The Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism, Treatise · Part 3 · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. SECT. I.
ORigen calleth childrens baptiſme a ceremony and tradition of the Church, Hom. 8. in Levit. and in Rom. 6. lib. 5. What, doth Origen ſay ſo in both places? that is falſe. In the former hee ſaith baptiſme is given to Infants according to the firſt obſervation of the Church. But if any boggle at that, in the other place quoted hee telleth you the groundworke of that obſervation of the Church: For this alſo the Church hath received a tradition from the Apoſtles to give baptiſme even to Infants. If it were an Apoſtolicall tradition, then not a bare Church tradition: if the Church received it from the Apoſtles, then was not the Church the Author of it, but the Apoſtles rather. Yea but others perceiving the force of the Teſtimony of ſo early an author in the matter of the practiſe of Paedobaptiſme, caſheere it as a ſpurious teſtimony of ſome other rather then of Origen. Some ſtumble at the word Tradition, when yet it's no other then what Baſil ſpeaking (as before quoted) of the forme of Baptiſme calleth it a tradition; and in his 73. Epiſtle ſpeaking of the Spirit the comforter as placed in equality with the Father and Sonne to bee a thing which they had received as delivered to them. So Juſtin Martyr another author formerly cited maketh the forme of that manner of worſhip mentioned in his ſecond Apology to bee that which they had received from the Apoſtles. So Gregory Nazianzen another quoted Author here: in his firſt oration againſt Julian the Apoſtate, hee inveigheth againſt that abuſive imitation of the Church traditions (the manner of adminiſtration of the ordinances) for Pagan uſes. Clemens Alexandrinus a ſpeciall Author quoted by Mr. B. yet hee counteth it a metamorphoſing of a Chriſtian to kick againſt the tradition of the Church, and warpe to opinions of humane hereſies, lib. 7. Stromaton. Hee meanes not bare Popiſh ſuperſtitious Church cuſtomes, but ſuch as are oppoſite to meere humane conceits and devices, yet calleth them Church traditions. Yea but thoſe corrupt exploded Canons are yet called the Apoſtles Canons. They are ſo by Papiſts, not ſo by Proteſtants. Such, all thoſe orthodox Divines may explode them; yet maintaine this as an Apoſtolicall tradition, which is genuine and divine — Yea but it may bee ſaid that Eraſmus noteth in his Praecognita unto the Booke of Leviticus that hee which readeth this worke (ſcil. the Homilies upon Levit.) and the Enarration upon the Epiſtle to the Romans, hee is uncertaine whether hee reade Origen or Ruffinus: And the peroration of the Tranſlator annexed to the commentary of the Romans ſaith that hee added ſomething defective (whereof yet hee had the fundamentalls from the Author) and abbreviated other things too largely expreſſed in the Commentaries upon the Romans, Leviticus, Geneſis, Exodus, Joſhua and Judges. Suppoſe theſe additions of things defective by Ruffinus; yet hee ſaith hee had the foundations of what hee added from Origen. So that Origen gave ſuch foundations of Paedobaptiſme, if Ruffinus added that as gave occaſion to it; but why is not this particular mentioned as Origens rather then Ruffinus his notion? Becauſe Origen was ſomewhat Pelagianiſticall, and this place touching baptizing Infants in reſpect of originall ſinne was too croſſe to Pelagianiſme. This is new to mee that Origen held that errour, albeit hee were not free of others: but I have read more ſaid of Ruffinus that way, ſcil. that hee was the forerunner of Pelagius. If on that ground it was not Origens, much leſſe was it Ruffinus his owne dictate. And Eraſmus denieth not but all there mentioned muſt bee fathered upon either Origen or Ruffinus. But to put an end to this diſpute, the Homilies on Luke are not queſtioned to bee Origens; neither doth Eraſmus nor the Tranſlator in the peroration mentioned acknowledge either additions or detractions in ſetting forth of thoſe Homilies on Luke. Yet there Origen affirmeth to the ſubſtantiall… mentioned in that place of the Romans; for in his 2. Tom. Hom. lib. 14. on Luke hee ſaith; parvuli baptizantur, &c. and little children are baptized unto remiſſion of ſins; of what ſins, or when did they ſinne, or how can there bee any occaſion of waſhing in little children, unleſſe in that ſenſe of which wee ſpake a little before? None is cleane from blemiſh, no though but a day old in the earth, and becauſe the defilement of our Nativitie is put away by baptiſme; therefore even little children are baptized: Nor doe I finde in our Criticks, or the Authors quoted by them, that theſe Homilies of Origens on the Romans are doubted of, to bee genuine: Albeit both Perkins and Rivet doe reject thoſe on Leviticus, as ſpurious, and his Commentaries on the Romans as not faithfully tranſlated by Ruffinus.
The next witneſſe is called upon to come in, but miſcalled and therefore may chuſe whether hee will anſwer to his name. Greg. 4th.It is one Pope George the fourth who ſhould call it a Tradition of the Fathers; and to ſhew it is no ſcape of the Printer hee is called out in the Roman Language, Georgius quartus Bonifacio; let children bee baptized according to the Tradition of the Fathers. Of Pope Gregory I have oft heard and read, but cannot light of one Pope George. But it's ſuppoſed the Authors meant Pope Gregory the fourth; albeit the Tranſlators miſtooke their Authors. This Pope flouriſhed Ann. 842. and it's not much what hee had called it, in thoſe corrupt times. Wee have heard of others which gave better Language that were his Seniors; and if you would beleeve but the Teſtimony of Gregory the firſt, who had more honeſty in him then all the reſt of that name, but wee have witneſſes enough beſides, and ſhall forbeare him.
SECT. II.
THe next Author called in is Cyprian, which is rather challenged as an Author of Paedobaptiſme, Anno 248. Epiſt. lib. 3. Ep. 8. for in the Margin it's ſaid, Cyprian ordained children ſhould be baptized: and yet alſo it is ſaid in the Margin over againſt the mention of the Carthaginian Councell, Baptiſme Inſtituted; & again above: Baptiſme ordained by Pope Innocentius, ſcil. the firſt, and yet over againſt Pope Innocent the third Baptiſme ordained in ſtead of Circumciſion, and yet over againſt the mention of the ſecond Bracarenſian Councell it is ſaid Anno 610. was childrens Baptiſme ordained as a neceſſary thing; ſo that I am at a ſtand. I thought wee ſhould have heard who inſtituted or ordained baptiſme of Infants ſince it is caſt as a myſtery of the man of ſinne in the preface, and made a humane ordinance Propoſit. 7. And it hath ſo many firſt fathers, and ſo many are challenged for begetting this pretended Baſtard, that with all the skill I have, I know not at whoſe doore to lay it. If that Cyprian were the father of it, then not Innocentius the firſt, or the Carthaginian or Milevitane Councell gathered in his time above 150. yeeres after; If the fifth or ſixth Carthage Councell, then not the ſecond Bracarenſian Councell above 200. yeeres after that: If either of theſe, then not Innocent the third 600. yeares after the Bracharenſian Councell. The like might bee ſaid of the Conſtitutions of Juſtinian and Leo the Emperour, which hee mentions. But if the Treatiſe intend that theſe all or any of them did reeſtabliſh Paedobaptiſme; albeit they were not the Authors of it: wee are agreed. But this proveth not that what they doe ratifie, or becauſe any of them doe anathematize ſuch as deny it as the Milevitane Councell did, that therefore it is an humane ordinance. The Milevitane Councell in the Anathema they pronounce, they mention that as another ground: Of ſuch as deny that Infants derive any originall guilt of ſinne which needeth expiation by baptiſme, as well as denying that Infants baptiſme is for remiſſion of ſinnes: Now none will ſay, originall guilt in Infants is a meere humane invention and device without warrant from Scripture, becauſe that Councell anathematizeth ſuch as deny it. Or that becauſe that Juſtinian ordaines that thoſe that are come to their full growth ſhould bee taught before they were baptized, as well as hee doth order Paedobaptiſme to bee; that therefore the former is an humane ordinance. Surely if that ſuch a ratification bee a formalis ratio to make the former an humane ordinance, it is as well ſuch in the latter. Wee ſpeake not now in reference to Scripture grounds of the one or of the other, but of the validity of arguing from decrees of Councells or Emperours or Popes. And this mindeth mee of ſuch like Teſtimony of witneſſes examined a little before. Caſſander hee muſt ſay, Paedobaptiſme came in 300. yeeres after Chriſt. Luther, that it came in 1000. yeeres before him, ſcil. above five hundred yeeres after Chriſt. Pomeranus 1200. yeeres before him (who was contemporary with Luther) and ſo more then 300. yeers after Chriſt; and yet Cyprian at Ann… 248. ordained it. Witneſſe Auſtin, Epiſt. 28. to Hierome. Juſtus Menius too I thinke commeth in for the ſame purpoſe, albeit he ſaith nothing in the Booke, (the ſame Juſtus Menius which with the reſt ſubſcribed to Paedobaptiſme, as commanded of God, at the Wittenberg Concord before mentioned.) But where ſhall wee faſten but conclude that in as much as the witneſſes diſagree, their Teſtimonies are not valid, but the one weakneth the other, ſince if one ſpeake nothing but the truth, the other doth not? If the Authors intent bee that ſome of theſe Authors or Councells propounded ſome unwarrantable motives to ratifie Paedobaptiſme: I goe not about to cleare any of the ſonnes of men from corruption in what they attempt, nor in the motives which ſtirre them up oft times to things in themſelves warrantable. But this will not reach their maine ayme, ſ…il. to prove that becauſe of ſome corruptions in the manner and way or motives of ratifying this ordinance of God, it ſhould bee no ordinance of God. Non ſequitur. But becauſe Cyprians Epiſtle to Fidus where the 66. African Biſhops did in a ſolemne Councell agree to the ratifying of Paedobaptiſme; it is many wayes undermined thereby to invalidate our proofes from antiquitie for Paedobaptiſme: I ſhall indeavour to cleare it from ſuch aſperſions. Firſt, Mr. B. attempts to make the judgement of the Councell invalid becauſe of the weakneſſe of their grounds, and the Errors annexed. Weake grounds. 1 That Luke 19. 10. as if loſt if not baptized, which was alſo an errour. 2 That God is a like father to all — and ſo all to bee baptized as well as any, which was an errour too. 3 That they had onelyonly ſinned in others. Errours alſo then held; that the holy Ghoſt was received by baptiſme, that Infants were to have the Lords Supper in Epiſt. de Lapſis, they held ſigning with the Croſſe, Unction, that Originall ſinne was done away by it; that onelyonly baptized perſons eſcaped Damnation, &c. By all which hee would have it evident that no heed is to bee given to Cyprians time when there were ſuch groſſe errors about baptiſme. To which I Anſwer, if that the times were ſo groſſe and darke, then no wonder they might hold forth ſuch weake arguments for the truths they held. If Mr. B. had well traced antiquitie, and ſhould in his reading ſtill keepe this principle by him, to reject all hee reades of as unſound in Authors or councells becauſe of weake grounds they give; hee would ſoone reject the moſt of what many approved Authors for ſoundneſſe amongſt the antients doe hold forth, and what many councells have ratified. Hee that would weigh their wild expoſitions of Scripture, and Allegories and Judaizing notions which oft times they bring, would as well queſtion from thence either baptiſme or the Lords Supper to bee any ordinances now at all to us, as the Sectaries doe. Let us bleſſe God for clearer times, but not deſpiſe any truth from any for the weakneſſe of thoſe earthen veſſels which hold it out to us. You would thinke him too cenſorious it may bee which comming to heare ſome Coblers or Taylours in England to preach, who having good Texts and being happily honeſt in the maine, yet make very ſimple worke of it both in their wild expoſitions of Scriptures, and weak, yea erroneous grounds which they make uſe of to confirme the Text or doctrine truely gathered from it. As for their errours it doth not appeare from all Mr. B's quotations that all the 66. Biſhops held them all, if Cyprian himſelfe did. But what if Tertullian adde prayer for the dead to the baptiſme of adult perſons, as in the place quoted De Corona Militis before appeared, yea unction, croſſing, &c. (as Criſpin in his booke of the eſtate of the Church fathereth theſe upon him) yet will it follow that ergo baptizing of adult perſons upon confeſſion is no ordinance of God? no you will ſay becauſe the Scripture warrants it; ſo ſay wee it warrants paedobaptiſme. But wee are now without reference to Scripture upon a Topick place of argument drawne from humane teſtimony. If the errours of the witneſſe to the one makes his teſtimony invalid, then doe the errours of the other. Yea even thoſe errours which Cyprian held about doing away ſin by baptiſme, unction and croſſing in it, damnation being loſt without it: the receiving of the ſpirit by baptiſme, &c. they held them in the point of baptiſme indefinitely, whether of growne perſons or others: ſo that Baptiſme of adult perſons for thoſe errours may bee denied as held out in Cyprians time in the maine, or any ordinance as well as Paedobaptiſme. And Cyprians teſtimony is vaine in the one as well as the other, as alſo his Mr. Tertullians was. Yet Mr. B. urgeth in his preface Cypr. De Baptiſ. Haeret. for his purpoſe. If hee held that all ſorts ſhould bee baptized, ſo have our fathers held that all ſorts ſhould come to the Lords Supper, when yet onelyonly viſible Saints ſhould. Yet the Lords Supper is an ordinance to adult perſons viſibly in Covenant with God and his people, and not ſcandalous, and ſo is baptiſme of Infants of Parents in viſible covenant with God, &c. notwithſtanding the errour ſuperadded, or that other of Infants comming to the Lords Table, &c. As men may ſuperadde to Chriſt the foundation, wood, hay and ſtubble of their owne, which will all bee conſumed, yet the foundation remaine pretious and ſupporting, 1 Cor. 3. So men may and have ſuperadded to the ordinance of baptiſme both of adult and Infants, and ſo to that of the Lords Supper and other ordinances much Stubble of their owne vaine ſpirits and mens inventions, yet that hinders not but that ſuch things were in uſe in their Times, and rightly, in reſpect of the maine held out by them; and as ſitting in Moſes chaire wee may and ought to heare them, notwithſtanding their owne errours annexed.
But Mr. Blackwood hath another evaſion, as if this Epiſtle of Cyprianus to Fidus bee upon ſome grounds to bee ſuſpected to bee ſuppoſititious. As 1. In that Pamelius mentions not of what place Fidus was. Anſw. No more doth hee mention there of what place Victor or Therapius was; yet Therapius of the three being a chiefe man and called to the Carthage Councell is mentioned by his place De Bulla. Hee was reckoned with men therefore in that Epiſtle whoſe place is deſcribed, and that ſufficeth. He was known to them, albeit not to us. 2. In that there is ſuch weakneſſe in the arguments not likely to come from 66. Biſhops. Anſw. What wonder if their grounds were ſo weake (if ſo they bee) ſince Mr. Blackwood hath before told us what an evill time Cyprians was? and if they were ſo full of errours as hee ſaid before about baptiſme, is it wonder that they are ſo weake in their principles about it? I could anſwer this weake reaſon otherwiſe, but ſince Mr. B. giveth us that anſwer, let him take that; and I cannot but minde him of that Councell at Carthage a little after which aſſembled to eſtabliſh rebaptizing of perſons led aſide into hereſies, yet againe returning to the orthodox Churches; but upon what weake gounds let even Mr. B. conſider and judge, yet none therefore queſtions whether ever there were ſuch a councell. 3 Mr. B. ſaith there is no mention made at what place this Synod met. Anſ. As if ſtories mentioned no Synods and thoſe genuine, but ſuch as the very place where the councell met is alſo mentioned, I ſhall therefore give amongſt others one inſtance, out of Oſiander in his Exit. hiſt. eccleſ. centur. 4. li. 3. c. 13. where hee citeth out of Hillary an orientall orthodox Synode, of Biſhops gathered againſt that Sermienſian and more then Semi-arrian Synod, whoſe Canons are there recorded of which they did agree; but as for the place or Citie where that Synod was held, that is not to be found. 4 Saith Mr. B. it appeares that it was fained becauſe ſo contrary to the minde of Tertullian, which was in ſuch requeſt with Cyprian. Anſ. If it were Tertullians mind which Mr. B. ſuppoſeth, yet Jerom who could ſpeake as much as Mr. Blackwood mentioneth, and doth (as I remember in his booke of Eccleſiaſticall writers) affirme from a very aged mans mouth living in his time who had beene in his younger dayes Cyprians Scribe how deare Tertullians workes were to him, yet Jerome did not thinke that therefore this Epiſtle was none of Cyprians: For hee himſelfe (who yet in that booke mentioned leaveth out bookes then accounted ſpurious of ſeverall authors) quoteth this very Epiſtle in his 20. Tom. lib. 3. Dialog. contra, Pelag. ad finem. And leſt (ſaith hee) thou ſhouldſt thinke mee in an hereticall ſenſe to underſtand this (ſpeaking before of the uſe of Paedobaptiſme) that bleſſed Martyr Cyprian whom thou boaſteſt thy ſelfe to imitate in expounding Scriptures, in the Epiſtle hee wrote to the Biſhop Fidus (Jerom calls Fidus a Biſhop, he treatiſe ſtileth him but a Prieſt) concerning baptiſme of Infants; hee maketh mention of this, &c. Paedobaptiſme. 5 Saith Mr. B. it appeareth from Baronius that Cyprian was againſt Paedobaptiſme, who ſaith if Cyprian had been ſo that that had been an apoſtolicall Tradition (ſpeaking ſaith Mr. B. of Infants baptiſme) and not contrary to holy Scriptures by ſound and ſincere opinion, without doubt hee had reſted.
Anſ. I ſhall let Mr. B. pleaſe himſelfe a little in this fancy: ſuppoſe then Cardinall Baronius ſaith ſo, yet Mr. B. hath amongſt other exceptions here charged againſt Cyprian: that in Cyprians time Infants did partake of the Lords Supper, and will any follow that? Cyprian in his Epiſtle de lapſis, ſpeaking of the wickedneſſe of thoſe wch ſacrificed at the heathen Altars, he aggravates their ſinne that their Infants they carried in their armes or led in their hands, loſt that which they had gotten in the beginning of their birth: when the day of judgement comes they will ſay wee have done nothing: neither did we leaving the meate and the cup of the Lord, haſten willingly to profane defilements, &c. Thus farre Mr. B. out of Cyprian. Then it ſeemes in Cyprians time Infants were partakers of the Lords Supper as well as of baptiſm, that birth wherein they had firſt got that which at the heathen Altars they loſt, ſcil. that good they got by it, which Sacramentally was their birth, that is, new birth, for they rather added to what they got in their naturall birth, ſcil. ſinne, then loſt at theſe ſacrifices. If in this Epiſtle Infants baptiſme bee thus intimated, why ſaith Mr. B. a little before (as a ground of his challenge of his Epiſtle to Fidus) that he findes it mentioned but once; he found what was in this Epiſtle de Lapſis too, why elſe mentioneth hee the ſame? and if both were the errours of Cyprian, and the reſt then Cyprians judgement was for it ſurely albeit it is ſuppoſed hee erred in it; and why then is Baronius brought in to prove it was not Cyprians judgement, when Mr. B. hath aſſayed to prove it that it was his errour? was that the errour of Cyprians judgement the which he never held? but yet let us heare what Baronius can ſay to it. Now I confeſſe Baronius hath this paſſage verbatim which Mr. B. quoteth; onelyonly he hath not Mr. B's Parentheſis (that it was ſpoken of Infants Baptiſme) the Page is a little miſtaken, it is not Page 398. but Page 415. but Mr. B. is quite out in this application of that paſſage, which is mentioned in reference onelyonly to the controverſie about the baptiſme of heretiques which hee wreſteth groſſely as if intended of the matter of baptiſme of Infants; and if Mr. B. had but read Baronius a few lines before, hee would never thus have in print falſified an authors Teſtimony. Baronius diſcourſing about Traditions brings in Pope Stephen uſing that weapon in the caſe of baptiſme of heretiques againſt Cyprian, who erred therein, ſcil. that it being by tradition received that the Baptiſme of heretiques might in caſe bee valid, nothing ſhould bee acted contrary to that tradition; as it was by Cyprian and the other Biſhops with him (nihil innovetur niſi quod traditum eſt) agatur, ſcil. (ſaith Baronius quoting Stephens words) and after ſubjoyneth. If Cyprian had been ſure (that) ſcil. that doctrine mentioned about the validitie of Heretiques baptiſme) had been an Apoſtolicall tradition (as Stephen urgeth it to bee) and not contrary to holy Scriptures, according to ſound and ſincere opinion, without doubt (ſaith Baronius) hee had reſted in it, and for this end hee quoteth Cyprians 74. Epiſtle ad Pompeium contra Epiſt. Steph. as opening the caſe intended, where Cyprian himſelfe writeth that fragment of Stephens Epiſtle nihil innovetur, &c. as urged againſt him in the buſineſſe of the baptiſme of Heretiques, and Euſeb. lib. 7. eccleſ. cap. 2. and 3. ſpeakes of the caſe betwixt Stephen and Cyprian out of Letters of Dionyſius Alexandrinus about it; citing it as the great queſtion then moved, ſcil. whether ſuch as returned from any hereſie ſhould bee purged by baptiſme. In that the cuſtome was to receive ſuch onelyonly by prayer and impoſition of hands. And addes cap. 3. that Cyprian hee held that ſuch as returned from errour were no other way to bee purged then by baptiſme: But Stephen mentioned that nothing in this caſe ſhould be innovated beſides that old tradition, ſcil. of receiving ſuch againe onelyonly by prayer and impoſition of hands, where Mr. B. comparing the place in Baronius with this in Euſebius, may fully ſatisfie himſelfe in his printed errours. But to come yet cloſer, verily Stephen Biſhop of Rome that was ſo inraged againſt Cyprian, for that he brought in that innovation of rebaptizing perſons that were baptized by heretiques: that hee writ hee would have no Church communion with ſuch as did rebaptiſe all ſorts of heretiques (as you may perceive by the Epiſtle of Dionyſius to Xiſtus Stephens ſucceſſour, Euſeb. l. 7. c. 3, 4, 5.) hee would have expreſſed as much violence againſt Cyprian and his Biſhops with him for that which they determined in the caſe of Paedobaptiſme if that had beene accounted an innovation in thoſe times, or contrary to Apoſtolicall tradition as hee thought the other was: or that as the treatiſe would aſſay to prove from Ruffinus upon the Symboll, that the cuſtome at Rome was to baptize ſuch as made confeſſion of the articles of the Symbol; and ſo not Infants; no aſſuredly it was otherwiſe in Rome, then they baptized Infants as well as others, elſe Cyprian had heard of it to purpoſe from this Roman biſhop, and beſides the ſtory of Lucius and Elcutherius long before Stephens time ſheweth, what was the practiſe at Rome: ſurely how ever ſome ſnapper at Origens Teſtimony (who was about 20. yeeres before this) for ſaying Infants baptiſme was delivered to the Church from the Apoſtles, yet if it had beene thought otherwiſe in Cyprians time, within a while after; other Biſhops would have withdrawne the right hand of fellowſhip for innovating contrary or beſides Apoſtolicall Tradition.
But to returne to Mr. B. if hee ſcruple Cyprians Epiſtle to Fidus, hee may I thinke ſatisfie himſelfe if hee conſider Jeroms teſtimony, for it in the forequoted place. Alſo that teſtimony for it from the fifth Councell of Carthage, viz. Chap. 6. citeth this Epiſtle of Cyprian ad Fidum; ſo doth Auſtin often not onelyonly in his 28th. Epiſtle to Jerome, but Sermon the 14. upon the words of the Apoſtle, ſo in his firſt booke de pecc. merit. & remiſſ. and in his third booke alſo c. 5. hee citeth that Epiſtle againſt Pelagius; verily if there had been any ſuch queſtion imagined in thoſe dayes of the ſpuriouſneſſe of that Epiſtle, Pelagius and his followers would ſoon have blunted that weapon as oft as ſharpned againſt them. But ſome will ſay here is juſt the proverb fulfilled, Aske my fellow whether I am a theefe. Auſtin was as rotten and corrupt in his principles about Paedobaptiſme as was Cyprian. Cyprian looked at them as incurring eternall judgement that were not baptized, ſo did hee oft urging Iohn 3. 5. 6. 53. hee thought all were to bee baptized whether of beleevers or otherwiſe, ſo did Auſtin; hee thought Infants had faith and that becauſe of originall ſinne conveyed, therefore to bee baptized according to that teſtimony of Origens, Propter hoc, &c. For this (even becauſe of originall ſinne) they muſt be baptized, &c.
To this I anſwer as before, admit Auſtin held out that upon Corrupt grounds, ſo did he hold the adminiſtration of Baptiſme to adult perſons upon grounds of neceſſitie thereof to ſalvation and purging away ſin, yea & the Lords Supper too as ſo neceſſary to growne perſons (John 6. 53.) alſo, yet none will make theſe ordinances therefore nullities or no ordinances; truth is no leſſe truth, becauſe a weake ſcholler taketh unſafe mediums to confirme or prove the ſame.
Yet I adde two things, 1. That the authors urged by Antipaedobaptiſts uſe like language and argument. Juſtine calleth it new birth, and ſaith wee bring them to the water and they are Newborne as wee are, that is baptized, (and per hoc lavacrum remiſſionem peccatorum praeteritorum adipiſcamur, fiamus filii ſcientiae) and that wee become the ſonnes of knowledge and obtaine remiſſion of ſinnes paſt by baptiſme, &c. Clemens Alexandrinus calls it a waſhing whereby wee wipe away our ſinnes, grace whereby the puniſhments due to our ſinnes are forgiven paedag. l. 1. Gregory Nazianzen calls it baptiſme, becauſe ſinne is buried in the water: ſo he calls it the key of heaven, the caſting away of the fleſh, the looſing of our bonds, the taking away of ſlavery, &c. in his 40. orat. de baptiſmo: So Baſil, yea theſe authors uſe like grounds for baptiſme. Juſtine uſeth that from the neceſſitie of it from John 3. 5. and this hee ſpeaking of baptiſme addes. Rationem ejus rei hanc accepimus ab Apoſtolis: Quoniam prima nativitas, &c. Wee have received from the Apoſtles, this as a reaſon of this thing; becauſe that our firſt nativity (ſcil. native corruption) commeth upon us neither knowing nor willing it, from the fellowſhip of our parents and from their ſeed, &c. Juſtine and thoſe with him lived not in the Apoſtles times, yet he received this he ſaith from them that is delivered by them to others after them, and from thoſe others to them. And what reaſon is that delivered thus as a ground of baptiſme? even that native eſtate of children in their parents. What is this but in effect what the author of thoſe homilies on the Romans urgeth, ſpeaking of Davids being conceived in ſinne, &c. Propter hoc & eccleſia traditionem ab apoſtolis accepit parvulis baptiſmum dare, &c. and the ſame is uſed by Origen, hom. 14. on Luke by Cyprian Epiſtle ad Fidum, by Auſtin, Jerom, Ambroſe. The ſame uſed by Gregory orat. de baptiſmo, thou (ſcil. art to haſt to baptiſme) as being in danger if not more but from hence: being borne onelyonly in corruption or in ſinne. The ſame urgeth the Milevitan Councell. Tertullian de baptiſmo urgeth John 3. 5. for baptiſme alſo. So as Auſtin and others urge it upon the ground of danger to unbaptized perſons; ſo doth Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 40. not to ſtay to Chriſts yeares becauſe of danger of mortality. Yea better Infants bee ſealed without ſenſe thereof, then die without the ſeale. And hee alſo as well as Auſtin makes the caſe of Infants dying without baptiſme to bee puniſhed with paena damni albeit not with paena ſenſus, ibid. Baſil in his exhortation to haſt to baptiſme uſeth the ſame argument taken from the danger of death without baptiſme; yet in them any naevi in this way are overlooked, and their teſtimonies not therefore invalid. 2 I ſay that albeit that Auſtin and others for Paedobaptiſme uſed ſome unſafe grounds, yet others they uſed were to us ſolid, as that from circumciſion, l. 4. cont. Donat. c. 23, 24. and Epiſt. 108. Seleucianae l. 2. de peccat. merit. & remiſſ. c. 25. that of their parents faith, whence notwithſtanding want of faith in themſelves, it became a beneficial ordinance, Serm. 14. upon verb. Apoſtoli: that of their intereſt in the Covenant which Chriſt came to fulfill in the fleſh; hence that in the Epiſtle of the Carthaginian Councell (in Auſtins time) unto Innocent the firſt; Nos quia credimus parvulos in peccato naſci, &c. praeterea quia credimus filium dei pure ex illibata virgine natum ad implendas confirmandaſque dei (promiſſiones) quae Infantes non excludant a ſalute, ſed in faedere includunt, deo eos baptizandos eſſe contendimus. This that I have here recited may ſerve further to evince the guile of the treatiſe, quoting this Epiſtle Propoſition 7. adding the words (much rather) thus [but much rather includeth Infants] which is manifeſt injury; likewiſe it appeares by *Lib. de Bap. ad finem.Tertullians anſwer, in way of gloſſe upon Matth. 19. 13, 14. Let them come to mee, &c. that that was of old held forth as a ground of Paedobaptiſme. In a word, the command, mind, and inſtitution of Chriſt and his Apoſtles was alſo held out of old by Auſtin and others as the ground thereof; which they meane when they ſay, the Church received it from the Apoſtles, Homil. in Rom. 5. & Auſtin contr. Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23, 24. Milevitan Councel, Can. 2. and Auſtin de Geneſi ad literam, lib. 10. cap. 23. ſaith, elſe it were not to bee credited or received if it were not an Apoſtolicall tradition. So hee ſaith againe in his third Epiſtle ad Voluſ. Therefore then they baptized perſons becauſe to them it was an Apoſtolicall Tradition. That is it which was without all doubt delivered by the Lord and by his Apoſtles; As Auſtin further openeth himſelfe, lib de pec. merit. & remiſſ. cap. 26. Charitie then I think ſhould over looke other their more unſound tenents, or arguments, touching Paedobaptiſme. But to return to Cyprians Epiſtle and adde one word more for Mr. B. and others ſatisfaction. Let him looke upon Eraſmus his owne edition of Cyprian, Anno 1541. and hee ſhall ſee that Eraſmus who was very Eagle eyed to eſpy ſpurious writings, or paſſages of the Ancients, and there excepteth againſt many things going under Cyprians name, yet no word of his againſt Cyprians 59. Epiſt. ad Fidum: No more doth Mr. Perkins in his Problemes, nor Rivet in his ſacred Critick; nor any critick which they quote, except againſt it. And here I might end theſe Annotations upon the 7th. Propoſition in this Treatiſe.
SECT. IIII.
BUt I meet with an old Threadbare objection to the ſame purpoſe, as if Paedobaptiſme was firſt ordained by Higinus Biſhop of Rome who lived about the yeare 1444. but all I can find in Authors is a certaine decree (aſcribed to him at leaſt) that Infants comming to Baptiſme need not have but one god-father or god-mother, as they call them. And ſo much witneſſeth Faſciculus Temporum, and Nauclerus, vol. 1. Generat. 6. beſides what I find quoted out of Gratian: but none ſay that he firſt ordained, that children ſhould bee baptized. A like Decretall is aſcribed to Ʋrban Biſhop of Rome, touching Childrens confirmation, about the yeere 227. Nauclerus, but not of their Baptiſme, yet if they made any ſuch Canons it rather confirmes what wee ſay then weakneth our cauſe, ſcil. That Infants baptiſme was in thoſe times of uſe in Rome, and elſewhere: why elſe any orders about their Suſceptors or their Confirmations?