when he shall have considered it The onely way M. T. hath to confirme this of the Iewes not baptizing any infants of proselytes born after their first conversion and baptisme is the resolution of the Jewes that if a woman great with child became a proselyte and were baptized her child needs not baptisme when t is born And this I had cited § 109. out of the Rabbines and so indeed I find it in Maimonides tit Isuri bia c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I cannot think that whether true or false a sufficient proof to inferre the conclusion For the Iewish Doctors might probably thus resolve upon this other ground because the mother and the child in her wombe being esteemed as one person the woman great with child being baptized they might deem the child baptized as well as the woman and not account it needfull to repeat it after the birth which yet by the way it seems they would have done if they had not deemed the childe all one with the mother and consequently they must be supposed to baptize those children which were begotten to the proselyte after the time of his or her first conversion and baptisme And accordingly the Christian Doctors in the Councel of Neocaesarea Can. 6. having resolved the contrary to that Jewish hypothesis viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother that bears the childe differs from the childe or is not all one with it and her confession in baptisme is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper or particular to her self and belongs not to the childe in her womb give the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the woman that is with childe and is then converted to the faith leave to be baptized when she pleases supposing that the childe which then she carries shall notwithstanding her baptisme then be it self baptized after its birth Which as it is a cleer answer to the argument deduced from the resolution of the Jewes in that point so t is moreover an evidence how little of proof Mr. T. had either from his own observation or Mr. Seldens testimonies from all which he can produce no other but this which in the sound is so far from affirming what he would have and upon examination is found to conclude the contrary Sect. 6. Lesser inconformities no prejudice Yet they do not all hold Prayer the Christian sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The rule of judging in this matter Baptizing in the name of the Father c. prescribed by Christ So dipping or sprinkling The Pract Cat. misreported Mr. Marshals covenanting THis grand disparity then being cleared to be Mr. T. his mistake I shall not need to attend his other instances of disparity this accord which hath been already mentioned and vindicated being sufficient to my pretensions and no concernment of mine obliging me to believe or affirm that the parallel holds any farther then Christ was pleased it should hold and of that we are to judge by what the Scriptures or ancient Church tells us was the practice of him or his Apostles For 1. the Jewes I doubt not brought in many things of their own devising into this as into other institutions of God's and the latter Jewes more as of the proselytes being so born again in baptisme that lying with his natural sister was no incest and the like And 2. Christ I doubt not changed the Jewish oeconomy in many things as in laying aside circumcision in commissionating his disciples to baptize and they leaving it in the hands of the Bishop and those to whom he should commit it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not lawful to baptize without the Bishop saith Ignatius whereas it was not among the Jewes any part of the Priests office any more then circumcision was And so in many other particulars But what prejudice is that to my pretentions who affirm no more of the accordance betwixt the Jewish and Christian practice then eiher by some indications in the Scripture it self or by the Christian Fathers deductions from the Apostles times appears to be meant by Christ and practised by the Apostles and then by the Jewish writers is as evident to have been in use among them And this is all the return I need make to his 14 lesser disparities and all that he hath at large endevoured to infer from them supposing and granting them all to be such But yet it is evident that some of them are not such As when 1. he saith the baptisme of males must be with circumcision and an offering t is clear that though 1. circumcision be laid aside by Christ and 2. when it was used it had nothing to do with baptisme yet as to the adjoyning of offering or sacrifice the parallel still holds the prayers of the Church being the Christian sacrifice and those in the Christian Church solemnly attendant on the administration of baptisme So parallel to the court of three Israelites by the confession or profession of whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Maimonides the infant was baptized we have now not only the whole Church in the presence of whom t is publickly administred and when more privately yet in the presence of some Christians who are afterwards if there be any doubt to testifie their knowledge to the Church but more particularly the Godfathers and Godmothers being themselves formerly baptized do represent the Church of which they are members meaning thereby the people of the Church and the Minister commissionated thereto by the Bishop represents the Church also meaning the Governors thereof But I shall not proceed to such superfluous considerations and so I have no need of adding one word more of reply to his 24 Chap. as far as I am concerned in it unlesse it be to tell him that the Bishops Canons are not the rule by which I undertake to define wherein the Jewish custome must be the pattern wherein not but as he cannot but know if he had read the resolution of the 4th Quaere the practice of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known unto us to which as I have reason to yield all authority so I find the Canons and rituals as of this so of all other Churches in the world no one excepted to bear perfect accoordance therewith in this particular of infant baptisme though in other lesser particulars they differ many among themselves and all from the Jewish pattern And this I hope is a competent ground of my action and such as may justifie it to any Christian artist to be according to rules of right reason of meekness and sound doctrine and no work of passion or prejudice or singularity or as Mr. T. suggests of the Doctors own pleasure as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern Of this score t is somewhat strange which he thinks fit to adde concerning the forme of baptisme In the name of the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Ghost In
in habit Next to these succeeds S. Augustine who died in the 30th year of this 5 t age and was the great champion of the Church against all the invaders of the depositum committed to it His passages on this subject are to many to be enumerated and some of them have already been set down in the Resol of the Quaere p. 217. making it the perpetual doctrine of the whole Church of all ages before him and expressly including that of the Apostles So de Bap contra Donat. l. 4. c. 23. Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli infantes baptizantur qui certè nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam ore confiteri ad salutem tamen nullus Christianorum dixerit eos inaniter baptizari This is held as tradition by the Vniversal Church when little infants are baptized which are sure yet unable to believe with the heart or to confesse with the mouth and yet no Christian will say that they are baptized to no purpose a severe sentence again for the Antipaedobaptist adding the Ecclesiastical rule by which to judge of Apostolical tradition and evidencing the benefit of infant baptisme by the example of circumcision that as in Isaac circumcised the eighth day the seal of the righteousnesse of faith preceded and the righteousnesse it self followed in his riper age by his imitating his Fathers faith ita in baptizatis infantibus praecedit regenerationis Sacramentum si Christianam tenuerint pietatem sequitur in corde conversio cujus mysterium praecessit in corpore so also in baptized infants the Sacrament of regeneration praecedes and if they hold fast Christian piety conversion in the heart followes the mystery whereof had been formerly received in the body So De verb Apost Serm. 14. being come to handle this subject of the baptisme of infants he begins thus sollicitos autem nos facit non ipsa sententia jam olim in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ summâ authoritate fundata sed disputationes quorundam The doctrine it self gives us no trouble being long since founded in the Catholike Church by the highest authority that sure must be by Christs and the Apostles but the disputings of some men and again Non enim quaestio est inter nos ipsos utrum parvuli baptizandi sint Baptizandos esse parvulos nemo dubitat quando nec illi hinc dubitant qui ex alterâ parte contradicunt the question betwixt them and us is not whether infants are to be baptized Let no man make doubt of this seeing neither do they doubt of this which contradict us in the other question concerning the benefit of it And again in a farther process with those disputers Dic mihi obsecro te parvulis baptizatis Christus aliquid prodest an nil prodest Necesse est ut dicat prodesse Premitur mole matris Ecclesiae Doth Christ profit infants that are baptized or doth he not He must needs say that he doth profit he is prest with the weight of the Church our mother And again authoritate reprimuntur Ecclesiae si enim dixerint Christum nihil prodesse baptizatis infantibus nihil aliud dicunt quà m superfluè baptizantur infantes They are represt by the authority of the Church for if they say that Christ profits not infants baptized they plainly affirme that infants are superfluously baptized but this those very heretikes the Pelagians dicere non audent dare not say and so were faine to secure their hypothesis by another evasion viz. that they were baptized not for salvation but for the kingdome of heaven And yet farther Hoc habet authoritas matris ecclesiae hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet canon contra hoc robur contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur Fundata ista res est ferendus est peccator errans in aliis quaestionibus non tantum progredi debet ut fundamentum ipsum ecclesiae quatere moliatur This the authority of our mother the Church is possest of this the grounded Canon of truth holds fast against this fort this invincible wall whosoever makes assault is broken to pieces This is a grounded thing Hee is to be born with who erres in other questions but he must not proceed thus far as the Antipaedobaptist certainly doth as to indeavour to shake the very foundation of the Church i. e. certainly a doctrine laid by the first planters of the faith Christ and the Apostles themselves So Ep. 89. Non est superfluus baptismus parvulorum ut qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt per regenerationem ab eâdem liberentur The baptisme of infants is not superfluous that they who by their birth are bound to that condemnation which came by Adam should be freed from it by regeneration and more to the same purpose in that place So in Enchirid. c. 42. à parvulo recens nato usque ad decrepitum senem sicut nullus prohibendus est à baptismo ita nullus est qui non peccato moriatur in baptismo From the infant new born to the decrepit old age as none is to be kept from baptisme so there is none who dyeth not to sin in baptisme Which words are soon after transcribed by Leo ad Episc Aquileg who was advanced to the Papacie about the year 440. About this time was the Epistle of the Councel of Carthage written to Innocentius made Bishop of Rome about the year 400. In which these words we find by way of Decree Quicunque negat parvulos per baptismum Christi à perditione liberari salutem percipere sempiternam anathema sit Whosoever denyes that Infants are by the baptisme of Christ freed from perdition and receive eternal life let him be anathema About the same time whilest Innocentius lived and to the same purpose was the Milevitan Canon at which S. Augustine was present a Bishop in that Councel This hath been set down in the Resol of the Quaere p. 219. and is an evident testimonie that this doctrine was such as Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffusa semper intellexit the Catholike Church every where diffused alwaies understood and asserted and so it is that Councels witness of the Apostolicalness of it To these it were easy to adde Theodoret also and Leo already cited soon after him both falling within the former part of that fift Centurie and in every age after this store enough But the question is not and in any reason cannot be extended to those times the clear definitions through all those first ages being all that could be required to decide the controversie concerning the matter of fact whether it were practised or not practised by the Apostles And having so largely deduced them it is not imaginable what should be now wanting to the completing of the evidence when I have onely added that there is no one testimonie of dissent either pretended or producible from the writings of all those first ages nor consequently the least
THE BAPTIZING OF INFANTS REVIEVVED and DEFENDED from the Exceptions OF Mr. TOMBES In his three last CHAPTERS of his Book Intituled ANTIPEDOBAPTISME By H. Hammond D. D. LONDON Printed by J. Flesher for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy lane 1655. THE BAPTIZING OF INFANTS Reviewed and Defended The Introduction HAving by Gods help past through many stadia in these agones and therein paid some degree of obedience to the precept of Christ Mat. 5.41 and withall to S. Peters directions of rendring an account of the Faith which is in us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even to him that most unnecessarily requires it There is yet remaining one matter of discourse wherein some seeming ingagement lyes upon me occasioned by the Resolution of the 4th Quaere concerning Infant Baptisme For to this Mr. Jo Tombes hath offered some answers in the three last Chapters of his Book intitled Antipaedobaptism What I have thought meet to return to these might I supposed have been not unfitly annexed by way of appendage to that of Festivals the treatises of Festivals and Infant Baptisme being so neerly conjoyned in the first draught or monogramme that the defence of them which may in some degree passe for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought incongruity to be contrived into the same table also But the length of this Answer hath disswaded that and the desire that the Reader may have no taskes imposed on him but by his own choice hath advised the publishing this by it self with some hope that this may conclude his trouble and that this new year may not bring me so many occasions of such contests as the last hath done CHAP. I. Of Baptisme among the Jewes Sect. I. Probations more and less perfect The use of Circumcision to this question of Paedobaptisme As also of Christ's reception of children Childrens coming and believing Mat. 18. Children sinners THe foundation of Mr. Tombes's returns to me he is pleased to lay in some words which he hath recited out of § 23. of my Resolution of the 4th Quaere where I say that there is no need of laying much weight on this or any the like more imperfect wayes of probation the whole fabrick being sufficiently supported and built on this basis the customary baptismes among the Jewes and that discernible to be so if we consider it first negatively then positively To this he begins his Reply with these words I like the Doctors ingenuity in his waving the imperfect wayes of proving Infant Baptisme viz. the example of circumcision Gen. 17. of baptizing a whole houshold Act. 16.33 Christs reception of little children Mat. 19.14 Mar. 10.16 and doubt not to shew his own to be no better then those he relinquisheth To this introduction of his I shall make some Reply in a generall reflexion on the Treatise which he undertakes to answer and begin with disclaiming his good words and approbation of my ingenuity assuring him that he is wholly mistaken in these his first lines and that I do in no wise relinquish those wayes of probation by him taken notice of nor shall so far despise the authority and aides of the ancient Church writers who have made use of them as wholly to neglect the force and virtue of them And I thought it had been to him visible that I have made my advantage of every one of them § 20 21 22. though I do verily think the foundation of this practice is more fitly laid in that other of Jewish Baptisme which belonged to all both Jews and proselytes children females as well as males whereas circumcision belonging to males onely was in that and some other respects a less perfect basis of it Meanwhile for the clearing of this whole matter it must be remembred that probations are of two sorts either less or more perfect those I call less perfect which though they have full force in them as far as they are used yet are not of so large an extent as to conclude the whole matter in debate which others that are more perfect may be able to do I shall apply this to the matter before us The instituting of the Sacrament of circumcision among the Jewes and the express command of God that the children of eight daies old should by this rite be received into Covenant is an irrefragable evidence that those may be capable of receiving a Sacrament who have not attained to years of understanding the nature of it that children may be received into Covenant with God though they are not personally able to undertake or performe the condition of it and then that argument will so far be applicable to Paedobaptisme as to evidence the lawfulness and fitness of it among Christians by this analogie with God's institution among the Jewes and so certainly invalidate all the arguments of the Antipaedobaptist i. e. of Mr. Tombes drawn from the incapacity of Infants from the pretended necessity that preaching should go before baptizing from the qualifications required of those that are baptized c. For all these objections lying and being equally in force against circumcising of Infants it is yet evident to be the appointment of God that every Infant of 8. days old should be circumcised Gen. 17.12 and the threatning of God denounced against them as transgressors in case it be neglected The uncircumcised manchild shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my covenant v. 14. And this the rather because the Apostle compares baptisme of Christians with circumcision Col. 2.11.12 In whom ye are circumcised buried with Christ in baptisme Isidor Pelusiote l. 1. Ep. 125. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Jews used circumcision in stead of baptisme whereupon S. Epiphanius styles Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great circumcision and S. Augustine to them that require a divine authority whereby to prove the baptisme of Infants renders this of the Jewish circumcision ex quâ veraciter conjiciatur quid valeret in parvulis Sacramentum Baptismi whereby true judgement may be made what force the Sacrament of Baptisme may have in Infants And in like manner Isidore l. 1. Ep. 125. whereupon consideration of the Angel coming to kill Moses because of the childs not being circumcised he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us make haste to baptize our children Yet because what is thus evidenced to be lawfull and agreeable to divine appointment in the old Testament is not thereby presently proved necessary under the New Christ might otherwise have ordained if he had pleased and from his ordinance onely as that was understood by his Apostles and by them delivered to the Church the necessity of our obedience and so of Baptizing Infants is completely deduced therefore it is that I mentioned this as a more imperfect way of probation in respect of the intire conclusion which I undertook to make viz. not onely the lawfulness but the duty and obligation that lies upon us to bring our Infants to Baptisme which by the way was much more then
of the Vniversal Church for 1600 years received as the Fathers with one consent testifie from the Apostles as the will of Christ himself having this force and authority over every meek son of the Church that he may not without incurring God's displeasure oppugne or contemne it And so by this means there is much more performed then was needful if Mr. T. had been the onely adversary foreseen even that which may convince all sorts of opposers and disputers in this matter from Peter de Bruce and Henry his Scholar and the Petrobusiani and Henriciani that sprang from them to Nicholas Storck and John Munzer Melchior Rinck Balthazar Habmaier Michael Satelar the Switzers and so on to Michael Hofman the skinner in the Low Countries to Vbbo and Menno of Friseland and Theodorick Vbbo's son and all their followers which either then lived and set up in Germany or are now revived or copied out among us This one deduction of this practice of baptizing Infants from the Apostles if it be solid being abundantly sufficient to make an end of all controversies of this kind It being highly unreasonable that an institution of Christ's such as each Sacrament is should be judged of by any other rule whether the phansies or reasons of men but either the words wherein the institution is set down or when they as they are recorded in the Scripture come not home to the deciding of the controversie by the records of the practice whether of Christ or because he baptized not himself of the Apostles however conserved or made known unto us In a word then the customary baptisme among the Jews being first laid onely as the basis and foundation which as I said must be observed to differ from the whole building being indeed onely the first and most imperfect part of it and evidently brought home and applied to every branch of the Christian baptisme I desire Mr. T. will permit the baptisme of our infants to deduce and evidence it self from the considerations which are thereunto annexed both negative and positive and then make triall how he shall be able to demolish that structure which is thus founded and supported Meanwhile I shall now consider the severals of his exceptions having premised thus much in generall Sect. 3. The Jewes Baptisme of natives as well as proselytes Testimonies of their writers in proof thereof Baptisme among the heathens taken from the Jewes Among both from Noahs flood The derivation of Christian from Jewish Baptisme how manifested Christs answer to Nicodemus Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the deluge Gr. Nazianzen's and Macarius's testimonies The Fathers meaning in affirming the Christians baptisme to be in stead of Circumcision The Lords Supper founded in the Jewes Postcoenium yet in stead of their Passeover AND first he will abbreviate and give the Reader the substance of my proof which he conceives to be this that the Jewes were wont when they admitted proselytes to baptize them and their children Here again at the entrance I must enterpose that his Epitome hath done some injurie to the Book left out one considerable if not principal part viz. that which concerned the Native Jewish children who were baptized as solemnly as the Proselytes and their children This must be here taken notice of because Mr. T. makes haste to assume the contrary that the Jewes baptized not Iewes by nature p. 306. that after the baptisme Exo. 19.10 the Iews did not baptize Iewes but onely proselytes p. 307. and so makes a shift to conclude that by my arguing the children of those that were baptized in infancie ought not to be baptized and so that no infant of Christian race or descended from Christian ancestors is now to be baptized p. 308. no infants but at the first conversion of the parent p. 309. And this I was many moneths before the publication of his book warned to expect from Mr. T. as an irresistible answer to my way of defending infant baptisme mentioned by him in the pulpit as ready to be publisht that by deducing the baptisme of Christians from the Jewish custome of baptizing of proselytes I had excluded all the children of Christian ancestors from our baptisme But as this was then a great surprise to me who knew that I had cleared that Iudaical baptisme to belong to the children of all native Iewes as well as of proselytes so now I could not but wonder to find there was so perfect truth in that relation which I had received and have no more to say but to desire the Reader to cast his eyes upon that Treatise and informe himself whether I have not as punctually deduced from the Iewish writers the customary baptisme of native Iewish infants as I have done the baptisme of proselytes and their children and indeed mentioned the former as the original from which the latter was to be transcribed and so as the foundation and groundwork of that other T is unreasonable to recite here what is there so visible yet because I see it is not taken notice of but the contrary assumed for granted and the chief weight of his 24th Chapter laid upon that supposition there is nothing left me to do in this matter but to transcribe my words from that 6th § which are expressely these First then Baptisme or washing of the whole body was a Iewish solemnity by which the native Iewes were entred into the covenant of God made with them by Moses so saith the Talmud tr Repud Israel or the Israelites do not enter into covenant but by these three things by circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by baptizing and by peace offering So in Gemara ad tit Cherithoth c. 2. your fathers i. e. the Iewes of old time did not enter into the covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by circumcision and baptisme and in Iabimoth c. 4. Rabbi Ioshua said we find of our mother that they were baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not circumcised so Maimonides tit Isuribia c. 13. By three things the Israelites entred into the covenant by circumcision baptisme and sacrifice and soon after what was done to you to the Iewes in universum ye were initiated into the Covenant by circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and baptisme and sacrifice All these Testimonies there thus set down and then how could I conclude lesse then there I do that nothing can be more clearly affirmed by them i. e. by the Jewish writings of the greatest authority among them the Talmud Gemara and Maimonides If this were not sufficient then follows § 11. as a third thing observable in this baptisme among the Jewes that the baptisme of the natives was the pattern by which the baptisme of proselytes was regulated and wherein it was founded and this made evident by the arguing and determining the question in the Gemara tit Jabimoth c. 4. after this manner Of him that was circumcised and not baptized Rabbi Eliezer said that he was a Proselyte because said he we
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we affirme of this the same things which our divine officers of the Church being instructed by divine tradition have brought down unto us and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our divine guides i. e. the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Maximus considering this appointed that infants should thus be admitted according to the sacred manner nothing can be more clear then that the Apostolical tradition is by this antient and elegant writer vouched for the baptizing of infants as a sufficient account of that matter against the reproaches and scoffes of profane or heathen men who deemed it unreasonable And so there is a most convincing testimonie for that time wherein that author wrote which must needs be in the fourth Century before Theodorus Presbyters debating the question concerning him but most probably more antient and so to be placed in this third age In the midst of this third age An. Chr. 248. was S. Cyprian made Bishop of Carthage and ten years after he suffered martyrdome i. e. 158 years after the age of the Apostles In the year 257 he sat in Councell with 66 Bishops see Justellus in his Preface to the African Canons p. 21. and their decrees by way of Synodical Epistle are to be seen in his Ep. 58. ad Fidum fratrem which is now among his works Pamel Edit p. 80. The Councell was in answer to some questions about baptisme and accordingly he there sets down his own opinion together with the decrees of that Councell of 66 Bishops which were assembled with him And so this as it is an antient so it is more then a single testimonie that of a whole Councell added to it and yet farther to increase the authority of it S. Augustine cites this Epistle more then once and sets it down almost intire as a testimony of great weight against heretikes and so t is cited by S. Hierome also l. 3. dial contr Pelag. In this Epistle the question being proposed by Fidus whether infants might be baptized the 2d or 3d day or whether as in circumcision the 8th day were not to be expected he answers in the name of the Councel Vniversi judicavimus t was the resolution or sentence of all nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denegandam that the mercy and grace of God was not to be denyed to any humane birth to my child though never so young by that phrase mercy and grace of God evidently meaning baptisme the rite of conveighing them to the baptized adding that t is not to be thought that this grace which is given to the baptized pro atate accipientium vel minor vel major tribuitur is given to them in a greater or lesse degree in respect of the age of the receivers and that God as he accepts not the person so nor the age of any confirming this by the words of S. Peter Act. 10. that none was to be called common or unclean and that if any were to be kept from baptisme it should rather be those of full age who have committed the greater sins and that seeing those when they come to the faith are not prohibited baptisme quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans qui recens natus nihil peccavit nisi quòd secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiqua primâ nativitate contraxit qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso faciliùs accedit quòd illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata how much more ought not the infant to be forbidden who being new born hath no sin upon him but that which by his birth from Adam he hath contracted as soon as he was born who therefore should more easily be admitted to pardon because they are not his own but others sins which are then remitted to him Concluding that as none were by the decree of that Councel to be refused baptisme tum magis circa infantes ipsot recens natus observandum atque retinendum so this was the rather to be observed and retained about infants and new born children Thus much and more was the sentence of that antient Father and that Councel and as the occasion of that determination was not any antipaedobaptist doctrine there had no such then so much as lookt into the Church that we can hear of but a conceit of one that it should be deferr'd to the 8th day which was as much infancy as the first and so both parties were equally contrary to the Antipaedobaptists interests the condemned as well as the Judges so that it was no new doctrine that was then decreed or peculiar to S. Cyprian who had one singular opinion in the matter of baptisme appears also both by the concurrence of the whole Councel that convened with him and by the expresse words of Saint Augustine Ep. 28. ad Hieronym Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod decretum condens novum sed ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans mox natum rite baptizari posse cum suis quibusdam coepiscopis censuit Blessed Cyprian saith he not making any new decree but keeping the faith of the Church most firme decreed with a set number of his fellow Bishops that a child new-born might fitly be baptized Which shewes it the resolution of that Father also that baptizing of Infants was the faith of the Church before Cyprians time not onely the opinion but the Faith which gives it the authority of Christ and his Apostles In the next or fourth Century about the year of Christ 370. flourished Gregorie Nazianzen and dyed in the year 389. who though he be by Mr. T. affirmed to dissuade from it but in case of necessity by reason of apparent danger of death will yet give an evident testimonie of the doctrin of the Church of that age in this matter In the 4th oration written on this subject of Baptisme having gone through all the ages of man to demonstrate a proposition premised by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it belongs to every age and sort of life he at length comes to the consideration of infancy in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou hast an infant let not iniquity get time let it be sanctified certainly baptized in infancy let it in the tender age be consecrated to Gods spirit and whereas the heathens use amulets and charmes to secure their children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do you give it the Trinity the Fathers the Sonne and the Holy Ghost in baptisme that great and good phylacterie or preservative A plain testimonie of the Churches doctrine at that time Afterwards in the same oration he returns to this matter again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what saith he will you say concerning those that are yet children and neither know the losse nor are sensible of the grace of baptisme shall we also baptize them And his answer is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yes by all means if any danger presse t is