"That

are much decried by Protestants in other cases, and, therefore, ought not to be made use of in this." To which Dr. Hammond and he answer, 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 practice 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 [110] that the apostles gave order to the churches that they should baptize their infants; and St. Austin says the same; yet that, probably, St. Austin took this from Origen's writings [290]; 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 Irenæus, 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 prac tice in those tines.". To which I have added a testimony of St. Ambrose* [274] that speaks expressly of the apostles times.

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

He objected, moreover, that Pædobaptism was first established by Canon of the Milevitan Council, as he calls it (meaning that Canon of the Council of Carthage, which I recited in Part I, ch. 19) 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

*Part 1, ch. 13,

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.

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

He had also, in his Plea for the Antipædobaptists, cited the Canon of the Neocæsarean Council (which I recited in Part 1, ch. 8) [214]; and 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.

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.

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 Antipædobaptists 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, wrote a letter to Mr. Tombs, wherein he had said thus: - "I do believe Pædobaptism (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

* See the Canon, part 1, ch. 19.

misunderstood, John iii. 5. Upon the like gross mis-, take 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 Antipædobaptists [1573], came afterward to be printed *, 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, -"I acknowledge that such words as are cited by Mr. D. (and such others, spoke and wrote 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 warrant 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, baptize infants."

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 19th Oration 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 nowa-days, when, by a commendable custom, they are baptized in infancy, lest delay should bring danger with it. What a word did that learned abbot suffer to escape

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

+ Wills's Infant Baptism farther vindicated, page 87.

the edge 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 Anthony Van Dale, a Dutch Minister, or Antipædobaptist, has written a Tract, called "The History of Baptisms;" wherein he has one chapter against infant baptism; and in that (at p. 375) a quotation of a letter of Salinasius, written to Justus Pacius, under the name of Simplicius Verinus; where Salmasius says, " In the two first centuries none received baptism but such as being instructed in the faith, and made acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, could declare their belief of it; because of those words, He that believeth, and is baptized; 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 baptism, the Eucharist should be given. Afterward, there came in an opinion, that none could be saved that was not baptized; and so there grew a custom of giving baptism to infants; and because the adult catechumens, as soon as they were baptized, had the Eucharist given them, without any space of time passing between, it was, after that infant baptisin 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 authenticity of this quotation; nor can give any guess (if Salmasius did write such a letter) what age he might be 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 afterward; 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 afterward found their own mistake. This is the more probable in the case of Salmasius, for that he never did, in his conversation or books (that I ever heard of) shew any inclination to Antipædobaptism; but if this were his steady opinion concerning the beginning of Pædobaptism, then we must add him to 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, Zúvačic, who, it seems, took it from Salmasius.

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 practised in the church of Christ, yet think that it was not general or universal; but that in the elder times, some Christian parents baptized their children in infancy, and others not; and that it was counted indifferent.

age,

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 baptized at man's some of whom they took to be born of Christian parents (which last, whether they did not take to be so without due examination, shall be discoursed afterward); yet they supposed them to be not enough to make any considerable exception to the general rule and practice of the church.

So though Dr. Field, in his treatise of the Church, page 719, 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