then customary, as theirs that mention it with approbation.

But this I think has some weight, that if Tertullian had known of any such tradition or order left by the Apostles, as Origen, who lived at the same time, speaks of, to baptise infants, he, as heady as he was, would not then have spoken against the doing of it, especially if the

266 The History of Infant Baptism.

book where he does this was written (as Dr Allix judges it was) while he continued in the Catholic Church.

This, therefore, may be concluded, that either there was no good account of such a tradition, or else that Tertullian had never heard of it. Which last is not at all improbable, for Origen, living most of his time in Palestine, where the Apostles had much and long conversed, and being born of Christian ancestors in Egypt not far off, might very well have good proof of an order left by the Apostles, and sure footsteps of their practice, of which Tertullian, born of heathen parents, and living at Carthage (a place where no Apostle ever came, nor nigh it by a great distance), might at that time have heard nothing.

However it be, the antipaedobaptists must make much of this man. For he is the only one of all the ancients that had this opinion. So says M. du Pin,6 who has with the greatest accuracy searched their works, and with the greatest fidelity reported them ; he in reciting this passage of Tertullian observes, " One finds no other writer in all anti quity that speaks at this rate." And so the Magdeburgenses, "Ter tullian by a strange opinion holds," 7 &c.

4. But though there be never another that advises such a delay of baptism, yet there was one that lived about one hundred and thirty years after that time in another part of the world, that practised such a delay, viz., Gregory, the father of Gregory Nazianzen. He seems to have suffered all his children, even those that were born to him after his baptism, to grow up to a full age without baptising them. This matter of fact is discussed with the evidence pro and contra, Pt. II. ch. iii. sect. 6, §§ 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And the verdict upon it (as I for my part have yielded it) is that he did do so.

As Tertullian's character was, that he was learned and ingenious, but hot and heady, so this man seems on the other side to have been ignorant and of mean capacities. Only his son indeed does, as duty required, speak honourably of him.

If he had been a man much spoken of, it would have made a better argument (than his practice now does) that leaving children unbaptised was no unusual thing, because his doing so is not mentioned with any cen sure or wonder by any author of that time. But as he was a man little regarded, and placed in an obscure and remote corner, and never men tioned but only by the writers of his son's life (who lived six hundred years after) this cannot be expected. There is in elder times no mention of his name at all, but what we have from his son, and had it not been for him, it would not have been known that such a place as Nazianzum, or such a bishop of it as this elder Gregory, had ever been. And it was not for the son to reflect on any faults or neglects of his father. He

« Bibl. Nouv., vol. i. De Tertulliano.

7 Cent. 3, c. iv. Inclinatio Doctrine cle Baptismo.

Evidence against Infants Baptism. 267

does do that, as far as could be seemly for him, when he admonishes his people against any such neglect. Of which admonitions of his I give several instances in Pt. I. ch. xi. §§ 2, 4, 6, 7. In one of them, in deed, he does (perhaps out of some compliance to his father's practice) advise, that if there appear no danger of the child's death, the baptism should be delayed till he be about three years old. But that helps this cause but little, both because a child at three years old is as incapable of receiving baptism upon his personal profession as a mere infant, and also because he at other places urges the speedy administering of it in general ; and so he does at this place, if any danger of death do appear.

This evidence, therefore, of Gregory's father, as I would not omit it (let it have what weight it will bear), so I cannot reckon it to have any great force, being but one man's practice, and that of a man of little judgment or credit.

5. That argument for the universal consent of antiquity in baptising infants, which is taken from the declaration of St Austin [that he never read or heard of any Christian, Catholic, or sectary that denied that infants are baptised for forgiveness of sin] and from the grant of Pelagius [that he also never heard of any that denied that they are to be bap tised]. That argument, I say, is something weakened by this, that Tertullian, two hundred years before their time, is found to have spoken against it, at least as ordinarily practised.

What must be concluded from hence is, that neither St Austin nor Pelagius had ever seen Tertullian's book De Baptismo. As I have observed, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 13. And that from hence forward, that rule must proceed with an exception of one man, viz., Tertullian.

6. The Petrobrusians, one of those societies of men that have been since called Waldenses, withdrawing themselves about the year uoo from the communion of the Church of Rome, which was then very corrupt, did reckon infant baptism as one of the corruptions, and accordingly renounced it, and practised only adult baptism, Pt. II. ch.

vii. §§ 5> 6> 7:

An exception that abates in great measure the force of the evidence from these men's practice is this, that (besides that they were very late and very few) they did what they did on this principle, that no infant, baptised or not, can come to heaven, which is by both the parties now acknowledged to be a great and uncharitable error.

These evidences, how .much or how little soever they weigh, or avail towards the determining the point, are however to be reckoned among true ones ; that is, they are true, and not mistaken matters of fact.

§ 3. But there is, as I said, another sort of evidences and reasons against infant baptism, which are apt to weigh much with one that un-

268 The History of Infant Baptism.

derstands not the state of the times spoken of, and can read only the vulgar translation of the Scripture, and such a man cannot much be blamed for taking them as good reason or evidence ; but they lose their force with anyone that is not under those disadvantages. And such I reckon these following.

i. There are several ancient books that say nothing at all about infant baptism, neither for it nor against it. And it is wonder, say some antipaedobaptists, if it were common in those times, that these as well as others should not mention it.

A pompous recital of the names of these makes an unlearned anti- paedobaptist think that they are so many authors on his side. But any one that understands how the ancient Christian writers were mostly employed, viz., in defending the truth and innocence of their religion against the objections and slanders of heathens and Jews, in encourag ing the persecuted people to bear with faith and patience the obloquy and sufferings they lay under, &c. Such a man, instead of wondering that there are no more, will wonder there are so many, that do happen in such their writings to mention so particular a thing as the baptising of children. Especially since, in the primitive times, there was no con troversy started about that point. Now that it is become a controversy; yet let any man go into a bookseller's shop and take down ten books at all adventures, and he will find above half of them to be such as have no mention pro nor contra about infant baptism, because they are written on such subjects as give no occasion for it. It is the nature of a man whose head is hot with any controversy, to wonder he does not find something about that in every book and chapter he reads.

Mr Tombs made a plea of this, but he was too candid a disputant to lay much stress on it. He takes notice of five authors that have nothing about it. Mr Stennet takes two of his, and reckons up six more, who, he says, have nothing of it.8 I gave reasons, I hope, satisfactory enough why in Mr Tombs' authors no mention of such a thing could be ex pected, Pt. I. ch. xxi. §§ 4, 5. And the same are applicable to those produced by Mr Stennet, save that he reckons Irenaeus for one, who, as I show, Pt. I. ch. iii., speaks plainly enough of it. And also I have shown, Pt. I. ch. i. and ii., that three more of them, Clemens Romanus, Hermas, and Justin Martyr, though not speaking directly of it, do mention things from whence inferences may be drawn for the proof of it.

The very same remark, I think, ought to be made upon that objection against infant baptism which the antipsedobaptists do much insist on, viz., that St Luke, in reciting the lives and acts of the Apostles, does not mention any infants baptised by them. Whoever observes the tenor of that history, and considers the state of those times, will perceive that St Luke's aim is to give a summary account 9 Answ. to Russen, p. 68.

Evidence tJiat seems to make against Infant Baptism. 269

of the main and principal passages of their lives, and of those passages especially in which they found the greatest opposition. And in such a history (which is but short in all) who can look for an account of what children they baptised? Suppose that the life and actions of some renowned and laborious modern bishop or doctor were to be written (say of Bishop Ussher, Stillingfleet, &c.), and that, in a volume ten times as long as the book of the Acts of the Apostles, who ' will expect to find there any account of what children they christened ? And yet there is no doubt but they did christen hundreds, or (if we take in what was done by ministers deputed to them) thousands. The main business of an Apostle was to preach, convert, attest the truth of Christ's resurrection, miracles, &c., and not to baptise, as St Paul says.9 The baptising of such as the Apostles had convinced, and especially of their children, would of course be left to deputies. Yet of the six baptisms (which are all that St Paul is mentioned to have been concerned in) three were the baptisms of whole households : 10 such a one and all his. And that is as much as can reasonably be expected of so minute a circumstance.

2. Irenseus, who is the eldest of the Fathers in whom the pasdo- baptists have as yet found any positive mention of infants as baptised, does not at that place use the word itself, baptised, but the word regenerated, or born again, Pt. I. ch. iii. § 2.

This may invalidate his testimony with one that knows of no other sense of that word than what is common in modern English books. But any man that has been at all conversant in the Fathers, or that has read but those passages of them that are in this my collection, or but even those to which I referred just now at n. 3, and at n. 5 of the evidences for infant baptism, will be satisfied that they as constantly meant baptised, by the word regenerated, or born again, as we do mean the same by the word christened.

To be satisfied of this (and I do assure anyone that will search, that he shall not miss of satisfaction) is very well worth a pgedobaptist's while. For the testimonies of Irenseus and of Justin Martyr so near the times of the Apostles are preferable for their antiquity to the testi mony of any three or four others.

3. St Basil in a certain sermon speaks so as plainly to suppose that a great part of his auditory was made up of such as had been instructed in Christian religion from their infancy, and yet not baptised, Pt. I. ch. xii. §§ 2, 3.

I have reason to reckon this among the evidences that may appear to people of little reading, and to such as have but a shallow and super ficial knowledge of the state of the ancient times, to have a great weight against the belief of any general practice of infants' baptism at that Cor. i. 17. 10 Acts xvi. 15, 35; i Cor. i. 16.

270 The History of Infant Baptism.

time, because it had such an effect upon myself. I thought, upon the first reading of this place, nothing could be a plainer proof that the Christians then did not commonly baptise their children in infancy, than this evidence of a church full of people, a considerable part of whom had been catechised from their infancy, and were not yet baptised. Such a number of heathen converts had been easily to be accounted for, but these seemed born of Christian parents, because he says : "From a child catechised in the word."

But all this argument lost its force with me, when by farther reading I perceived (and wondered at myself afterwards, as is common, why I had not perceived before) that which I show in the same chapter, and also Pt. II. ch. iii. sect, i, to have been the state of the world as to religion at that time, viz., that beside those that were heathens on one side, and those that were professed or baptised Christians on the other, there was a vast number of a middle sort, half converts, heathen men converted thus far, that they were convinced that Christianity was the true religion, and that they must be baptised into it sometime or other, but not being willing as yet to abandon their lusts, they put it off from time to time. These men did, as many wicked men do now, instruct their children in the godly precepts of religion, but they could not offer them to baptism till they were baptised themselves. And those that St Basil speaks to, had been the children of such men.

We see a woeful example in our churches of a much like nature. Many wicked men do at times resolve to become serious sometime or other, and then they think they will come to the Holy Communion and engage themselves to a godly life. They put off this from time to time, many times till death seizes them. These men, if they had been born of heathens and not yet baptised, but yet had come to the knowledge of Christianity, would put off their baptism as they now do the other sacrament ; much at the rate as the fathers of those to whom St Basil preaches had done their baptism, and as he complains the sons also, to whom he preaches, did. And as we see now, that nigh half the world of nominal Christians are such procrastinators ; so there seems to have been not a much less proportion among the catechumens then. And as the Fathers do speak of those who were during this dilatory course seized with death, as lost men ; so I doubt it is but poor com fort that we can give to men so seized, that have for like reasons all their life long put off the receiving the communion, viz., because they would not yet. repent.

But still this state of religion in St Basil's time does not prove that any who were once baptised themselves, did delay or put off the baptis ing of their children.

4. Some arguments against infants' baptism have all their strength from that imperfect conception of things which arises from one's read-

Evidence that seems to make against Infant Baptism. 271

ing only the vulgar translations of Scripture ; and do vanish when one consults the originals. That commission of our Saviour to the Apostles, Matt. xxyiii. 19, which is in the English: "Go and teach all nations; baptising them," &c., " teaching them to observe," &c., as it affords on one side this argument for psedobaptism : " Infants are part of the nations, and so to be baptised by this commission ; " so on the other side it gives occasion to the antipsedobaptists to retort, and say, "Infants are such a part of the nation as are not capable of being taught : and so not to be baptised."

But the word which is translared teach, in the first of those clauses, has a peculiar signification in the original, and is not the same word as that which is translated teaching, in the second : but signifies much like what we say in English, to enter anyone's name as a scholar, disciple, or proselyte to such a master, school, or profession. Now the common language of the Jews (in which language it was that St Matthew wrote this Gospel), as it does not admit of this phrase, an infant is taught, or instructed '.• so it very well allows of this other : such or such an infant is entered a disciple, or, made a proselyte to such a profession or religion. And the Jews did commonly call a heathen man's infant, whom they had taken and circumcised and baptised, a young proselyte, as I showed in the Introduction. And St Peter, speaking against the imposing of circumcision on the heathen converts and their children, words it thus : " To put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples ;" whereas it was infants especially on whom this yoke was attempted to be put, Acts xv. 10. And St Justin expressly mentions infants as made disciples in the very same word that is used by St Matthew in that place.

Another thing that causes in vulgar people a prejudice in understand ing those words of our Saviour, is this : a man that cannot read books is apt to form all his notions of things by what he sees in his own time and country. So an illiterate man (in England, for example) hearing of the Apostles being sent into the nations to disciple and baptise them, he imagines it like some preacher's coming into England as it is now, to preach and baptise the people. Now this notion naturally creates in . his mind a supposal that Christians did not baptise their children in infancy, because they are now to be baptised after they are taught. He does not animadvert to that difference which appears by conceiving all those nations to which the Apostles were sent, as heathens, who must be baptised after they were taught, having had no fathers to baptise them before. This idea looks gross, but one may perceive plain foot steps and traces of such conceptions among ignorant people in the tenor and chain of their discourse.

5. There has been an argument raised against infants' baptism, even from that text by which (among others) the Fathers did never fail to prove it. I mean from those words of our Saviour, John iii. 5, which

272 The History of Infant Baptism.

are in the English : " Except a man be born again of water," &c. They catch hold of the word man there, and say it is declared necessary for everyone after he is a man grown. I would not have any entipsedo- baptist that keeps a more refined conversation, think, that I feign or impose this on them. It is certainly true that some ignorant people in country places do not only urge this, but do say that it is inculcated to them by their teachers.

I shall not stand to show the mistake of this, having said more than so palpable a misunderstanding of the words as they are in the original can deserve, Ft. I. ch. vi. § 13 ; Pt. II. ch. vi. § i.

6. To enervate an argument taken out of Scripture for infant baptism is equivalent to the forming of one against it, and does as much tend to the excusing of any illiterate man, if the proofs which should have con vinced him that children are to be baptised, be eluded either by trans lations that give an imperfect sense, or by false interpretations, the false hood whereof he cannot perceive. I shall give three instances.

i. In that text, i Cor. vii. 14, which is rendered in English, "Now are your children holy." The word here translated holy is far more often in St Paul's Epistles translated saints ; and so almost all (not quite all) the ancients do understand St Paul here, as if he had said in English, Now are your children saints. They observe, moreover, that with St Paul this term, saints, is generally used as another word for Christians. As, To the saints at Ephesus, at Rome, &c., is as much as to say, To the Christians there. Therefore they take St Paul to mean, Now are your children Christians, that is to say, baptised. He persuades the believing wife not to go away, but to stay in hopes that she may con vert, or save, as he words it, he;- unbelieving husband : and that the rather, because it appeared that the grace of God did generally so far prevail against the infidelity of the other, that the children of such matches were baptised for the most part. This interpretation, or such as amounts to the like effect, I have shown to be the most current among the primitive Christians, in those places of the collection which . are referred to before, at no. 9 of the Evidences for Infant Baptism. And if it be allowed, there needs no more evidence for it from Scripture.

But what shall an unlearned man do that meets with this text ex pounded by new interpretations that do totally set aside that meaning, as holy, that is, not bastards, &c.

Methinks this should be plain ; that since the word ayioi is some times translated saints, and sometimes holy, there should even at those places where it is translated holy, be understood such a holiness as is something agreeable to the signification of the word saints, and not a new-made signification, in which neither St Paul nor any other Apostle, did ever use the word.

2. The words of that other text, John iii. 5, were always taken in one

Evidence tJiat seems to make against Infant Baptism. 273

fixed and undoubted sense and meaning, viz., to signify baptism. And that so known and supposed, that not only the words at length, born again of water, &c., but the word born again, or regenerated, alone was used as another word for baptised; and regeneration for baptism not only by all the Fathers of the first four hundred years, but I think fpr above a thousand years following. So here was a plain place of Scrip ture for baptising of all persons that should enter the Kingdom of God. But even this has been in great measure defeated by a new interpreta tion, much of the nature of that by which the Quakers do elude all those places that speak of the other sacrament. For as they, by the words bread, wine, eating, drinking, &c., do force themselves to mean some mystical or metaphorical thing ; as for bread, something else (internal bread, I think), and so of the rest. So the new interpreters of this place do by the word water here. In short, they have brought it to this : that the text does not signify baptism at all, nor anything about it. And the notion and ' signification of the words regenerate and re generation, is by degrees so altered in common speech, that he that reads them in any modern book does not know nor understand them again when he meets with them in any ancient one. From whence proceeds the wondering that some have made at St Austin, when reading occa sionally some chapter of him, they have found that he takes all that are baptised to be regenerate : thinking he means by regenerate the same that they do, viz., converted in heart, &c.

But at this rate of altering the sense of words, any text of Scripture whatever may be eluded. The most fundamental article of the New Testament, " I believe in Jesus Christ." It is but to make the words Jesus Christ in a new sense for the light within a man's self, and then if he believe in himself, he holds the article. Therefore, the words of Scripture, or of any old book, must be taken in that sense in which they were current at that time. Which because it is a thing that vulgar people, of whom I speak, cannot inquire into ; therefore I put this way of evading the force of this text among the answers to it that may pass with them ; but it appears vain to those that are acquainted with the old use of the word.

3. There is another interpretation yet by which the force of that text is evaded. And that is by such as do grant indeed that the words, born again of water, &c., are to be understood of baptism; but they say that by the Kingdom of God there, is to be understood, not the kingdom of glory hereafter in heaven, but the Church here, or the dis pensation of the Messiah. So that it is as much as to say, except anyone be baptised, he cannot enter into, or be a member of, the Church. I show, Part II., ch. vi. § i, n. 2, that this interpretation is plainly incon sistent with the context, and also that it avails not this cause if it were allowed.

274 The History of Infant Baptism.

These last mentioned reasons, evidences, and arguments, though I think them not justly pleadable against infant baptism, yet I thought it fair to set them down. Let every one pass his judgment. And if they have not any real weight in true arguing, yet the appearance of it, which they carry, does serve to make people pass the more favourable censure on those of the antipaedobaptists, who have no means of understanding the history of the ancient times, and can read only the vulgar trans lations of Scripture, and do light only on such expositors as I have mentioned.

But this I must say, that any antipsedobaptist who, having better means of knowledge, is convinced that any of these arguments have really no force, and yet does urge them upon the more ignorant people, acts very disingenuously toward them, and is a prevaricator in the things of God. For to use any argument with an intent to deceive, hath in it (though there be no proposition uttered that is false in ter- minis) the nature of a lie : which as it is base and unmanly in human affairs, so it is impious when it is pretended to be for God, as Job says, ch. xiii. 7.

CHAPTER XL

A DISSUASIVE FROM SEPARATION ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT THE AGE OR TIME OF RECEIVING BAPTISM.

§ i. T T THAT I have to say in this last chapter I have kept as a V V reserve : that in case people cannot be brought to be of one opinion in this question ; yet they may avoid that which is now adays made a common consequence of the difference in sentiments about it, and is far more dangerous to the soul's health than the mistake itself is : I mean the renouncing of one another's communion in all other parts of the Christian worship. Whosoever could prevail on them to relinquish this humour of dividing, would do a most acceptable piece of service to the Christian religion and the salvation of their souls.

For our blessed Saviour, who does easily pardon involuntary errors and mistakes, and forbids His members to despise or reject one another for them, does impute a heavy guilt to those that go about to break or divide the unity of His body.

I had thought once to insert here a discourse of the great sin and mischief of schism ; but having been too long already, and that being a subject which requires, and has had, just tracts written on it, I shall content myself with reciting briefly a few plain proofs of the stress which God, in Scripture, lays upon our endeavouring to keep the

A Dissuasive from Schism. 275

unify of the Spirit (i.e., a spiritual or religious unity, and not only living quietly near one another) in the bond of peace, notwithstanding differences in opinions.

i. There is no one thing that is often er, nor so often, commanded, inculcated, entreated, and prayed for, by our Saviour and His Apostles, than that all Christians should be one, and as members of the same body. And on the other side, no sin that is more severely forbidden, represented as more mischievous, nor more terribly threatened, than divisions, schisms, separations, and whatsoever breaks the said unity. St Paul does not only reckon such things as undoubted signs of a carnal mind (i Cor. iii. 3, 4), but also when he gives a roll or catalogue of the sins which are certainly damning, " which they that practise, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God" (Gal. v. 19, 20, 21), such as adultery, drunkenness, &c., he reckons amongst the rest srdasn; xa/ aipi- asig, which we render seditions, heresies, which are the names which he commonly gives to divisions. Since his time indeed the latter of those words has been used to denote false doctrines in the fundamentals of faith, but he never means anything else by it, but parties, factions, sects, or divisions. One plain instance in what sense he takes it, is in i Cor. xi. 1 8, 19, where what are called divisions in one verse, are called heresies in the other. Let anyone read this text for the meaning of the word, and then let him turn back again to Gal. v. 19, where adultery, murder, and heresies are declared subject to the same condemnation of exclusion from God's kingdom.

The sinfulness of schism is so plainly, fully, and frequently set forth by our Saviour and His apostles, that there are no Christian writers or teachers of any Church whatever, but what do, if they are required to speak, own that it is in its nature a mortal sin ; even the leaders of schismatical congregations dare not deny it. If they did, they would be convicted of denying plain Scripture. But as Bishop Tillotson does somewhere observe of the Popish preachers, that though they do own in their writings and disputes with the Protestants, that repentance and amendment of life are necessary to the forgiveness of sins, yet in their discourses to their people they say so much of confession to a priest, &c., and so little of amendment of life, that the people think all of the one, and little of the other : so there are several teachers who among all the sins that they forewarn their people of, do so seldom preach against schism and division, so seldom quote those places of Scripture that set forth the guilt of it ; and when they do, do touch that point so tenderly, that the people, if they do not trust their own eyes in reading God's word, and taking it all together, are apt to forget that schism is any sin at all : or at most, they conceive of it as of a little one. All the Christians near our Saviour's time had a quitej contrary sentiment. They, when they gathered up into one short draught or creed the most

2/6 The History of Infant Baptism.

fundamental and necessary truths that they were to hold, put in this for one, " I believe the holy Catholic Church, and the communion of saints," i.e., I own the Universal Church, and that all Christians in it ought to hold communion one with another. For the word saints is in Scripture and all other old Christian books used as another word for Christians; and the communion of saints means nothing else in the creed but the communion of Christians. He, then, that believes other things to be duties, and this to be none, ought, when he repeats the creed, to say, I believe all the rest of it, but I do not own the communion of saints as any article of Christian faith.

§ 2. 2. Whereas the sinfulness of schism in general will not bear a dispute ; but all people that separate, do, if they be forced to speak, own, as I said, schism to be a great sin ; but do say withal that their separation is not 'schism in the Scripture sense, because the Church from which they have separated is such as from which one ought to separate, and whereas the reason that is usually given of the necessity of a separation of one from another, is, that one party holds tenets and opinions which the other cannot assent to, or administers some of the divine offices in such ways as the other does not approve, but takes the opinions to be errors, and the said administrations to be grounded on those errors ; the thing to be inquired is, whether these opinions which are judged to be errors, be such as do overthrow the foundation of Christian faith. For if they be such, the plea must be allowed. False doctrines in the fundamentals of religion do put a bar to our communion with those that teach them.

But if they be not such, we have a plain direction and order from St Paul to bear with one another, to receive one another to communion notwithstanding differences in them, and not to judge or despise one another for them. He has a discourse purposely on this subject. It begins Rom. xiv. i. He continues it through all that chapter, and to verse 8 of the next. He instances in men holding contrary sides in the disputes which troubled the Church at that time. He both begins and ends that discourse with a positive command that they receive one another notwithstanding them; and he plainly means (as whoever reads the whole place will observe) to communion as brethren ; and not only to live in peace and quietness with one another, which last they were to do with the heathens their neighbours.

He orders those of them that were positive, and sure that their opinion was the right, to content themselves with $&& full persuasion of their own mind, and to take it for granted that they are not bound to bring all the rest over to their opinion ; nor yet to forsake their com munion if they will not so be brought, verse 22, " Hast though faith" (faith here signifies that full persuasion of mind mentioned before at verse 5) " have it to thyself before God." He would have them be so

Differences in Opinions consist with Communion. 277

modest as to think at the same time that others as good as they might yet continue of the other opinion.

He shows, ch. xv. v. 5, 6, that they may, notwithstanding these dif ferences, " with one mind and one mouth glorify God." And whereas he prays there that they may be (as we translate it English) like-minded one, toward another ; those phrases of like-minded, and one mind, do not import that they that thus join in glorifying God, must of necessity be all of one opinion in disputable matters : for it has been all along his scope to show that they might well enough do that, though each did keep his several opinion in those things. But those phrases denote only that they should do it unanimously (which is the proper rendering of the word o/jko6u/jutdi>f, and that which St Paul generally means by the word, aw ppovtTv, as Bishop Stillingfleet has shown J by instances). And they might be unanimous in glorifying God, though they were not all of a mind as to meat, days, &c., since in the main matters they were all of a mind.

And though St Paul there do instance only in the disputes about meats and drinks, and days, &c., yet the tenor of his discourse and the reasons he gives against separating for them, do reach to all differences that are not fundamental. For that which he says, " The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness," &c., is applicable to any opinions that are not of the foundation : the Kingdom of God, or substance of religion, does not consist in such things. And as he says, " For meat destroy not the work of God," we may say of such opinions, Do not, for such things destroy that unity which Christ has made so essential to His Church. But it is otherwise of the funda mental articles of our faith, for in them the Kingdom of God does con sist. If anyone do hold or practise idolatry or the worship of any but the true God, or do deny the divinity of Christ or His death for our sins, or the necessity of repentance and a good life, or the belief of the resur rection and judgment to come, the Apostle would never have bid us receive such, or hold communion with them.

But there are, besides those that hold such doctrines pernicious to the foundation, abundance of Christians that hold the same faith in all fundamental points, who do yet live in divisions and separation, disown ing and renouncing one another's communion. It is pity but these should be reduced to the unity which Christ's body requires.

Now there is no other way in the world to effect this, but only that which the Apostle here prescribes, viz., that they receive one another notwithstanding the different opinions they may hold about lesser matters. There have other ways been tried, ways of human policy, but all with wretched success. They have been tried with so much obstinacy, as almost to ruin the Church.

1 Unreasonableness of Separation, Ft. II. sect. 19.

278

The History of Infant Baptism.

The Church of Rome has tried to reduce all men to unity by forcing them to be all of one opinion, and to submit their judgments to her dictates ; some of which are things which the Scripure teaches not, and some directly contrary to it. They use to this purpose, first, disputa tions ; and when that will not do, then fire and faggot, or other cruel ties. We have lived to see what tyrannous, unchristian, and bloody work a neighbour prince has made to bring all his subjects to be of one religion (as he calls it), that is, all of one opinion in all things delivered by that Church, which has been far from limiting herself to fundamental articles. And we have seen the event : he has made some hypocrites and apostates, who do upon all occasions show the regret of their con science ; some refugees, and some martyrs. This way, therefore, of bringing people to glorifying God unanimously, by drawing up a set of particular opinions, and forcing all men to subscribe to them, is no suc cessful way. It requires of men what God in Scripture never requires. It has filled the world with blood and enmity, and has made Chris tendom a shambles. St Paul, with all his Apostolical authority, does not, we see, require it ; but says, In such things let each be fully per suaded in his own mind (meaning, till one by reason do convince the other, or be convinced by him), and in the meantime receive and own one another as brethren.

Another way that has been tried is quite on the contrary, and runs to the other extreme. It is this. They that are of different opinions in these lesser matters, say thus : We will not receive each other at all, i.e., not to any Christian communion ; and yet we will obtain the end that St Paul would have, viz., the setting forth the glory of God by another way as good. Since we are of this opinion, and you of that, do you make one Church of Christ, and we will make another ; we will own no Church communion with you, nor you with us ; we will neither receive you, nor desire to be received by you. And yet we will live in peace, and try which shall come to heaven soonest.

Now this is on the other side the most contrary to the nature and design of Christianity of anything that could be devised. For Christ, as He is but one head, never designed to have any more but one body. Here we see already two, totally distinct, for they receive not one another. And observe the consequence of such a principle. They continue but a very little while before that in each of these Churches some members differing from the rest in opinion about some new-started matter, make a subdivision, as necessary as the first division was. Then the Church which out of one became two, out of two is propagated to four ; and by the same reason, and by following on the same principle, there will quickly be forty. Nay, it is certain, and will be plain to any one that considers, that by driving that principle home of making sepa rate Churches of all different opinions, it will come to pass at last that

Not several Churches for several Opinions. 279

there will not be any two men of one Church. For if all things relating to religion were to be canvassed, there are not any two men in the world of the same mind in all things.

The fault therefore of this way is evident. They are in the right in supposing that there will always be variety of opinions ; and that it is in vain to think by any force to prevent it. But to think that the number of Churches must hold pace with the number of opinions, is a mistake of Wretched consequence. It makes Christ's Church, which should be •a compacted body, a rope of sand. It perpetuates for ever those strifes and janglings about opinions, which in one communion would quickly •cease : for each party when they have thus taken sides, will always strive to justify their own side. It is that which the ancient Christians call, '"the setting up altar against altar." It gives so advantageous a handle to the common enemy, that he desires no other, to ruin any Church that is so divided into parties. St Paul well apprehended the conse quence of such dividings, when he '2 besought the Corinthians by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they would not admit of any such method ; and when he entreated the Christians at Rome,3 that if any one among them did go about such a practice, the effect should be, that every one of them should avoid him. In a word, where Christianity is in this state, it is in the next degree to dissolution.

And whereas the proposers or defenders of this course do say : We may live in peace, though we do renounce one another's communion in religion. This is neither practicable for any long time, nor is it sufficient for a Christian's purpose. Not practicable : for as our Saviour has said, "a house so divided cannot stand; " so we see by experience the heart burnings and hatred, and emulations, and bitter zeal which the separate parties do always show one against another. Not sufficient : because Christ requires that all His disciples should be as brethren, and as limbs of the same body, which is more than outward peace and quietness. The heathen neighbour cities that worshipped several gods, would some times make a league of peace and say, Do you worship your god and we will worship ours, without meddling with one another's religion : but it is horrible so to divide Christ.

It remains therefore, that there is no other way to answer the design of Christ, than that Christians of the same faith do hold communion and receive one another, notwithstanding their various opinions. And if any one object against his joining with the established Church where he lives, that he is of one opinion, and they of another in many things : he needs only to mind, that this is the very case that St Paul was here speaking •of, when he bids them " receive one another." They that he speaks to, were likewise of different opinions ; and it was on occasion of such •difference that he gives them this command of not separating for them. - I Cor. i. 10. :! Rom. xvi. 17.

280 The History of Infant Baptism.

Before I go any farther, I shall observe two corollaries that do naturally follow from what has been said.

One is, that in far the greatest number of the divided Churches and parties that are in Christendom ; the sin, the mischief, and the danger to their souls does not consist so much in the tenets and opinions for which they differ, as in the divisions which they make for them, the separations, the mutual excommunications or renouncing of one another's communion. This I conceive to be so clear a truth, that whereas, if I had a friend or brother, or anyone for whose eternal good I were most concerned, that differed in some such opinions from the Church where he lived, and as I thought, from the truth ; and yet did resolve and declare (as the old English Puritans did) that he would make no disturbance or separation ; I should think it a thing of no great consequence whether ever his opinion were rectified or not : yet if I found that he were inclined to separate, I should think labour ought to be taken, as for his life, to hinder that.

The other is ; that those Churches which do impose, as terms of communion (I mean of lay communion), the fewest subscriptions, or indeed none at all, to any doctrines, beside the fundamental doctrines of Christian faith, have in that respect the best and most excellent constitution. It is fitted for the fulfilling of this command of the Apostle. To do otherwise, is to refuse what he here prescribes, of " receiving one that is weak in the faith." For supposing those doctrines to be true, yet he may think otherwise : and then he cannot be received without affirming what is in his conscience a falsehood. He is there fore rejected : and as far as that Church can go, lost. Whereas if he had been received without such a condition, he might either have learned better in time ; or if he had not, that error would not finally have much hurt him : for it is supposed to be no fundamental one. Nor would it have hurt the Church : for he is supposed to be one that desired to be received, and that would not have made any schism for it. I do not pretend to know the history of the constitutions of the many Churches that now are : but of all that I do know, the Church of England is in this respect the best constituted. That Church requires of a layman no declaration, subscription, or profession, but only of the baptismal covenant. Any person when he is baptised, must by himself if he be of age, by his sponsors if an infant, profess to renounce the devil and all wickedness, to believe the creed, and to keep God's com mandments. There is nothing required after this to his full communion, save that he learn, and answer to the questions of, a very short catechism ; of one clause whereof 1 must by-and-by say something. Nobody can- in other matters compel him to subscribe the opinions which the Church thinks truest, nor to recant those which he thinks truest.

§ 3. 3. The same that has been said of different opinions in doctrinal

TJie Division worse than the Error. 28 1

points not fundamental, may be applied to the several ways of ordering the public worship, prayers, administration of the sacraments, &c. Of which ways it does as naturally fall out that some do like one best, and some another ; as it does of the foresaid different opinions, that some think one true, and some the other. The same rule for avoiding of schism must therefore be applied here, as there : only with this difference ; of those opinions, there was no necessity that the man I spoke of should be required to assent to such as the generality thought the truest ; but here the nature of the thing requires that if he hold communion, he must join in the prayers and other service. I must divide the difficulties that may arise upon this into two cases.

One man does not apprehend anything sinful, unlawful, or erroneous in any of the prayers or service ; but yet he likes some other cere monies, orders, and ways of worship that are used in some other nations or Churches, better than he does those of his own. And there fore he holds it lawful, and useful for spiritual advancement, to gather together a number of men of a like taste and relish with himself, and make a separate body by themselves.

This man has but a very little and slight sense of the sin of schism — scandalously little. Either he has not read what the Scripture says of it, or else dulness or prejudice has taken off the edge of his appre hension, so as that he felt nothing at the reading of those earnest and moving passages of our Saviour and the Apostles on that subject. To confess the orders and services of a Church to be lawful, and to join in them perhaps some times ; and yet to foment the mischief of schism, under which all Christendom, especially the Protestant religion, and particularly the state of religion in England and Holland, does now groan and gasp ! and all this for a gust, a flavour, a humour, an itching ear pleased with this or that mode of preaching, praying, &c. To divide the body of Christ out of mere wantonness ! What answer will such an one make at the Last Day for having made so light of that on which the Word of God has laid such a stress ? St Paul entreats by " the consolation in Christ, by the comfort of love, by the fellowship of the Spirit, by all bowels, and mercies," 4 that Christians should be unanimous ; is it then a matter of small moment to divide them into sides, parties, and several bodies ?

That among various ceremonies, forms, and methods of ordering Church matters one should like one best, and one another, is no new or strange thing at all ; but ever was, and ever will be. But yet in the primitive times, if any man, or number of men, went about upon that pretence to set up a separate party from the established Church of that place, it made the Christians tremble to hear of such a thing. And all the neighbouring Churches (for they then all kept a corres-

4 Phil. ii. i.

282 The History of Infant Baptism.

pondence and communion with one another) did use to send notice of their abhorrence of such separatists, and renounce any communion with them during their schism ; and never were at ease till they had restored unity. They had indeed various usages in the Churches of several countries ; but a Christian of Africa, if he came to Greece, complied with the Grecian ceremonies, though he might like his own better. Or if it happened otherwise that he liked those of Greece better than his own, yet upon his return home he submitted to the rules and customs of his own Church, and did not set up a new sect out of a pride that he had learned a better way. If he thought it was better, or if it really were so, yet to make a separation for it, did ten times more mischief than that amendment could recompense. If there be any usage or order in a Church which may be altered for the better, for any man in his station to do his endeavour that this may be done by common vote and consent, was ever accounted laud able. And where the corruption is got into the vitals of religion, it is true that it must be done by a separation, rather than not at all. But in other cases, where it is not a gangrene, he that goes about to cure the body by tearing it limb from limb, is himself the most dangerously infected member, and ought to be first cut off, by St Paul's direction,5 if he had any skill. As we say of sermons ; that must be an excellent one indeed, in which there is nothing that might have been said better ; and yet that must be a sorry one indeed, out of which one may not receive some wholesome direction : or of cities; there is hardly any, whose laws and government are not capable of amendment in some things; and yet very few so ill governed, where an industrious and peaceable man may not enjoy so much quiet as to get a livelihood by his diligence : so that must be a pure Church indeed, whose orders and rules have no fault or imperfection at all : and yet that must be a woeful Church with which a good Christian may not communicate, or under whose doctrine and discipline he may not by a godly diligence work out his salvation. Of the first sort there is none in the world. And, as I hope, no Protestant national Church of the latter sort ; none, I mean, with which a good Christian may not communicate, provided they will admit him without requiring his declared assent to all their tenets. For errors they may have, and some of them hold some opinions contrary to what others do. Yet since none of these do overthrow the foundation of Christian faith, neither do they mix any idolatry in their worship; if any party of the members of any of these Churches (the Church of Den mark, for example) should in opposition to the general body of the Church there, say, " We like the ways and methods of some other Church (the Church of England for example) better," and should there-

5 Rom. xvi. 17.

We ought to join in Public Worship. 283

upon make a schism from their fellow-members, it would be a sinful one. And it is no other in ours here that do the like. The Church of England do declare thus concerning the rules and ceremonies which they have ordered, " In these our doings we condemn no other nations, nor • prescribe anything but to our own people only. For we think it convenient, that every country should use such ceremonies as they shall think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glory, and to the re ducing the people to godly living, &c., and that they should put away other things which from time to time they perceive to be most abused, as in men's ordinances it often chances diversely in divers countries." 6 They say moreover, " The keeping or omitting of a ceremony, in itself considered, is but a small thing, but the wilful and contemptuous trans gression and breaking of a common order and discipline is no small offence before God." This plainly shows that they would not approve of a schism that should be set up in any other Church, though it were for the introducing of those ways of worship which they have prescribed. And many of the chiefest men of other Protestant Churches have made the like declaration on their side. This is the ancient way of a Catholic correspondence and unity between the Churches. They do all judge thus, that in those various ways of managing the public worship, though one may think one the best, and another another, yet that the worst of them with unity, is better than the best without it.

This may be explained by a comparison taken from temporal affairs. There are in several nations several forms of state government, one is ruled by monarchy, another by a senate, others by more popular ways. It is common for men of reading, or travel, or conversation, to discourse of these ways. One likes one best, and another another. And so far there is no harm done, because each of them resolves as yet, that which soever he likes best, he will live quietly under that where he is placed. But if one of these who lives under either of these forms do go about to draw a party after him, and says, " We will live no longer under this form of government, we know a better way, and we will set up that," he is now turned a traitor, and must be suppressed by the policy of any government whatsoever.

Or in an army, if the question be, whether it be best to march this way against the enemy, or that way, or lie still, each one in the council is free to give his opinion. And it may be, that he whose counsel is not approved by the majority, gives advice which is really the better. Yet if the resolution be once taken, and the general lead out accord ingly one way, if any officers go about to draw a part of the army after them, and say, " We will march the other way," they are now mutineers and public enemies, how good soever their advice were. Because either of the ways with the union of the army is better than the dividing of it. That brings certain ruin and confusion.

6 Preface to the Book of Common-Prayer,

284 The History of Infant Baptism.

The scripture and experience, too, do show that the case is the same in reference to a Church. Only as in the army, if the soldiers do understand by any plain and certain discovery that the general officers are traitors, and have agreed to betray their prince's cause, a revolt from them is in such case fidelity to their sovereign. So if a Church do bring into their worship plain idolatry, or into their doctrines such positions as destroy the foundation of Christian faith or godliness, this is treason against our chief Lord, and justifies separation from such a Church. But in the case now put, of a man that allows the established way of worship to be lawful, but pretends to set up a better, and thinks a separation justifiable on that account ; such a man is so far from being fit to be a leader or amender of a Church, that he needs a catechism to teach him the first Christian principles of humility and modesty. Modesty would teach him to think, that if he judge one way the best, another as wise as he will be for another way, and a third party for another, &c. But God is a God of order, and not of such confusions.

What I quoted just now of the declaration of the Church of England in respect to foreign Churches, does visibly show the mistake of those that argue, that we cannot count those among us that separate, schis matics, but that we shall by so doing condemn those foreign Protestant Churches, which differ from us in some of the same ceremonies as the dissenters at home do, of schism likewise. God forbid that we should do that. It is not the use or disuse of this or that ceremony, order, &c., but it is the renouncing of communion for such use or disuse, that con stitutes a schismatic. Now we and the foreign Protestant Churches do not do that. For one of us, whom Providence should bring into their nation, would communicate with them, though their ceremonies and ways of worship are not altogether the same as ours, and they, when they come hither, do the same with us. And such Churches, or such Christians, that are always ready to do so, have always a communion one with another, in heart, in purpose, in inclination and acknowledg ment, which they are ready to bring into act by corporal presence and joining, when providence makes it practicable. And this is, or ought to be, the temper between all Churches that differ not in essentials. Now this is the only sense in which that saying is true, " That there is no schism, where the differences are not in the fundamentals of religion," i.e., any two Churches of different nations are always supposed to be in communion, and not in a schism, so long as they differ not in funda mentals, because it is supposed that the members of one of these would (in case they were to travel into the other nation) for unity's sake communicate with those other.

But when people of the same place, city, parish, &c., do actually separate, and renounce communion with the Church when they are on

We ought to join in Public Worship. 285

the spot, this plea cannot be used in their case. To say these are not schismatics, because they differ not in fundamentals, is to put a new meaning on the word schism. They are not heretics indeed (as the Church use has now distinguished the use of those words). But the Donatists, Novations, &c., have been always counted schismatics, though they differed not in essentials.

Those that differ from any true Church in essentials, and do separate or are excommunicated for such difference, are in respect of their opinions more faulty than those we have been speaking of. But those that separate for smaller matters, are, in respect of the mere schism or separation (if we could abstract that from the fault of the opinion), the more faulty of the two. For the smaller the difference is, the greater fault and shame it is to make a breach for it ; and though the other be in the main the greater sin, yet these are more plainly self-condemned.

§ 4. The other difficulty that I proposed to speak of is something greater. There is a man that thinks the Church holds some errors, not fundamental ones indeed; but she has brought these errors into her public service in which he should join. He would not renounce a Church for holding those errors in disputable points ; but he cannot join in prayers to God which are grounded on, and do suppose, a doctrine which he judges to be a false or mistaken one.

But i. The man acknowledges that this is not in matters fundamental.

2. He acknowledges that the main body of the prayers and service is such as all Christians agree to be necessary, and in which he may join with his mouth and understanding also.

Suppose then that there be some particular collects or prayers, or clauses of prayers, which he thinks to contain a mistake in them. May he not join with his brethren in the main, and omit the adding of his amen to those particular clauses ? Especially since no man requires of him to declare his approbation of the whole and every part. Is not this more Christian-like, than to fly to that dreadful extremity of separation and total disowning for a disputable point which may possibly be his own mistake ? And if the truth of the matter be that it is his own mistake, is there any likelier way to come to the knowledge of the truth than by continuing in the body of the Church, where the members, the faithful Christians, do by mutual edification help one another? Is not this the very counsel of St Paul, Phil. iii. 15, 16 : " And if in anything you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Neve.rtheless [or, however that be], whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." This last clause " let us mind the same thing," is in the sense of the original, "let us be unanimous," as Bishop Stillingfleet has shown;7 and he has at the same place largely shown that this advice of the 7 Unreasonableness of Separation, Part II. sect. 19.

286 The History of hi f ant Baptism.

Apostle is intended for this very purpose to which I have here applied it, namely, that such a man as we are here speaking of should continue in communion, and conform to all that he can, and omit the saying amen to what he judges a mistake. He confirms this interpretation with so good reasons, and his antagonist there opposes it with so weak ones, that it tempts one to think that he would not have opposed it at all had it not been for fear that by this course the world would in a short time have lost the happiness of having any separate sects. If the reader will please to consult that book, he will have no further need of any arguments against separation.

Some learned Protestants (Melancthon, Calvin, Bucer, Pet. Martyr, and others of the first Reformers) have thought that in cases of necessity a Protestant might join even in popish assemblies in those prayers that are found, provided he did, to avoid scandal, protest against their superstitious ones. But I will not meddle with that.

The argument that some make for separation, because there are many ill men in the Church, has been so plainly answered that nothing more need be said. Whoever reads St Paul's Epistles will find there were many scandalous members in all those Churches, especially at Corinth, i Cor. v., 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21, and yet he will find that St Paul, so far from advising the purer sort to separate from the Church, does earnestly forbid any such practice, i Cor. i. 10, it. xi. 18, &c.

§ 5. 4. When a law-giver names some particular exceptions of cases in which the law shall not oblige, that law binds the stronger in all other cases not excepted. For it is supposed if there had been any more, he would have named them too. The Scripture gives a very positive law against separations. It excepts some cases. It is a very presumptuous thing to add any more to them of our own heads. They are these :

1. If a Church do practise idolatry. St Paul, warning the Corinthians of the heathen idolaters, says : " Come out from among them, and be ye separate " (2 Cor. vi. 17). Though the popish idolatry be not so rank as that of those heathens, yet the general words do seem to reach their case. But the ignorant people among many sects of separatists, finding here the word separate, do indiscriminately apply it to justify separation from Christians against whom they do not in the least pretend any accusation of idolatry.

2. If a Church teach doctrines encouraging any wickedness, as forni cation, &c., or destructive of the fundamentals of Christian faith. St Paul mentions some (2 Tim. ii. 18) that denied the Resurrection and Judgment to come. He commands Timothy to shun them, for their word will eat as a canker.

3. The Scripture commands that no sin be committed to obtain any purpose never so good. Therefore, a Church that will not admit us without our doing a thing that is wicked, or declaring and subscribing

This Question not a Fundamental. 287

something that is false, does thereby thrust us out of her communion. And the guilt of the sin of separation lies at her door.

4. If a Church be schismatical, i.e., in a state of unjustifiable division or separation from another Church from which she has withdrawn herself. St Paul commands (Rom. xvi. 17), "Mark those that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine you have learned, and avoid them."

These exceptions I find in Scripture ; and I know of no more that reach to Churches (particular men that live wickedly are to be avoided in our conversation, we know). He that separates from any Church upon any ground except one of these four, ought to take heed and be well assured that he find his ground in the Scripture.

§ 6. Now to apply what has been said to the psedobaptists and anti- psedobaptists ; the main inquiry is, whether the point in debate between them be a fundamental article of the Christian Faith. For if it be, they must indeed separate in their communion, and the guilt will lie on those that are in the error. But if it be not, there is not by the rules laid down any sufficient reason for their separating or renouncing one another, which party soever be in the wrong.

Now, I think that such a question about the age or time of one's receiving baptism does not look like a fundamental, nor is so reputed in the general sense of Christians. And there are these reasons why it should not be so accounted.

i. It is a general rule that* all fundamental points are in Scripture so plainly and clearly delivered, that any man of tolerable sincerity cannot but perceive the meaning of the holy writers to be, that we should ' believe them. Now, baptism itself, viz., that all that enter into Christ's Church should be baptised, is, indeed, plainly delivered in Scripture, so that we are amazed at the Quakers and Socinians — the one for refus ing it, the other for counting it indifferent. But at what age the children of Christians should be baptised, whether in infancy or to stay till the age of reason, is not so clearly delivered but that it admits of a dispute that has considerable perplexities in it. I mean with those that know not the history of the Scripture times, nor the force of some of the original words in Scripture used. There is, as I have said, no plain example or instance of the baptism of anyone that had been born of Christian parents set down at all either as received by him at full age, or received in infancy, which would have been the surest guide to us. None, I mean, that is plain to vulgar readers of the English translation of Scripture : for that many of the Fathers did take i Cor. vii. 14 for a plain instance, I showed before. And for the commission, Matt, xxviii. 19, and our Saviour's rule, John iii. 5, whether they are to be under stood to include infants and all, or only adult persons, is not so plain to the said readers as fundamental points used to be. God's providence

288 The History of Infant Baptism.

does not suffer that the understanding of those places, upon the belief of which the salvation of all, even the meanest and most ignorant Christian, does depend (and such are the fundamental articles), should require much skill, learning, or sagacity, but only an honest purpose and desire to learn. This, therefore, being not set down so very plain, does not seem by Scripture to be such a fundamental as that we should be bound to renounce communion with everyone that is not of the same opinion as we are about it.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. vi. v. i, 2, speaking of some things - which are styled principles of the oracles of God, reckons amongst them the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of hands. Now, whether the meaning of that place be to reckon both these as things that must be believed and owned by all that shall be saved, is a question that needs not be discussed here. For suppose it be ; both these parties do own baptism, they differ only about the time or manner of receiving it.

2. The ancient and primitive Christians for certain did not reckon this point among the fundamental ones. For they drew up short draughts and summaries of the faith, which we call Creeds, and into these they put all those articles which they thought fundamental or absolutely necessary. Now, though some Churches had their creeds a little larger than others, and some councils or meetings of Christians did overdo in putting some opinions, which they valued more than need was, into their creeds : yet there never was any creed at all that had this article in it, either that infants are to be baptised, or that only adult persons are to be baptised.

Baptism itself does indeed make an article in several old creeds. As for example, in the Constantinopolitan, which is now received in all Christendom, " I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins." But the determination of the age or manner of receiving it was never thought fit to make an article of faith.

3. As for particular men among the ancients, there is, I know, none whom the antipaedobaptists would so willingly hear speak as Tertullian. He has a book about baptism, wherein he first speaks of the matter, water, and of the form of baptism ; and then says, c. x., " Having now discoursed of all things that make up the religion [or essence] of baptism, I will proceed to speak de quczstiunculis quibusdam, of some questions of small moment," and it is among those quastiuncuhe that he treats concerning the age of receiving it. I recited the place at large, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 2, &c.

4. As Tertullian thought it a question of lesser moment, so it seems the Christians of that time and place did not reckon it of so great moment as to break communion. For when he expressed his opinion to be against the practice then used of baptising infants ordinarily ; yet we do not find that he was excommunicated for that ; nor at all till he

Both Parties judge it not Fundamental. 289

excommunicated himself by running away to the sect of the Montanists, who were indeed for their impious opinions abhorred of all Christians. Whereas if it had been accounted a fundamental article of faith, he gould not have been born within his denial of it.

5. This is yet more clear in the case of Gregory, the father of Gregory Nazianzen, who, if I compute right at Pt. II. ch. iii. sect. 6, had some children born to him after he was in priest's orders, whom he brought up with him in the house without baptising them ; and they were not baptised till their adult age. And yet the man continued priest, and afterwards bishop of that place till he died, being nigh one hundred years old. This for the sense of the ancient Church.

6. For the sense of modern Christians : first the papists of late times do confidently maintain that there is no proof at all (direct or con sequential) from the Scripture for infant baptism. And it is certain they do not pretend that there is any against it ; for their Church as well as others does practise it ; and though their Church can do well enough without Scripture ; yet they would not have her convicted of going contrary to it. It follows then from their pretence that the Scrip ture is silent in the case. If so, then it is a thing that no Protestant will account a fundamental, and consequently will not divide for it. So these men's arguments will make us all friends ; at least so far as to live in communion with one another. The worst would be, that if we did so, we should lose all those fine arguments against infant baptism that come out in popish books every year. For they seeing us united, would not count it worth their while ; and they would then be as well content that there should be proof in Scripture for infant baptism, as not.

But to leave these men, and to speak of such as are serious in religion ; the most serious and judicious, both of the psedobaptists and antipaedobaptists (even those of them that have been most engaged against each other in polemical writings, which do commonly abate peoples' charity) do agree that this difference is not in the essentials of religion. Here I might (if I had not been too long already) recite the words of Bishop Taylor, Dr Hammond, Mr Baxter, Mr Wills, &c., on the one side ; and of Mr Tombs, Mr Stennet, &c., on the other. Mr Stennet in a book come out but the other day says : " If he [Mr Russen] mean . . . that they [the antipsedobaptists] cannot look upon those that differ from them, as Christians . . . the contrary is well known." And again : "Enoiigh has been said before, to take off the second reproach which he [Mr Russen] casts on them [the antipaedobaptists], viz., that they judge none of the true Church, but those of their own way."8 But it is better to quote their Confessions. In the first year of King William, one party of the antipaedobaptists [the particular men] pub-

b Answer to Mr Russen, ch. ii. p. 23 ; ch. x. p. 215. II. K

290

'ie History of Infant Baptism.

lished a Confession of their Faith: they say, it is the same for substance with that published in 1643, in the name of Seven Churches, which I suppose were the first in England. Now they say, they are concerned for above a hundred. They declare in the Preface the design both of that and this confession to be, " to manifest their consent with both [the Presbyterians and Independents] in all the fundamental articles of Christian religion ; " and, as they add afterwards, with other Protestants. It is plain then, that they count not the age or manner of receiving baptism to be a fundamental.

And here, forasmuch as this confession is but lately come to my hands, I ought to do that justice to these men, as to own that they do for their part disclaim several of those opinions which I at ch. viii. § 6 said were held by some of the English antipsedobaptists. For besides that they give a full and Catholic confession of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, c. ii., of Christ's divinity and consubstantiality, c. viii., and of his satisfaction, c. viii. it. xi., the denial of which points is not charged on any Church of antipaedobaptists ; but only that some Secinians intrude among them, as they do everywhere. Besides these, they own original sin, c. vi. Oaths imposed by authority to be lawful, c. xxiii. The Lord's Day to be the day for Christian worship, and the Saturday Sabbath to be abolished, c. xxii. That every Church has from Christ all that power that is needful for carrying on order in worship and discipline, c. xxvi. AH bishops or elders, and deacons to be ordained by imposition of hands, ibid. All pastors to have a com fortable supply from the Church, so as they need not be entangled in secular affairs ; but may live of the Gospel, the people communicating to them of all their good things, ibid. No member of a Church ought to separate upon account of any offence [or scandal] taken at any of their fellow-members, but to wait upon Christ in the farther proceeding of the Church, ibid. In the Lord's Supper the minister to give the bread and wine to the communicants, c. xxx. So it seems these do not hand it about among themselves, as is said of some of them. Worthy receivers do by faith really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, ibid. Souls do not die nor sleep, but at a man's death are either received into glory, or cast into hell, reserved to the judgment, c. xxxi. Civil magistrates to be obeyed for conscience' sake, c. xxiv. But I cannot see how they reconcile this with what they say, c. xxi., that to obey out of conscience any human commands not contained in God's Word, is to betray true liberty of conscience. This needs a little explication.

Moreover, what is to our present purpose, they say : " That all per sons throughout the world, professing the faith of the Gospel, and obedience to God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of con-

The Antipcedobaptists Confess it. 291

versation, are and may be called, visible saints," c. xxvi. And they say afterwards, c. xxvii, " That all these saints are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God." Of which communion they say a little after, that " as God offers opportunity, it is to be extended to all the household of faith ; even all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus."

This laid together makes full to the purpose I am speaking of : every one ought to continue in the communion of a Church that has no errors which do evert the foundation. And an error, or supposed error, about the age or manner of receiving baptism does not do that, by their own confession.

And now in the first year of her present Majesty, is published a draft of articles by some antipsedobaptists (the same I guess), " to manifest their nearness in union with other of Her Majesty's Protestant subjects." There are thirty-six of them. They are verbatim (except two or three clauses of no moment) the same with thirty-six of the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England; save that in the article of baptism they leave out the last clause about infants' baptism. They come near to that subscription that is required to capacitate one for orders in that Church ; one would think then it should not be difficult to accommodate the matter of lay communion.

What has been said does in the whole amount to this, that putting the case that there were in any nation a number of believers in Christ, who were not yet settled in any form of Church government, and did besides differ in some opinions not fundamental — and among the rest, in this question about infants' baptism — their duty would be to unite themselves into one body or Church, and not separate into parties and several Churches for that difference. And if it be asked, how they should regu late the order for public worship in which they were all to join, and particularly whether they should allow an infant brought by his parents to the church for baptism, to be there baptised, or not allow it : there is no other way in such a case, than after a debate by arguments from Scripture and reason, to suffer themselves to be all determined by the major vote; which major vote must fix the rules of the National Church there to be settled ; and the minor part, who would have had some things to have been otherwise ordered, must comply with their brethren, and join in all things that they can, and by no means make a division. If the premises that have been laid down be looked upon as proved, they do certainly enforce this conclusion.

For any man to say in this case, the Scripture, and not the major

'vote, should determine, is frivolous. Because it is presupposed in the

case, that it is about the meaning of Scripture, and about the force of

the consequences and arguments drawn from Scripture, that they differ ;

and the Scripture itself directs them, that in such differences not funda-

292 The History of Infant Baptism.

mental, they should close and unite as well as they can, and bear with one another.

Now to apply this to the state of religion as it is now, when there are in all places National Churches already settled, one ought, in order to lay the balance even between the pasdobaptists and antipaedobaptists, to suppose or imagine a thing that is not, but may easily be supposed ; and that is, that there were some National Church or Churches of antipasdo- baptists in the world. And suppose a number of Christians, paedobap- tists in their opinion, were by Providence brought to live in one of those places. The question is, whether they ought to join in communion with the Church of antipaedobaptists there established, or make a separate body renouncing communion with them. I think it follows from the rules of Scripture that have been laid down, that they ought to join with them. And I do not stick to declare, that if I were one of those new comers, I would do it for one. So that I advise them to nothing in re spect to their joining the Church here, but what I think were to be done by us if we were in their case. I mean, I would do thus : since my opinion is, that infants ought to be baptised, I would get my own children baptised by all means possible ; but when that were done, I would nevertheless continue to join in public prayers, hearing, receiving the communion, &c., with them, if they would admit me ; if they re jected me for my opinion, the guilt of that breach would lie on them, and not on me. It is not an antipaedobaptist or other dissenter in opinion that one is not to communicate with ; it is a schismatic or divider that one is not to communicate with. And whereas some paedobaptist will say to me, " You seem by this putting of the case to make the opinions equal ; theirs to be as good as ours, and that it is only by the majority that we have the advantage." I do not so ; but this I say, the difference is not in fundamentals. And therefore, if thou be strong, and they be weak ; thou wise, and they foolish ; thy opinion rational, theirs silly ; yet we are still (or ought to be for all the difference of opinions) members of the same body, and brethren. Men are not to be cut off for mistaken opinions that are consistent with true faith. Indeed, if they will cut off themselves, there is no help for that. When a Church loses its members, and they part from her as limbs from a body, there is that to be said which is commonly said of a husband and wife parting-^there is certainly a great fault somewhere, but there is commonly some fault on both sides.

Now to lay aside supposals, and to take the state of religion as it is now in the world ; there is no National Church in the world (and I think never was) but what are paedobaptists. All that are of the other way are such as have within the two last centuries made a separation from the Established Churches of the places where they are : as I made appear, ch. viii. The reasons that I have laid down from Scripture do

One of cither side may join with a National Church. 293

require that they should return to unity of communion in those things wherein all Christians are agreed ; and they may continue to argue in a charitable way about the opinion till one side be satisfied, or till they are weary. This is the best way to save their souls, whatever become of the opinion.

To speak of the case of England in particular. They know them selves that it is a separation begun less than eighty years ago ; as I show at ch. viii. § 6. Any very ancient man may remember when there was no Englishmen, or at least no society or church of them, of that per suasion. They at first held the opinion without separating for it. Their eldest separate churches are not yet of the age of a man, viz., seventy years. I mean the ancient men or men of reading among them know this ; the young and vulgar who will talk right or wrong for a side do not own it, but the others own it, and they justify it by pleading that their opinion is the truest : which plea, supposing it to be true, will not, in a conscience that is guided by God's Word, justify a separation.

Let us put the case of an antipcedobaptist, or other dissenter, that is never so sure that he is in the right ; 'and that the Churches' opinion is absurd, inconvenient, foolish, &c., or anything that he pleases to call it, so he do not call it idolatry, or heresy, or an error which does evert the foundation. And yet by their own principles before laid down, com munion is to be continued. Let the man, when he has got into one of his severest fits of judging his brethren of the Church, imagine them speaking to him, in the words of St Paul to some Christians at Corinth, who were the most conceited and dividing people that he ever had to do with: "You are full, you are rich. We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ : we are weak, but you are strong : you are honourable, but we are despised. Yet receive us ; do not reject our com munion in all things, because we err in some things" " Or," as he says in another place, " if you think me a fool, yet as a fool receive me." 9

There are several good books written purposely on this subject, and directed to the antipaedobaptists, to show, that supposing their opinion be true, yet their schism is a sin : and that, by men of both the opinions. One that is not rash but desires to guide his conscience warily will at least read and weigh what they say. Mr Tombs, who con tinued an antipsedobaptist to his dying day, yet as I am told,10 wrote against separation for it, and for communion with the parish Churches. I have not seen that book, but this I have seen,11 that where he defends his opinion against Marshal, and where Marshal had said : " The teachers of this opinion, wherever they prevail, take their proselytes wholly off from the ministry of the word, sacraments, and all other acts of Christian communion both public and private, with any but those of

9 I Cor. iv. 8, 10 ; 2 Cor. vii, 2, it. xi. 17.

10 Baxter, Reply to Huchinson, p. 30. u Tombs against Marshal, p. 31.

294 The History of Infant Baptism.

their own opinion." To this Tombs answers : " This is indeed a wicked practice, justly to be abhorred. The making of sects upon difference of opinions, reviling, separating from their teachers and brethren otherwise faithful, because there is not the same opinion in disputable points, or in clear truths not fundamental, is a thing too fre quent in all sorts of dogmatists, &c. I look upon it as one of the greatest plagues of Christianity. You shall have me join with you in showing my detestation of it. Yet, nevertheless, it is to be considered that this is not the evil of antipaedobaptism (you confess some are other wise minded) and therefore must be charged on the persons, not on the assertion itself. And about this, what they hold, you may have now the best satisfaction from the Confession of Faith in the name of seven Churches of them, Art. 33," &c. And accordingly Mr Tombs himself continued in communion with the Church till he died.

Mr Baxter, who has written more books than any man in England against the opinion, yet has also written more against the dividing for it, and has made many wishes and proposals for accommodations of both sides joining in public communion, especially in his later books, and in the history of his own life, when he had lived to see the great mischief that schisms do to religion and all piety. I will mention only one passage wherein he recommends to the antipsedobaptists two books useful to give them a true state of the question about the unlawfulness of separation. " I am," says he, " not half so zealous to turn men from the opinion of anabaptistry, as I am to persuade both them and others, that it is a duty to live together with mutual forbearance, in love and Church communion, notwithstanding such differences : for which they may see more reasons given by one that was once of their mind and way (Mr William Allen in his Retraction of Separation and his Persua sive to Unity) than any of them can soundly refel, though they may too easily reject them." But then Mr Baxter gives there a marginal note telling the antipsedobaptists, " Satan will not consent that you should soberly read the books." Now methinks an antipsedobaptist that is desirous to direct his conscience aright in so weighty a matter as separa tion is, should not let Satan have his will altogether, but should read such books and consider them at least whether Satan will consent or not.

This I will own, in excuse of the English antipsedobaptists that do so divide, that it is a harder thing to repent of the sin of schism in England, than it is anywhere else. For the commonness of any sin does in unthinking minds wonderfully abate the sense of the guilt of it. When drunkenness is grown common and almost universal, one can hardly persuade an ordinary man that it is a thing that will bring dam nation on his soul ; because he sees almost all the neighbourhood, and 12 Confutation of Forgeries of H. D., sect. 2, ch. ii. § 13.

Schism a reigning sin in England. 295

among them such a gentleman, or such a lord, as much concerned in that as he. So an antipsedobaptist thinks : whatever my opinion be, the separation for it can be no great fault, for the Presbyterians, and other parties of men, do that as well as we, and for lesser differences. If we have taken those opinions which our ancestors held without separating, and have made a separate religion out of them, it is but what the others did before us : for they have taken the opinions which the old Puritans had ; and (though the Puritans could not) yet they have made good Brownism out of them. And so for other parties. Now this humour of dividing is nowhere in the world so common, as it is in England (at least if we except the country I spoke of before), nor the sin of schism so little feared, I mean of late years. The reason why the same texts of Scripture against schism, division, heresy, &c., being read by the Protestants of other nations do create in their minds a horror of it, but being read by an Englishman do lose their force with him is, because he has been born and bred in a nation where that is so common, and practised by men that are in other things so conscientious, that he is apt to put any forced sense on the words, rather than think that that text of St Paul, for example, Rom. xvi. 17, is to be taken as the words sound : though there is (if a man desire plain Scripture) not a plainer text in the whole Bible. But the Word of God and His law is not like human laws, that it should lose its edge by the multitude of offenders. God will not punish any sin less — I doubt He will punish it more — for having been a common or reigning one.

Some people also have so slightly considered the commands of God, that they think nothing to be a sin, but what they see punished by the secular laws. And so because some Christian nations (whereof England does of late make one) have thought fit to grant an impunity to schis matics for some reasons of State, and to tolerate (though not approve of) Churches or societies renouncing communion with the established Church of the place ; they are apt to think that God also does allow of the same : which will be true when God in His judgment will think fit to regulate Himself by statute laws. But till that be, it is certain by God's Word that either such a Church, or else those that renounce her communion, are schismatics : either the one for giving just causes to the others to separate from her ; or else the others for separating without just cause. It is certain also, that if any Church should so far comply with reasons of State or human laws, as to teach that schism (however by them tolerated) is not sin before God ; this very doctrine would indeed be a good reason for any pious Christian to separate from her : and that, by the second of the exceptions I gave just now. So gross is that notion, to think that separation is therefore no sin, because men's laws may at sometimes forbear to inflict any temporal punishment on it. But yet as gross as it is, it is made to serve for an excuse to the con-

296 The History of Infant Baptism.

sciences of many ignorant people. Partly this reason, and partly the commonness of the sin, have made, that many men's consciences do no longer accuse them for it.

§ 7. There may need a few words also concerning the difficulties that do lie in the way of the union that I have here proposed. They are none of them such, but what may, I hope, be accommodated, if the parties be willing. Some of them do lie on the part' of the Church in receiving these men ; and some on the part of the men themselves in respect of their acceptance of the communion offered them. I know of but two on each part.

On the Church's part, one concerns the bishop of the diocese chiefly: the other, both the bishop and the curate of the parish. In speaking of which, the nature of the thing shows, that I ought to submit what I shall say to the judgment of the parties concerned : which I declare that I do unfeignedly. I will only propose the question, leaving the determination to them.

i. Suppose a man do understand the nature and necessity of the Church union I have been speaking of; and accordingly does desire to continue, or to be, a member of the established Church : but he is not satisfied of the validity or sufficiency of baptism given in infancy or of baptism given by sprinkling or pouring of water on the face only ; and therefore he (though perhaps baptised in infancy, yet) has procured himself to be baptised anew : and besides he cannot consent to bring his children, if he have any, to be baptised in infancy ; but reserves them to adult baptism : but in other things he is willing to be conformable to the rules of the Church, and very desirous of the communion thereof. This man is, I suppose, by the rules of the Church of England, liable to be presented for his fault, both in receiving a second baptism (for so it is in the esteem of the Church) and in not bringing his children to baptism.

Here is one evasion or salvo, which I scorn to make use of, as being not satisfactory to myself, viz., that the Church's hands are tied up from any proceedings in any cases of that nature by the Act of Toleration. Because I think there is nothing more certain than what Bishop Still ing- fleet says, " However the Church in some respects be incorporated with the Commonwealth in a Christian State, yet its fundamental rights remain distinct from it ; of which this is one of the chief, to receive into and exclude out of the Church such persons which, according to the laws of a Christian society, are fit to be taken in or shut out."13 It is temporal punishments only which those temporal laws design to set aside. Yet this I will say, that by the general forbearance that is now used, it is ten to one whether such a person would be presented. But we will put the hardest of the case, and suppose him to be presented.

13 Answer to N. O. § 15, p. 267.

The Difficulties, all such as may be accommodated. 297

He is then warned to appear before the bishop at the Church Court. He pleads, we will suppose, conscience for his doing or refusing the things mentioned. The bishop exhorts him, shows him reasons, endeavours to satisfy his doubts, &c. ; or perhaps deputes some persons to discourse at leisure more largely with him concerning them. If by these means the man be satisfied, all is well. But we must put the case that he be not. Here the question is, whether the bishop in such a case will proceed to excommunication, or use a forbearance. I suppose he will make a difference of the tempers of men. If such a man do show a temper heady, fierce, obstinate, self-opinionated, and self-willed, and a contempt of the Court, and of all that is said to him ; he is hardly a fit member of any Church. But if there appear the signs of a meek, humble, and Christian disposition, willing to hear and con sider the reasons and advices given, such a case deserves the greater forbearance. And though the law requires three several admonitions, yet it does not, I suppose, limit the bishop to three, nor to any number. And if this forbearance continue long, the man's children will be grown up, so as to be baptised, as he would have them, upon their own profession. And if he desire, or be but willing, that it be done by dipping, the Church does comply with his desire, and does advise it in the first place. And so the dispute will be over. If the bishop do excommunicate him before he be convinced, or this be done, then, indeed, I have no more to say on this head : there is a full stop put to the proposal. But there are these reasons to think that it would not be so.

First. I never heard of that done ; but several times the contrary. All the antipsedobaptists, or, indeed, other dissenters that I have known excommunicated, have been excommunicated, not for their opinion, but their refusal of communion, or for contempt in refusing to come at all to the Bishop's Court.

Second. Mr Tombs (and several others, but I will name only him, because his case is generally known) continued in communion in the church of Salisbury all the latter part of his life. And though he during that time owned his opinion, and wrote for it, yet because he desired to make no schism of it, he was not disturbed in his communicating with the Church. Nor has that Church ever been blamed for receiving him. On the contrary, the example has been spoken of with commendation in a very public way. This shows it to be practicable ; and if it be so, then :

Thirdly. There is a great and manifest advantage in it. For it prevents a schism, which otherwise would be. The man continuing in com munion, all things will tend to an accommodation ; whereas in a separation everything is aggravated to the widening of the gap, as we see by constant and woeful experience. A separate party never thinks itself far enough off from any terms of reconciliation.

298 The History of Infant Baptism.

The second difficulty, which concerns, as I said, both the bishop and the curate, is this. By the order of the Church of England no person is to be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. And a qualifica tion required of every person before he be brought to the bishop to be confirmed, is that he have learned (or, as it is expressed in another place, can answer to the questions of) the Catechism. Now, in that Catechism there happens to be a mention of infants being baptised. For after that it has declared that baptism is to be given upon a cove nant of faith and repentance ; it follows : " Qu. Why, then, are infants baptised, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them ? Ans. Because they promise them both by their sureties ; which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform." Now this man being asked that question would not make that answer ; but would say, they ought not to be baptised till they can perform them.

But besides, that one may answer here (much as in the other case) that the practice is such, that not half the people that come to the com munion are asked whether they have been confirmed, or not ; and also, that those who come to be confirmed when they are of the age of a man, are seldom or never examined in the questions of the Catechism, provided it does by other ways sufficiently appear that they do under stand the principles of religion ; the questions as they stand in the Cathechism, being seldom put but only to children. Besides this, I say, it appears to have been the meaning of the Church in that question and answer, not to determine this point, whether infants are to be baptised (of which no Englishman at that time made any doubt), but to determine this point, whether infants that are baptised, are baptised upon any other covenant than that upon which grown persons are baptised, viz., of repentance and faith. And it deter mines that they are not baptised on any other, but the very same ; only with this difference, that an adult person is baptised into the hopes of the Kingdom of Heaven, inasmuch as he does believe ; and an infant is baptised into the same, on condition that he do when he comes to age, believe. And this, indeed, is a principle very necessary to be rightly understood. For a mistake herein might hinder those who are baptised in infancy from understanding the obligation that lies on them to faith and obedience, as ever they hope to partake of the kingdom of heaven ; to prevent which mistake this clause of the Catechism seems to have been inserted. So that though the Church do here suppose indeed, or take it for granted, that infants are generally baptised ; yet that is not the thing which she here defines — not that they are to be baptised ; but why (or upon what terms) they are baptised. And this is a thing which an antipaedobaptist holds as firmly as any

The Difficulties, all such as may be accommodated. 299

man, that all baptism is to be upon this covenant. And he will readily assent to this, that supposing or taking it for granted that infants were to be baptised, they must be understood to be baptised on that covenant, viz., to enjoy the kingdom of heaven, on condition they do, when they come to age, perform the duties of faith and repentance.

And since this is the substance of what the Catechism there teaches, and the Catechism was intended, not to determine controversies, but to teach fundamental principles ; I believe that the bishops would not refuse to confirm such a person (otherwise found in the faith and conformable, and desirous of communion), though he should own his sense in his answer to that question of the Catechism. This I think, but I end this discourse wherein the authority of the Church is con cerned, as I began it, viz., in submitting my opinion to theirs, and leaving it to themselves to determine whether they would or not, or ought or not.

There are on the antipaedobaptist's part, concerning his acceptance of communion with the Church, these two difficulties.

Some men of that way do think that all such as have no other baptism but what was given in infancy and by affusion, are no Christians ; and that to bid them hold communion with such, is as much as to bid them hold it with heathens. I hope there are not many such ; and Mr Stennet reckons it a slander on the antipsedobaptists. And I am glad to find by his discourse that he is cordial in the abhorrence of so unchristian a notion. And therefore I shall say the less of it, having a natural antipathy against talking with anyone whose principles are so desperately uncharitable, as this comes to. What I said before, § 6, to show that this difference about the age or manner of receiving baptism is not a fundamental one, is applicable here. Let a man that has this thought first read that, and then let him consider farther, what becomes of the Church of Christ at this rate. Will he think that Christ has had no Church but in those few times and places where this opinion has prevailed ? Peter of Clugny (whom I quoted, Pt. II. ch. vii. § 5) urges the Petrobrusians with this dreadful con sequence five hundred or six hundred years ago, that if infant baptism be not valid, there had been never a Christian in Europe for three hundred or five hundred years before; and that account is much increased now.

The sophisters in logic have a way by which, if a man do hold any the least error in philosophy, they will by a long train of consequences prove that he denies the first maxims of common-sense. And some would bring that spiteful art into religion, whereby they will prove him that is mistaken in any the least point, to be that Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. If the psedobaptist be mistaken, or the antipsedobaptist be mistaken, yet let them not make heathens of one

300 The History of Infant Baptism.

another. The denial of the Quakers to be Christians — those of them I mean that do believe the Scriptures — has such a dreadful consequence with it, that one would not willingly admit it (though they do deny all baptism), because they do, however, profess that which is the chief thing signified and intended by baptism. But since both the parties we speak of now do own the religion professed in baptism, and do also both use the outward sign ; supposing that one side do err in the mode of it or the age of receiving it : to conclude thence that they are no Christians, is the property of one that knows not what spirit he is of. To receive baptism one's self in that way which one thinks the fittest, is one case : but it is another, and very different case, to judge all those to condemnation that have received it another way. " Who art thou that judgeth another man's servant ? " I know that the antipsedobaptists do not admit to the Lord's Supper, when it is administered by them selves, any but what are baptised in their way. But I speak now of one that is to receive it, not to administer it : he that receives it has no charge on his soul of the way in which those that receive with him, have been baptised. But I have said more than is, I hope, needful on this head. The Confession, which I mentioned before, of one hundred churches of antipaedobaptists, does not say, that only the adult are capable of baptism ; it says but thus : " they are the only proper subjects of this ordinance ; " 14 and they do not say that immersion is necessary to the administration ; but that // is necessary to the due administration of it. I mentioned at ch. v. § 6 how the Christians of Africa and of Europe differed as much as this comes to, in their opinion of the validity of baptism given by schismatics, insomuch that the Africans baptised anew any schismatic that came over to the Church : the Europeans did not so. But yet these Churches did not break communion for this difference. A presbyter or bishop of Africa, coming to Rome, joined in communion : though there must needs be, in the congregations there, several who, according to his notion of the due way of baptising, were not duly baptised; and whom he, if he had had the admitting of them into his own Church in Africa, would have baptised anew. But he left this matter to the conscience and de termination of the Church of the place. And by this means of both parties continuing communion, the whole matter in which they differed was at last amicably adjusted, as I there show. And whereas the con duct of Stephen of Rome, who would have made a breach of this, has been since blamed by all the Christians, as well of Rome as of other places ; the conduct of Cyprian of Africa, who gave his determination of the question with this additional clause,15 " neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis, si diversum senserit, amoventes," ' Not judging anyone, nor refusing communion with him, though he be of the other 14 Ch. xxix. 15 Proloquium St Cypriani in Concil. Carthag.

The Difficulties, all sucJi as may be accommodated. 301

opinion,' has since been applauded by all Christians in the world ; as a saying worthy of so excellent a martyr of Jesus Christ, and a precedent fit to be observed in the determination of all questions that are not fundamental.

'The other difficulty is, that if such a man do come to join in the prayers of the Church of England ; if there be an infant brought to be baptised in the time of the public service, he cannot join in the prayers used in that office ; or, at least, not in all of them.

This must be confessed, while he holds that opinion. But I showed before, at § 4, that this ought not to hinder his joining in the other prayers; so that paragraph may serve for answer to this. He may, when the people are kneeling at those prayers, stand up, or sit and read in his Bible. There were in King William's time some that, not being satisfied about his title, thought they ought not join in, or say Amen to some of those prayers wherein he was named. However they were blamed by the State for not agreeing in those, they were never blamed by the Church for continuing to join in the rest.

What I have said of the antipsedobaptists does plainly reach to the case of several other dissenters. And that with greater force of the argument, because they differ less from the Church in opinions.

One thing I am persuaded of concerning the antipredobaptists : and that is, that if they were convinced that this joining in the public service of the Church were lawful and practicable for them, they would join at another rate than some shifting people do nowadays. I take them generally to be cordial, open, and frank expressors of their sentiments. If they thought that St Paul's command of receiving one another did reach to this case that I have been speaking of (as I think it does), they would not interpret it trickishly, as some lawyers do a statute in which they seek a flaw and an evasion, to lurk behind the words of it, while they defeat the true meaning. They would conclude that what God commands us to do, He means we should do cordially, sincerely, and bonafide ; and not to deal with His Word as a Jesuit does with an oath. And therefore, that if His Word do bid us receive one another, He means we should do it entirely.

There is one entreaty that I would use to them, which is, that if they be at all moved to consider of such joining, and to deliberate whether it be lawful, or be a duty, or not, they would make a good and prudent choice of the men whose advice they ask about it. There are some men among all parties (I hope it is not many) that do promote divisions out of interest. These, as St Paul says, " serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly." They consider if the schism should drop, what would become of that esteem, credit, applause, admiration, gain, &c., which they get by heading and leading of parties; they must then be but as common Christians, walking even with the rest in a beaten

3O2 TJic History of Infant Baptism.

road, and all the glory of setting up new ways would be lost. These are not fit for any pious and sincere man to trust with the direction of his conscience, nor likely to give a true verdict On the contrary, they are the cause of most of the divisions which Christ has forbidden. He says offences [or scandals] must come ; and St Paul says, there must be heresies (or divisions). We may say of both, Woe be to the men by whom they come. The civil law has, I think, a rule that when any great mischief appears to be spread among the people, and it is not known who were the authors that first set it on foot, it should be inquired, Cui bonofuitl — who are the men that are likely to get any advantage by it? — and to suspect them. Those that promote division for interest, keep their consciences, as beggars do their sores, raw and open on purpose, and would not have them healed for any money. Let not any honest man trust them with the keeping of his. But apply to a man who (of which opinion soever he be) is cordial, sincere, and has no interest in the advice he gives.

I shall conclude with the words of St Paul, which I have made, as it were, the text of this sermon, " Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us." Christ received us, when we were not only silly, mis taken, erroneous, but sinful too. He received us, that He might make us wiser and better. St Paul adds, " to the glory of God ;" meaning, that God is no way more dishonoured than by our divisions, nor any ways more glorified than by our unity and receiving one another.

The whole context is thus, Rom. xv. 5, 6, 7 : —

" Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like- minded [i.e., unanimous] one towards another, according to Christ Jesus : that you may with one mind and one mouth [i.e., unanimously] glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore [or to which purpose that you may so do] receive ye one another [though differing in opinion] as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." Amen.

AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF SOME FEW MATTERS.

ANTIP^EDOBAPTISM.

QT AUSTIN (year after the Apostles, 317) disputing for the Doctrine of ^ Original Sin, and Pelagius against it, do both agree that no Christian (Catholic, or Sectary) that either of them had read or heard of, was an Antipaedobaptist, Pt. I. pp. 151-202. The opinion of Antipaadobaptism not a sufficient cause of separation, ch. ult.

BAPTISM.

Given by the Jews to proselytes and their infant children, Introduction. Given by the Christians generally by dipping, Pt. II. p. 203 ; but by affusion in case of weakness, &c., Pt. II. p. 203. Other washings beside dipping, are in Scripture called Baptism, or, the baptising of a man, Pt. II. p. 174.

BISHOPS.

The Christians of Irenasus's time [anno 180] were able to reckon up those that were placed bishops by the Apostles in the several Churches, and their successors to that time, Pt. I. p. 30, Pt. II. p. 231. Valentinian the Emperor said, it was a thing too great for him to undertake, to nominate a bishop, Pt. II. pp. 34, 52. They were wont in the Primitive Church to be chosen by the clergy and people of the diocese, Pt. II. p. 203.

COUNCILS.

Infant Baptism not instituted or enacted in any Council ; but in all that speak of it, is supposed or taken for granted as a Christian doctrine known before, Pt. I. pp. 65, 131. One of the earliest Councils since the Apostles' time speaks of it, Pt. I. p. 67. The Councils of Carthage and Milevis [anno 416] and that of Carthage [anno 418] do not enact that infants must be bap tised (that being a known thing before), but that baptism is in them for remission of sin, Pt. I. p. 224, &c., p. 248, &c., p. 261.

DIPPING INFANTS IN THE FONT.

The general use formerly, Pt. I. p. 202. When left off in the several countries of Europe, Pt. II. pp. 203, 210. Still used in all countries, hot or cold, except such where the Pope's power does or did prevail, Pt. II. pp. 210-213.

GODFATHERS IN BAPTISM.

Used by the Jews at the circumcision of their children, and at the baptism of an infant proselyte, or disciple, Introduction. Mentioned as used by the Christians in the baptism of infants within one hundred years of the Apostles, and all along afterward, Pt. I. p. 39. The answers that they made in the name of the child, Pt. I. p. 138, &c., p. 278, &c. The parents commonly were the godfathers, Pt. I. pp. 140, 143.

304 An Alphabetical Table of some fezv Matters.

INFANTS.

Whether baptised or not in the Apostles' time, could not be unknown to the Christians that were ancient men one hundred one hundred and fifty years after the said time, Preface. In what sense said to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, Pt. I. pp. 145, 147. The ancients did not think that infants have faith, Pt. I. pp. 144, 147. Not baptised in houses, but in cases of the utmost extremity, Pt. I. p. 158. Dying unbaptised, thought by the ancients to miss of heaven ; but yet to be under no punishment, or a very mild one, Pt. II. pp. 105-112. Dying after baptism, and before actual sin, agreed by all the Christian world to be saved, Pt. II. p. 120, &c. If offered by their parents or owners to baptism, ought to be baptised of whatsoever parents born, Pt. II. p. 122.

JOHN THE BAPTIST. He baptised infants, as St Ambrose concludes, Pt. I. p. 104, it. Introduction.

POLYGAMY. Forbidden in the New Testament, Pt. I. p. 77.

REGENERATION, OR, BEING BORN AGAIN.

The word regeneration, regenerated, &c., never used by the ancients but when they speak of baptism, Pt. II. pp. 99, 261.

REBELLION.

St Ambrose concludes that Maximus and Eugenius are in hell for their rebellions, though against a tyrannous and heretical emperor, Pt. II. p. 36.

SCHISM. The penance for it to last ten years, Pt. I. p. 74.

SECTS.

No sect before the year iioo, that allowed any baptism at all, denied it to infants, Pt. I. p. 270.

SOCINIANS.

Endeavour to bring disrepute all the ancient Christians and their writings, Pt. II. p. 77. Argue against the Doctrine of the Trinity, not in a serious, but in a mocking way, Pt. II. p. 190.

SOME TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE EXPLAINED BY THE ANCIENTS. I Cor. vii. 2, Pt. I. p. 77 ; i Cor. vii. 14, pp. 92, 125, 203 ; i Pet. iii. 19, and iv. 10, p. 26; Col. ii. 11, 12, p. 33; John iii. 3, 5, Pt. II. p. 95, &c. ; i Tim. 11. 15, Pt. I. p. 124; Rom. v. 12, p. 128 ; I Cor. xv. 29, p. 267 ; Col. i. xv., Pt. II. p, 235 ; Phil. ii. 7, p. 234.

AMENDMENTS OF READINGS IN THE FATHERS, WHICH RESTORE THE SENSE.

August, de Gen. ad lit., 1. x. c. xxiii., esset, 1. csse, Pt. I. p. 150 ; Concil.

Carthag. iii., can. 48, nc, \. an, p. 162 ; Gennadius Catalog, -verbo Pelagius,

cidogiarum, 1. eclogarum, p. 229 ;j Hieronym, Epist. 153, de Monogamia,

I. de anima, p. 181 ; August, de natura et gratia, c. xxxvi., quod, 1. quid, p. 214 ; Hilarius de Synodis prope finem, invisibilitcr, 1. indivisibiliter, Pt.

II. p. 94 ; Wicklyff, Trial., 1. iv. c. xi., baptisari, 1. baplisarc, p. 209.

DATE DUE
.GRAHA	VI LIBR£	RY TRIM	COLL
	416-97	8-5851
		•

WTOY^vsraw

^'£**^&W

^^2^^«W

Mf*^'4*#ttj^

*^V,>/A^W/J£td

^T2^*WZ*>*

^^Va^A^v

^^V.^^A;/^

iV4V*v«H^W4OT/jmj

.«* ».•»- 4..* • A. ^r *T^Z