infants have right to the holy CoÌ„munion as they have to strong meat but not a capacity as such or while they are infants and God hath in express terms restrained the Lords supper to those who can actually apprehend remember declare forth Christs death 1 Cor. 11 26. which because infants cannot do we give them not the Communion Secondly God hath denounced a grievous curse or punishment against any that shall presume without due examination of himself to eat of that bread drink of that cup but not so concerning Baptism it being the seal of our new-birth and reception into the visible Church and Covenant which hath no such condition annexed as may justly exclude Infants in respect of any present non-performance thereof But the Lords Supper is the Seal of our groâ—â—h in grace and spirituall strength instituted for the confirmation of our admittance into and our continuance in the Church of Christ whose death and passion for our redemption we thereby shew forth and commemorate for our spirituall perfection nourishment and strengthening in faith and other graces of his Spirit for our assurance that God having once received us into his favour will continue his mercy to us in Christ By these disparities the invalidity of the Pleaders Argument may appear And if it were true which he further saith that the wit of man is not able to shew a disparity in the sanction c. yet the wisdom of God is able and hath declared this difference in holy Scripture and the same can shew more then the wit of man can discern and hath shewed more then the learned Pleader doth or will understand who I conceive doth not yet know all that the wit of man or all the world can inform him of but is it not better even for those who have been in the Mount with God to cast the veil of modest humility over those excellencies which they have received and with which they shine to others admiration then to ostent them to the contempt of others The Apostle of Christ was rap't up into the third Heaven and yet professed we know in part and we prophesie in part 1 Cor. 13. 9. But you further say Since the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion c. That which you said a little before They are as honest and as reasonable that doe neither to wit baptize infants or give them the Comunion as those that understood the Obligation to be Parallel we may very well believe and wish that either of them may prove honest hereafter But to that which you say That the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion I answer 1. with Tertullian That is of the Lord and true which was first delivered but that is extraneous and false which is afterward received in And with Cyprian We ought not to heed what some before us have thought was to be done but what Christ did who was before all for we ought not to follow the custom of men but the truth of God 2 Your own rule must binde you though it cannot others who consent not thereto they who reject tradition when 't is against them must not pretend it at all for them pag. 237. Numb 25 3 It is considerable in that custome of the church as some other incoveniences which Augustine saith It is saith he one thing which we teach and another which we endure one thing which we are enjoyned to command and another thing which we are commanded to amend and untill we amend we are compelled to endure it And again who is eaten with the zeal of Gods house why he that endeavoureth and desireth to amend all that he sees amisse he resteth not if he cannot amend it he endureth it he sigh's the grain is not tossed out of the floor it endures the chaff that it may enter into the granary when the chaff is winnowed out 4 We adhere not so to tradition that we universally receive all that which was done or said of old things delivered by some but not generally received by the Church we esteem but superstructions of particular men or superseminations which possibly may spread farre as many pernicious opinions have done yet no sober man ever took them for Apostolicall or so much as Ecclesiasticall traditions we neither reject any tradition which appeareth to be Apostolicall if not peculiar to their times or suited peculiarly to certain times places or persons nor do we rashly receive any tradition for such except we are certain that the Scripture determineth nothing against it or where strong consequence from thence justifieth it 5 We conceive Augustines rule herein to be good In those things saith he concerning which divine Scripture determineth nothing certainly the custome of Gods people or institution of our ancestors are to be held for a law otherwise endlesse contention will arise also we must beware that the calm of charity be not clouded by the storm of contention 6 We will not rashly dissent from reverend antiquity wherein it dissenteth not from the truth we love peace with all who hold that in fundamentalls at least and therefore will follow Augustin's advice in that he piously saith concerning his reader where saith he he knows his errour let him return to me where mine let him recall me our rule being that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 11 1. be yee followers of me even as I also am of Christ more no good man will require nor render lesse to Ancestors 7 Lastly we say that the Scripture which you cite Joh. 6. 53. except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you is not spoken concerning a Sacramentall but a spirituall feeding and although * some of the Jesuites and other Papists contend against us herein yet â—â— some of the most sober of them acknowledge that those words are not to be understood concerning eating or receiving the Lords super which ours generally maintain you might do your self right to joyn with us and not with the most eager Jesuites concerning the spirituall feeding of infants to eternall life by the merit of Christ applyed to them for their Union with him and salvation in and by him we willingly accord the manner of effecting by the secret power of the holy Ghost we enquire not after because it is not revealed but for the reasons alleaged we give them not the communion Next you say If Anabaptist shall be a name of disgrace why shall not some other name be invented for them that deny to communicate infants which shall be equally disgracefull c That would be a rare invention indeed but if to call Anabaptists Anabaptists be just why find you fault with it if evill or unjust why consult you how to imitate it by way of revenge is it not a shame to be such as we are or may well be ashamed to be
of reason and age what doth God when he said to Abraham and in thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed doth he meane only all persons of age are children in their nonage excluded from the blessing in Christ Nay but the Apostle saith expresly the promise is unto you and to your children and such Christ blessed and of such is the kingdome of heaven Doth the Scripture 21â— saying all flesh dyed every man meane onely all of reason and age were the infants excepted many places of Scripture may shew the vanity of this your assertion but if your proposition be particular that is that sometimes the Scripture by whole families means persons of reason that is who have the use of reason and age we can grant it you I adde somtimes all signifieth only a great part as Mat. 10. 22 ye shall be hated of all men for my name sake that is of many times in the Hebrew manner of speaking it signifies none or not any one as Psal. 147. 20. he hath not done so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all or every nation that is not to any so Exod. 12. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. every son of a stranger shall not eate thereof that is none now would you have the sense of Christs words goe and baptize all nations to be go and baptize some nations or a major part of the nations the evidence of the truth is against that as well as against the other go and baptise none but you would faine have it go and baptize those that are persons of reason and age within the nations shew us any such precept of Christ and we will obey it in the meane time we must do that which we know he commanded us that is baptize all nations all against whom we finde no exception and why should we look for exception in families seeing we find none mentioned by our Saviour in nations but you would have here a limitation to capacity which you think infants have not first we say shew us any Scripture-proofe for such limitation secondly we say that although the incapacity of an infant limit a command where there appeareth a present impossibility of doing that which God in generall commandeth as where he saith believe repent confesse your sins sing unto God praise him c for God commandeth no impossibilities yet where it is possible that the command may be fulfilled there lieth no such limitation now you will not say that 't is impossible for infants to be baptized if you say they ought not to be baptized untill they can actually believe repent c. we must answer you with your own this is unmanlike to build upon such slight and aery conjectures as are humane fancies to forbid infants baptisme and when you can bring us no solid ground for that you would have to beg the question But you say Tradition by all meanes must supply the place of Scripture and there is pretended a tradition Apostolicall that infants were baptized c. You seem here to speake three things first that when we cite traditions we use them in place of Scripture or for defect of Scripture-proofe which to deny is confutation enough untill you can shew which of us so pretend to tradition Secondly in your following words you pretend that we sometimes reject Apostolicall tradition for of that you speake to which we say that when the quaestion is concerning a tradition of the gospel or Apostles as Epiphanius speakes we receive it and with an ancient Council wish that those things may be done in the Church which were delivered by divine Scripture or Apostolical tradition which we adde hereto though we have no reason to admit of all that is alledged for such as for those things which the Apostles desivered in complyance with particular times places or persons as anointing with oyl saluting with an holy kisse love-feasts c. they were necessary then and to that people who had been long accustomed thereto of whom a gospel-gospel-Church was now to be gathered but they were neither universally prescribed neither do they concern us now Next we say with S. Augustine the whole Church holdeth by tradition the baptism of infants and that beeing continually observed we justly believe to have been delivered and confirmed by Apostolicall tradition But you say So farre as it can appeare it relies wholly upon the testimony of Origen for from him Augustine had it c. Yet before you affirmed that infant-baptisme was Augustin's device how had Augustine it from Origen if it were Augustin's device That it was neither his device neither that it relyeth wholly upon the testimony of Origen many other testimonis by us alleaged make manifest as Dionysius Jrenaus Cyprian Ambros Jerom Cyril Gre. Nazianzen Basil c. as also ancient Councils as that of â—arthage Anâ— 407. the Milevitan Anâ— 420 c. to conclude we rely not upon the testimony of man though we reverence holy antiquity but on the command of Christ and the Apostles practises baptising whole nations without any appearing exception to infants of believing parents and therefore you following inferences either nothing concern or nothing hurt us You say further There was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it No command to children to oblige them a dainty caption neither was there any command to infants to oblige them to the susception of circumcision for they could neither act nor understand that or any other command The command was to the parents for present and to children for the future therefore if you meaâ—e that there was no command of Scripture to oblige â—s to the baptizing of infants the contrary appeares Matth. 28. 19. But you require expresse termes we rejoyns what expresse termes in Scripture have you to prove that there is an holy Trinity in the unity of the deity or for the abrogating the Jewish Sabbath and observation of our Lord-day Sabbath or for womens receiving the Lords supper or for your rebaptizing or dipping over head and ears But you say The necessity of pedobaptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth age after Christ but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Councel never till then What necessity speak you of de necessitate medii in respect of infants salvation as if they could not be saved without it we maintain it not if you mean such a necessity on our part as bindeth us to obedience that is to baptize infants of believing parents we say with S. Augustin the custom of our mother the Church in baptizing infants is not at all to be despised or by any means to be esteemed superfluous nor to be believed any other then an Apostolical tradition the ground hereof is laid down l. 3. c. 24. Contra Donat. before by us cited to which I refer the reader the sum is That whatsoever is universally observed in all Churches and no man can say by what
rejoined what ere they professe they may be hypocrites and then no more spirituall Infants then Judas or Simon Magus were If you say that in charity you take them for spirituall I answer That an opinion that may be so easily false and in which any man without speciall revelation may be deceived is a very unproportionable ground of so sharp a controversie as causeth your Clients to forsake the Church of Christ. Next I say had you but as much charity towards infants whom no actuall sins have yet stained you would as freely judge them spirituall infants and so by your own Principle to be baptized as those of years of whom possibly you may know much evill without all controversie they have many sins to be repented of and why should you not afford harmless Infants who cannot dissemble as much charity as you do to many hypocrites of whose spirituall regeneration or being spirituall Infants you cannot be certain And this seems to have been the sense of the primitive Church for in the age next to the Apostles they gave to all baptized persons milk and honey to represent unto them their duty that though in age of understanding they were men yet they were babes in Christ and children in malice c. Indeed we read of such a custome in Tertullians time but that was two hundred years after Christ but I find not the sense of the Church therein by him expressed to your purpose And Hierom mentioneth the same custom but giveth no such sense as you pretend to it being well known that he was for Infant-baptism And it appears not by any thing you here cite or say that such a custom proveth any thing against Baptism of Infants for whom milk and hony is fitter nourishment thâ—n for the strong 1 â—orinth 3. 2. Hebr. 5. 12 13. Your other conjecture is but feebly grounded yet you say But to infer the sense of the Pedo-baptists is so weak a manner of arguing that Augustine whose device it was and men use to to be in love with their own fancies at the most pretended it but as probable and a meer câ—njecture To which we answer 1. That things which Christ commanded to his Apostles could not be Augustines or any humane invention but a divine Institution such was baptizing of Infants as will appeare in due place And this is the ground of this whole controversie 2. That it was none of Augustines device or fancy with which he was therefore in love as being his own Augustine his self clearly testifieth S. Cyprian saith he not composing any new decree but holding the most firm faith of the Church to correct their error who thought that an infant might not be baptized before he were eight days old he with certain his fellow Bishops was of this sense that a new-born infant might rightly be baptized As for the words of Cyprian we have cited them a little before Cyprian with a Conncell of 66. Bishops resolved so not out of any then new-born opinion or decree but maintained that which was of old the firm faith and doctrine of the Church which was long before him And Cyprian flourished about the year of our Lord 22 and was crowned with martyrdom under the persecuting Emperour Valerian about the year 260. And St. Augustine flourished about the year 410. and died about the year 430. So that had Augustine as you say devised it iâ— must have 150 years years before Augustine was born been devised by Augustine which had been a singular device indeed Origen of whom you say Augustine had this tradition of Baptizing Infants pag. 237. N. 25 saith because we are all conceived and born in sin the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to administer Baptism to little childâ—â— Now Origen lived about the same time with Cyprian How you can reconcile your self in that you here affirm that Pedobaptism was Augustines device and yet confesse that Augustine had it from Origen who died so many years before Augustine was born I say not to the truth but to your self I do not understand Justin Martyr whom Tertullian mentioneth as an Ancestor he lived under the Emperour Antoninus Pius and. Irenaeus speaketh of Infants baptized in his time Irenaeus speaking of Christs Baptism and entrance into his publique Ministery saith He sanctified every age by that similitude which was to himself for he came to save all by himself I say all who by him are regenerate to God infants and little ones boys young men and old therefore passed he through every age for infants he became an infant sanctifying infants c. This Irenaeus was so ancient that he saw Polycarp who was an hearer of some of the Apostles of Christ. It was therefore none of Augustines device 3. Whether this be true which you affirm that Augustine at the most pretended it but as probable and a meâ—â—conjecture to baptize infants as infants were circumcised let Augustine speak for himself who saith If any man in this thing look for Divine authority although that which the universal Church holdeth being no Decree of any Councell but hath been always observed that we must rightly believe to have been delivered no otherwise then by Apostolicall authority yet we may truly apprehend of what value the Sacrament of Baptism of Infants may be from the circumcision of the flesh which the former people received Abraham was justified before he received it as also Cornelius was endued with the gift of the holy Ghost before he was baptized c. why therefore was â—e commanded thenceforth to circumcise every male child on the eighth day seeing they could not yet believe with the heart c. but because the Sacrament it self is of it self of great moment so untrue is it that Augustine either devised Infant-baptism or so slightly pretended to it as you report But you go on And as ill successe will they have with their other Arguments as with this And what is that for which you cry victory in your former encounters I will not be so expensive of time or so much entrench upon the Readers patience as to repeat let him judge of what he hath read But what other battalio's come next up You say From the action of Christs blessing Infants to inferre that they are to be baptized proves nothing so much as that there is great want of better Arguments A gallant flourish indeed but seriously Did Christ take them up in his arms and bless them and are they not blessed Doth not Gods blessing give both end and means that we may be so Or spake Christ onely concerning the carnall seed of Abraham and not of the spirituall when he said Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Surely if Christ adjudge and give the Kingdom of heaven which himself onely can give and in which none but the elect shall be to an infant it must be no less then impious in
But you say A wicked adulterous generation seeketh after a signe c. Possibly Mr. Fisher at his Ashford-conference was beholding to you for this opprobrie and abuse of holy Scripture but we entreat you seriously and timely to consider the severity of the Judge who hath said concerning any that take his name in vain I will not hold him guiltlesse and whether pernicious playing with holy Scripture and willfull perverting the sense thereof fall not under the sentence of self-destruction consider the terrors which Christ useth Matth 12. 38. 39. and Matth. 16. 4. the thing which the Scribes Pharises required was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word though it signify divers things as may appeare by comparing Mat. 14. 3. 26. 48. Luk. 2. 12. Rom. 4. 11. 2. Thess. 3. 17. yet is it more then manifest that they required a miracle and that extraordinary and above all those divine works of Christ which hitherto they had ever seen as casting out devils raising the dead c. they required a signe from or out of heaven Matth. 16. 1. Mark 8. 11. and then Christ answered a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a signe that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wonder which words are often joyned to expresse the same thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly signifies a prodigie or monster Suidas gives it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeter ordinariamrationem formatum praeter naturam genitum such a signe as begetteth admiration and amazement in the beholders and so the Syriack Joh. 4 48 expresseth it by a word comming of that verbe which signifieth to be amazed or very much to admire now I appeale to your conscience do we seek any such signe or miracle from heaven when we bring children to be baptized is not this froathy Rethorick you confesse baptisme to be the ordinary inlet into the kingdome of heaven and is an ordinary thing a signe or miracle consider also the persons of whom Christ spake they were a wicked and an adulterous generation for though they pretended to be Abrahams children yet neither heiring him in faith or works but degenerating from him they deservedly heard ye are of your father the devil if this present generation be such consider who makes it so and whether you have any commission to judge them wicked who professe true faith and obedience to Jesus Christ and his holy gospel in all things that any shall or can make appeare to us to be the truth But you say The truthâ—out is this argument is nothing but a direct quarrelling with almighty God The untruth of this assertion is so evident that it were but lost labour to bestow more words to refute it Now since there is no strength in the doctrinall part c. I appeale to the judicious reader let him judge what strength hath appeared in your oppositions concerning the words which you here multiply to little if any purpose I shall say no more but onely marke the strength of the pleaders present argument the sum whereof is Some Apostolicall traditions were pro loco tempore accommodate to place and time as the forementioned love feasts saluting with an holy kisse anointing the sick absteining from blood c. therefore no Apostolicall traditions passed an engagement upon following ages We answer we contend not for any such traditions as were pro loco tempore yet doth it not follow that because all Apostolicall traditions engage not posterities therefore none do as in that instance concerning the sabbath I suppose you will accord with us But you say Because other parallel expressions of Scripture do determin and expound themselves to a sense that includes not all persons absolutely but of a capable condition as Adorate eum omnes gentes psallite Deo c. Suppose all that granted what then you would inferre that infants have not a condition capable of baptisme because some other places of Scripture are relating to capahcity what makes this against the baptisme of infants who beeing within Gods covenant are therefore capable of the feal thereof as they were under the law although even then the Scripture saying psallite Deo omnes c. said that to those only who could sing to God and praise him and not unto infants of eight-dayes old to be circumcised who know's not that God commanded severall things with respect to severall capacities doth the incapacity in respect of one command conclude an incapacity of all women were not capable of circumcision nor of the office of teaching in the congregation nor of execution of priestly offices yet they also could and ought to sing to the Lord and were of that part of nations commanded to praise the Lord. Psal. 148. 12. Psal. 149. 3 5. Exod. 15. 20 21. â—udg 5. 1. Infants had not a capacity of singing praises to God they had of circumcision and therefore they were then circumcised though they could not sing infants cannot sing now therefore that precept sing unto the Lord c. concerneth them not for present but they can be baptized as such therefore that precept baptise all nations reacheth unto them you say more As for the conjecture concerning the family of Stephanas at the best it is but a conjecture and besides that it is not proved that there were children in the family yet if that were granted it followes not that they were baptized because by whole families in scripture is meant all persons of reason and age within the family Admit that to be conjectural and we take it for no more yet it is no light conjecture the Syriac gives it filij domus â—jus omnes speaking of the keeper of the prison Act. 16. 33. that children were baptized with the rest of the family for though â—â— there also may signify any domestick yet certainly it signifieth a child also and children were usually domesticks but it can be no more then a light conjecture of Anabaptists that there were no infants in this family or that of Stephanas which Paul baptized howsoever it can be no conjecture but certaine truth that in all nations there ever were and still are a great part infants and it is more then conjecturall that the Apostles did as Christ commanded them saying baptize all nations as for that which you say in Scripture is meant all persons of reasons and age within the family because it is said that the ruler at Capernaum believed and all his house is that proposition universall doe you affirme that by whole families is ever meant all persons of age within the family and such only if so your assertion is apparently false but if your proposition be particular it falleth short of our cause for what can it hurt it if by all or whole families in Scripture sometimes is meant all persons of reason and age deale ingenuously then do you affime that by whole or all the Scripture doth alwayes meane persons
Councel it was determined or when it began must be thought to have descended from the tradition of the Apostles themselves and therefore we hold it as we are commanded 2 Thes. 2.15 and we believe it is necessary to be held because 't is so commanded That which you say that it was not determined in the Church till in the eighth age after Christ and but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Councel will easily appear false for the Councel of Carthage in Cyprians time who flourished about the year 250. determined that children might be baptized and that even before the eight day against the opinion of Fidus as was before noted out of Cyprian but you say that infant-baptism was not determined in the Church untill the Milevitan Councel 1. I demand Doth a determination by a succeeding Councel exclude a determination of the same thing by a foregoingâ— or doth it conclude a thing to be no Apostolical tradition What think you then of our Christian Sabbath will you say that the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath that our Christian Sabbath might succeed was not an Apostolical tradition or that it was not sufficiently determined in the Church untill about the year 364. because then there was a Canon made for the same in the Councel of Laodicea Nay but the practice of the Apostles was a sufficient determination thereof And truly Ecclesiastical Canons as also municipal Laws and Statutes may with good reason be made for confirmation of things rightly and long before sufficiently determined where some emergent opposition to the former requireth a due revisal and further expression interpretation or confirmation of the same 2. I say that there needed no determination by a general Councel before any opposition was made publickly against a received custome of the Church but so soon as it was questioned and openly opposed by the Pelagians then the second Milevitan Councel was called against Pelagius and Celestius It were but a weak argument against an Apostolical tradition if we should find little or no mention thereof in any writer in some ages of the Primitive Church seeing that besides that there were some of them obscure generally without Ecclesiastical Writers what necessity can be alleadged that in every age some writers must make particular mention and rehersal of all Apostolical traditions or practices of the Church when an uninterrupted peace thereof sufficed and no opposition gave occasion of providing for defence Indeed when any turbulent and disobedient spirit of contradiction brake out to disturb the peace and unity of the Church then the Ministers disputed preached or wrote as need required or Councels were called which could not come together from divers Nations without much trouble and charge and therefore they were not assembled except in case of some urgent necessity and then their Canons were agreed upon for suppressing of emergent errors and that in all reason for what need arming without an enemy to make Statutes provisions Ordinances or Canons without some present danger might possibly teach men to offend or erre who without such occasion had not minded it at all The first Apostolical Synod had an apparent cause certain men taught the brethren saying Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved Then the Apostles and Elders â—ame together to consider of this matter So the four first Councels had their several occasions The Nicen Councel was called by Constantin to suppress the damnable heresie of the Arians The Councel of Constantinople was called against Maedonius and Eunomius denying the deity of the holy Ghost in the reigne of Gratian and Theodosius The Councel of Ephesus in the reigne of Theodosius the younger against Nestorius and Caelestius and the Calcedon Councel was gathered against the heresie of Eutychus and Dioscorus so was the Councel of Gangris against Eustathius The first Councel of Carthage against the rebaptizing Donatists the Arelatense was occasioned by their appeal and the second Milevitan Councel was called against Pelagius and Caelestius his great Factor denying infants original sin and baptism So that the non determination of a thing for many ages in the Church the Church constantly holding and practising it proves nothing but that no body opposed it all that time and had Pelagiâ—uâ—s heresie concerning infant-baptism after the Milevitan Councel and after the writings of Jerome Augustin Optatus and others still slept I know not why any man should now have written or spoken against it I grant you say it was practised in Africa before that time and they or some of them thought well of it and though that be no argument for us to think so yet none of them did ever before pretend it to be necessary none to have been a precept of the Gospel St. Augustin was the first that ever preach'd it to be absolutely necessary and that was in his heat and anger against Pelagius who had warmed and chased him so in that question that it made him innovate in other doctrines possibly of â—â—re concernment then this You grant the practice of infant-baptism in Africa and that some of them thought well of it It hath been proved that an ancient Councel there established it as a custome of the Church derived from the practice or tradition of the Apostles obeying Christ's general precept to baptize all nations that none of them before Augustin pretended it to be necessary cannot be true for they would not have practised a thing of so high concernment except they â—ad held it to be necessary on the part of the administrers Further I say that the Churches of Africa were of a very ancient plantation as were also the Churches of Asia of which was Justin Martyr by birth a Samaritan which is of Asia the greater and he was for infant-baptism above all controversie the sound of the Apostles preaching went into all the earth and their words unto the ends of the world and therefore all the Christian Churches were first planted according to the Gospel and traditions of the Apostles among which we have shewed infant-baptism to be one for good cause therefore they thought well of it and so do we That none of them did ever before Augustine pretend it necessary is apparently false for it was in liking and use in Cypriant time as hath been proved therefore if Augustin were the first that ever preached it to be absolutely necessary to salvation and in his heat against the Pelagians did something innovate it hurteth not our cause who do not affirm so rigid a necessity of baptism as we have said formerly But you sa Nor at all in other places we have the testimony of a learned Pedobaptist Ludovicus Vives who in his annotations upon S. Augustin de C. Dei l. 1. c. 2â— affirms neminem nisi adultum antiquitùs solere baptizari That infant-baptism was not at all practised in other places is very untrue as appeareth by that which hath been alleadged out