§. 2. And why have we no satisfactory answer to these things so oft replied? 1. That Tertullians words prove that Infant-Baptism was then in use: And it is the matter of fact that we are searching after? 2. And doth he think that Antichrist was before Tertullians time? 3. The opinion of Tertullian seemeth not at all to be against the Lawfulness of Infant Baptism, in general; but against the eligibleness of it in case of no apparent danger of death. For I have oft proved that the judgement of that age, and ⟨p. 350⟩some following was, that none should be compelled to be Baptized, or to Baptize their Infants, but they should themselves be choosers of the time. For the conceit of the absolute necessity of Baptism to salvation, came in afterwards. And when the seed of the faithful are Holy, and in Gods Covenant or Promise, upon the Parents Mental dedication of them to God, and so in a state of salvation, no wonder if they were not so hasty and peremptory for the sudden Investiture into the Christian Church state, when they took it to be but the public solemnization of a Covenant, really made and valid before. And as Nazianzene is for Infant-Baptism (long after) in case of danger, but else for staying three or four years, till they can speak: so Tertullian seemeth to prefer delay for such conveniences as he mentioneth. 4. And if Mr. D. doubt of this, let him tell me why he saith, cunctatio utilior. 5. And giveth the reason from the inconvenience to the Sponsors. 6. And why he also persuadeth the unmarried and young Widows to delay their Baptism, till they are married, or grow corroborate to continency, lest temptation carry them to sin; And maketh this case of the like reason with that of Infants. Did he think that it was flatly unlawful for maids and young widows to be Baptized? or only less safe, and eligible, except in danger of death? The case is plain. 7. And whether he like his other reason, Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? And whether Tertullian here do not tell us that he took those Infants that were Baptized to receive thereby solemn Remission ⟨p. 351⟩of sin, if they had any sin? If he thought they had none, we have little reason to follow his opinion. 8.
§. 2. And why have we no satisfactory answer to these things so oft replyed? 1. That Tertullians words prove that Infant-Baptism was then in use: And it is the matter of fact that we are searching after? 2. And doth he think that Antichrist was before Tertullians time? 3. The opinion of Tertullian seemeth not at all to be against the Lawfulness of Infant Baptism, in general; but against the eligibleness of it in case of no apparent danger of death. For I have oft proved that the judgement of that age, and ⟨p. 350⟩some following was, that none should be compelled to be Baptized, or to Baptize their Infants, but they should themselves be chusers of the time. For the conceit of the absolute necessity of Baptism to salvation, came in afterwards. And when the seed of the faithful are Holy, and in Gods Covenant or Promise, upon the Parents Mental dedication of them to God, and so in a state of salvation, no wonder if they were not so hasty and peremptory for the sudden Investiture into the Christian Church state, when they took it to be but the publick solemnization of a Covenant, really made and valid before. And as Nazianzene is for Infant-Baptism (long after) in case of danger, but else for staying three or four years, till they can speak: so Tertullian seemeth to prefer delay for such conveniencies as he mentioneth. 4. And if Mr. D. doubt of this, let him tell me why he saith, cunctatio utilior. 5. And giveth the reason from the inconvenience to the Sponsors. 6. And why he also perswadeth the unmarried and young Widdowes to delay their Baptism, till they are married, or grow corroborate to continencie, lest temptation carry them to sin; And maketh this case of the like reason with that of Infants. Did he think that it was flatly unlawful for maids and young widdows to be Baptized? or only less safe, and eligible, except in danger of death? The case is plain. 7. And whether he like his other reason, Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? And whether Tertullian here do not tell us that he took those Infants that were Baptized to receive thereby solemn Remission ⟨p. 351⟩of sin, if they had any sin? If he thought they had none, we have little reason to follow his opinion. 8.
