Before you fall upon the examination of the testimony , you say , Hee was a Greeke , and wrote in Greeke ; but wee have his Works in Latine , except some fragments : this you conceive to be a reason why we cannot be so certain of his meaning , as we should be , if wee had his owne words in the language in which he wrote : and may not this Objection lie against any Translation whatsoever ? and upon that ground you may slight it . I cannot guesse why you adde this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that hee was a Greeke , &c. unlesse it were to intimate to your Reader that I could not discern whether he were to be numbred in the Catalogue of Greek or Latine Fathers : yet you know that I mentioned him in the first rank of those Renowned Lights of the Church , which wrote in the Greek tongue , to which afterwards I added two other : and when I came to speake of any of the Latine Fathers ; Cyprian was the first in whom this question did occurre . But whether his words in the testimony alledged bee truly translated into Latine , shall by and by be considered .

As for his age , you acknowledge with me , that hee lived in the same Century with Just. Martyr : the yeare in which he flourished is variously related by the Authors named by your selfe ; one sayes 180 , the other 183 , I may adde i● third who varies from them both , and sayes 175 , and may Trithem . not others point at other times also ? For ought I know , you needlesly trouble your selfe , and your Reader , in naming particular year● in which these famous Lights of the Church lived , which I thinke can hardly with exactnesse be done : it is safe to say , about such a time , or in such a Century , such and such lived , which cannot bee prejudiciall to the Reader , when wee know a Century includes many years : neither can any man warrantably restrain it to any one year alone wherein such a man flourished , as if he had flourished one year and no more .

But I proceed to what you say of the testimony it selfe , it is extant , Iren. 2. 39. Christus venit salvare 〈◊〉 , &c. Your exceptions against it are many .

First , you question whether re●asuatur there signifies baptisme or no , as Feuardemiur his glosse take● it . Secondly , You say , that neither Christ nor his Apostles call Baptisme a new birth . Thirdly , possibly this was not the word used by Irenaeus in his own Writing . Fourthly , that the Latine alters Irenaeus his minde , as learned Rivet sayes . Lastly , that Irenaeus meant not Baptisme in this place , you goe about to prove by his scope therein . These are your exceptions which now wee come to examine .

To begin with the first of them , when , Irenaeus saith , Christus venit salvare omnes qui per eum renasountur , infantes & parvulos & pueros , &c. First you question the meaning of the word renasountur , whether Baptisme is meant thereby ; and you ask me , whether this was any other then Feuardentius P. 6. his glosse , and adde Rivets censure of him .

I take not upon me the defence of Feuardentius , let him goe for such a one as Learned Rivet relates him to be , A corrupter Answ. of Irenaeus in many things : yet that judicious Man says not that he corrupted Irenaeus his sense in this place . And that he did not , it 's manifest to me ; because Baptisme usually is stiled by the Greek Fathers a new birth . Learned Vossini saith upon that very place , that to call baptisme renascentia , was ●●sitat● veteribus loquendi forma ; which a few instances will make good . Justine Martyr speaking of the manner of administration of Baptisme , sayes of the baptized party , He is brought to the place where the water is , Just. Mart. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. and i● regenerated in the same manner wherein wee were regenerated : and to put it out of all controversie , he is there speaking of Baptism under the name of Regeneration ; he adds , They are then washed in water in the name of our Lord God Creator of all things , and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ , and the holy Ghost . Here he tels us what he meant by Regeneration mentioned before : viz. When the Party was in the name of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost washed with water , that is , baptized . Dionysini Areopag●ta ( but you will say he is questioned , yet no man can question whether he exprest Baptisme by regeneration ) speaking of Baptisme sayes , Divine signes of the divine generation , and what is that ( I pray you ) but a new birth ? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Dionys. Areop. Hierarch . ca. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . yea in the same Chapter he addes further of it . The Saorament of our divine generation as in a signe . And in the beginning of that part , hee calls the Font , or place in which Baptisme was administred , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the mother of our adoption . Athanasine De Sab , & Circumcis . sayes , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , we are borne again by washing : and doth not Basil call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the regeneration Basil . exhortatione ad baptismum . of the soule ? Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. amongst many other titles he puts on Baptisme , this is one , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Now I demand of you , do not all these Authors call Baptisme a new Birth , which you would fasten onely on Feuardentius ? yea doth not Ambrose call the Fon : Baptisterium regeneration is lavacrum , the lavacre of Regeneration ? Lib. de initiandis ca. 2. Whatsoever you say of me , I hope by this time you will not think that both Latine and Greeke Fathers learned of Feuardentius his glosse to call Baptisme a new birth .

Secondly , you say , no where doth our Lord or the Apostles , P. 6. call Baptisme a new birth . I desire to know of you the meaning of that place , Tit. 3. 5. I thought the Apostle there had called Baptisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the washing of the new birth , or Regeneration : and what that is but Baptisme , yet I know not . To me the Apostle seemes plainely to parallel the washing of regeneration , and the renewing of the holy Ghost , as type and countertype . And the Analogie between washing in Baptisme , and Regeneration , lies in that custome of washing Infants from the pollutions of the wombe when they are first born . A learned Critick of Mr. Mede . our own in his Diatriba upon that place , thinkes none will deny that in these words the washing of Regeneration , the Apostle is speaking of Baptisme : sure I am , most of the Interpreters which I have seen upon that place agree that he either argues directly from Baptisme , or at least alludes to it .

Thirdly , you grant , though the word renascuntur is used for Baptisme by the Ancients ( which before you seemed to pin on Feuardentius his sleeve ) yet possibly it was not the word used by Irenaeus in his owne writing . It seems , now you dare not stand upon the strength of the word renascuntur , because you confesse it was used by the Ancients for Baptisme ; therefore your conjecture here is , That possibly it was not the word used by Irenaeus for Baptisme in his own writing . I shall goe further then you ( and yet not wrong the truth ) and say , undoubtedly , renascuntur was not the word used by Irenaeus in his owne writing , for he wrote in Greek , and therefore it may well be conceived he said not renascuntur , though he might say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : But to that which you answer , I adde , you know 't is commonly said in the Schooles , fortè ita , solvitur per fortè non : you say , possibly it was not Irenaeus his word . I answer , possible it is that Irenaeus might use the Greek word , which is well translated renascuntur : for why might not hee being a Grecian , speak of Baptisme in the phrase and stile as other Grecians did ? yea , that he did speake so , is most probable , because that other Greek Fathers use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a new birth , in the sense in which I alledged it .

As for the altering of Irenaeus his mind by the Latin Translation , not having his works in his owne language , I dare not say so much : when you bring forth Irenaeus his words in Greek , I shall the better be inabled to judge of it ; in the meane time I accept of the Translation , having made it good by parallel phrases in other Greek Fathers .

In the last place you labour to prove , That it is not meant of Baptisme from Irenaeus his scope in that place . To this I answer , P. 6. albeit that bee granted which you say was his scope there , yet his words prove the question in debate before us . I hope you will not deny , but that the scope of a speech may tend to prove one thing ; and yet the expressions used may give light to otherthings : was not the Prophet Ezekiel his scope by the parable of dry bones rising again , to prove the restauration of the Jews ( who then seemed to be dead ) Ezek. 37. to their former state ? that no doubt was the drift , yet hee layes it forth by that parable : and Tertullian by the De resur , ca. 31. same proves the Resurrection at the last day , if hee had not beleeved that dead bones were to rise againe ( saith the father ) how could hee by that Simile taken from them prove the Resurrection of the Jewes ? So may I say here , let it be supposed that Irenaeus his drift is , as you say , to prove that Christ was an Infant to sanctifie Infants , yet hee sayes they were renewed when they were baptized . As for Irenaeus his judgement of Christs living upon the earth about 50. yeers , it was not alleadged by me , therefore I leave it to you to helpe Irenaeus therein , because you alledge it . Now I desire the Reader to cast his eye back upon all that you have said about this testimony , and see whether you have brought forth any thing to obscure the light that it gives to our question : all the strength of what you said lay in the word renascuntur , whether that signified Baptisme or no : which by the usuall language of the Grecians I have made good against your exception , and so I passe from your examen of this Author and follow you to the next .

In the third place you come to sift Origens testimony : Where , first , you question the authority of the booke ; secondly , Origens Test . vindicated . you say , if it be Origens , yet hee calls Paedo-baptisme but an Apostolicall tradition , and from thence you draw forth some conclusions . In all which I hope to manifest your mistakings , and so to discover the weaknesse of your premises , that they shall not in any indifferent man his judgement be able to draw these conclusions after them .

First , you question the authority of these passages cited out of Origen whether they are his or no : and you call the Author of them supposed Origen : It had been your part before you had so branded them , first to have made it manifest by some undenyable evidence or other , that they were not Origens , you question but prove not , and I am not the first that hath produced these testimonies to prove Infant-Baptisme , many learned men handling this question have done the same before me .

You seek also to weaken the authority of these testimonies by the Censures of two judicious men , Erasmus and Perkins : the former of them ( who was vir emunctae naris in giving judgement of the writings of the Ancients ) saith , that when a man reads his Homilies on Leviticus , and on the Epistle to Romans , translated by Ruffinus , hee cannot be certaine whether he reads Ruffinus or Origen . Yet Erasmus saith not that these Homilies set forth under his name were Ruffinus his Homilies , and not Origens . If Ruffinus had wronged Origen in that point now in question , why should not that have been laid in his dish by some of the Antients discoursing on this question , who no doubt would have been forward enough to have taken notice of it to Ruffinus his prejudice , as well as other things which they object against him ?

To this you adde Reverend Perkins his testimony , who puts his commentary on the Romans amongst his counterfeit works , as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus . It may be Origen might suffer by his Translators , for Translations are various : some affect in their Translations to follow their Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to trace the very footsteps of the words they translate : other Translations are metaphrasticall , or by way of paraphrase , they expound as they translate ; thus severall men have their severall fancies , though they adhere to the Author which they translate , even when they keep not in all things to his words : Hierom gives instance in the Septuagint Hierom ad Pammachium . Translators , whose testimony I need not name to you . Ruffinus acknowledges , in translating Origens Homilies on Leviticus , that hee added some things to what Origen said , and what they were hee expresses : ea quae ab Origene in auditorio Ecclesiae ex tempore non tam explanationis quam Ruffini peroratio in Ep. ad Rom. aedificationis intentione perorata sunt ; the things which were spoken by Origen to his auditory , he translated them by way of explanation , or did more fully lay them forth in a popular way and therein Ruffinus dealt candidly , telling us what were the things hee added ; in this Erasmus acknowledges his faire dealing . But as for his Commentary on the Romans , Ruffinus confesseth se hoc opus totum He contracted it halfe in halfe . Ruffi . praefat. a● Rom. ad dimidium traxisse , there was no addition of Ruffinus ; Erasmus here blames him for cutting off what Origen delivered more at large , but neither doth Ruffinus confesse , nor Erasmus challenge him here for any addition to what Origen said : I shall onely desire the Reader to take notice that none of the testimonies by me cited out of Origen , are denyed by Erasmus to be Origens : neither can they be conceived to bee any of the additions mentioned before by Ruffinus : therefore your exception is not proved by Erasmus nor Perkins testimony .