A Forerunner to a Large Review of the Dispute Concerning Infant Baptism, Treatise · Section 3
SECT. III. Mr. Baxters citations from Fathers advantage him not.
AFter he comes to the arguments which were desired, 20. leaves in quarto are spent in sentences, Epistles, and History, and 5. more in a very small letter in 10. positions and 3. propositions to usher in his arguments with state, or rather to prepossesse his Reader. First he sets down 2. texts, which are alleadged in his 26. argument to prove his 2d. main argument, and there I shall meete with them. Then sundry of the Ancients speeches. The first of Origens is examined in my Examen part. 1. sect 5. and my answer vindicated in my Apology sect. 16. page 81. The speech of Augustin de bapt. cont. Donat. l 4. c. 23. (it should be 24.) shewes he found no Divine authority for infant-baptisme, but the conceit he had that what the universal Church holdeth came from Apostolical authority, and circumsion of infants. The former is no good rule, as appeares by the tenets of the ancients about Episcopacy, Easter, Millenary opinion, infant-Communion. I will recite some speeches of men very eminent, Salmas. appar. ad libr. de prim. Papae page 86. Eutychio idem usu venit, quod omnibus fermè scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis Craecis, Latinis que , ut dum morem sui temporis spectant à principio sic semper fuisse existimârint: Molin. vates lib. 2. c. 13. page 133. D…ni que Satan jampridem orsus primula initia mysterii iniquitatis tam densas tenebras offudit Historiae Ecclesiasticae primi seculi sub Apostolic, & post Apostolos super is additos, ut Baronius fateatur vix quicquam certi posse statui. Chamier. panstr. Cath. tom. 3. lib. 24. c. 16. sect. 50. (quasi vero, inquam, non Cyprianus quum rebaptizari vellet tincto: apud Haereticos non plenis buccis occlamaret it à semper observ itum fuisse in Ecclesia. The latter is the common mistake about cicumcision, which hath been often answered in my Exercit. Exam. Apology page 85. As for the place of August. tom. 7. de peccat. mer. & remis. l. 3. c. 5. that all Antiquity held, that believers infants do receive remission of original sin by Christian baptisme, Mr. B. doth not rightly translate the words. For the words are not as Mr. B. translates [believers little ones, fidelium parvulos;] but [fideles parvulos, believing little ones.] And what he meanes by little ones believing, he shewes lib. 1. de peccat. mer. & remiss. cap. 27. quis autem nesciat credere esse infantibus haptizari, non credere autem non baptizari? who knowes not that to infants to believe is to be baptized, not to believe is not to be baptized? So that with Austin all baptized infants are believers, unbaptized unbelievers: and yet lib. 4. de bapt. contra Donat. cap. 23. he saith, that Certe nondum possunt parvuli infantes corde credere ad justitiam, & ore confiteri ad salutem, Certainly they cannot yet believe with the heart unto righteousnesse, as the pious thief on the crosse, but do withstand by crying their baptism. But how vain Austins judgement was about infant-baptism is shewed in my Examen part. 1. Sect. 8. and may be seen by considering how he maintained a like antiquity and necessity of giving infants the Lords Supper both in the passage cited by me in my Apology out of the first book de pecc. merit. & remiss. cap. 24. pag. 82. and lib. 3. de pecc. mer. & remiss. c. 4. next to that which Mr. B. cites which Mr. B. doth not rightly cut off page 162. of his book; whence I gather that Mr. B. is not to be too easily trusted in his citations of Authors. The words he cites out of Justin Martyr his Epistle ad Zenam prove nothing that is denyed. The testimony of Cyprian Epist. 59. is answered in my Examen pa. 1. Se. 7. To Mr. B. his question whether a whole Councel, and all the Church be ignorant whether infants were wont to be baptized 100. years before, when some of themselves or their Fathers were those infants? I answer, they might be ignorant, it being either not at all or very rarely in that time; nor is it known of what age the 66. Bishops of that Councel were when that Epist. was written, nor whose children they were, whether believers or infidels; nor in the whole Epistle is any thing historical set down about the ancient use of infant-baptism: but their determination of the lawfulnesse of it afore the eighth day, which Epistle because Hierom, Augustin and others do so much alleadge as their prime testimony for baptizing infants for remission of original sin, and I am taxed for calling it in my Ex. p. 1. s. 7. an absurd Epist. & Mr. F. Rous in his late Abridgem. of the 1. Fathers hath left out that which was chiefly to have been inserted as the reason of the Councels determination, which Austin lib. 3. d'peccat. merit. & remiss. c. 5. and elsewhere recites; I have therefore translated the whole Epistle into English, and printed it in the end of this writing, not to shew the nakednesse of that Father, as I am accused but to clear the truth about the antiquity of Infant-baptism. But there is one testimony higher then Cyprian which Mr. B. urgeth with much earnestnesse as if he did triumph in it: and it is that of Pope Hyginus, who lived about the year 150. or 140. and ordained something about Gossips at infant-baptism, which must needs shew the Apostles baptized infants. To which I answer, 1. The decree in the Epistle as Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. cent. 2. lib. 2. c. 5. cites it out of Gratian to a word mentions not infant-baptism, though it speak of Gossips which were at other times then infant-baptism. 2. Mr. B. might have taken notice, that Scultetus med. Patru. part 1. lib. 11. cap. 10. saith, Of all the Epistles of the first Popes, No man that reads them attentively, but acknowledgeth them to be forged. The Contrary writers cent. 2. c. 7. judge the same, Osiander Epitome Eccl. Hist. Cent. 2. lib. 2. cap. 5. calls the Author personatum Hyginum, and (as I remember) Rivet, Cook, James passe the like censure. Perkins preparative to the demonstration of the problems. These Epistles decretal, which passe under the names of Clement, Evarist, Telesphorus, Hyginus, & e. are all forged, and that for six reasons: yea Doctor Prideaux (whom Mr. B. alleadgeth for him) in his nineth Oration de Pseudoepigraphis Sect. 3. censures the decretal epistles of the Ancient Popes as counterfeit. Lastly, Doctor Rainolds in his Conference with Hart chap. 8. divis. 3. hath so fully proved in a large discourse the bastardise of them, that I could hardly have imagined any learned Protestant would ever have thus alleadged so notoriously forged a writing. So that I need not answer Mr. Bs. allegation of this testimony as by currant consent of Historians assuring us, and his questions thereor, but by telling him he hath reason to be ashamed of abusing men with this forgery after so much eviction of it by learned men, being more like to a brazen fac'd allegation, then that he so censures me for without cause: He next addes a speech of Tertullian de pudic. cap. 9. and translates it into English. Transgression in interpretation is not lesse then in conversation: which I know not why he adds but to shew the evil of my sin in interpretation, as I imagine, of Scripture: which had he demonstrated he had done more then yet hath been done by him, Mr. M. or any other. That interpretation I give of 1 Cor 7. 14. had sundry godly and learned Protestants, Melanchthor, Musculus, Camerarius, &c. for it (whose words are printed in my Exercit.) before me, nor do Mr. B. his arguments or others take me off from it, but are answered in their place. Of my interpretation of Mat. 28. 19. Mr. B. pag. 14. saith he will stand to most that I said of it. What I said of Rom. 11. 17. Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. I intend to vindicate in its place. My way and course of interpreting Scripture hath been known where I have preached, at Oxford, Worcester, Lemster, Bristol, the Temple in London, Bewdley. If I make conscience of any thing, it is how I interpret Scripture. Mr. B. his interpretations of texts in this book are too grosse, as of Mat. 28. 19. Acts 15. 10. Revel. 11. 15. Mat. 23. 37. &c. So farre as I am able to discern by his writings, Sermons and conference, his skill is better in reasoning and amplifying then interpreting Scripture, which I think he had need study better then I can yet perceive he hath done. He takes notice page 191. of an interpretation (as he is told) of mine of Mat. 11. 28. which he censures for a foule interpretation. He saith, Sure it is the guilt of sin, and accusation and condemnation of the law with which persons are said to be weary and heavy laden. But I look for better assurance then Mr. Bs. word. I confesse I finde nothing in the text for that sense: but the coherence with ver. 25, 26, 27. shewes ver. 28. to be an invitation to come to Christ as a Teacher, and ver. 29. is an expression of the end of coming to him, to take his yoke on them, that is, his doctrine and commands, which is expounded by learning of him: which is confirmed by the motive ver. 30. which is, that his yoke is easie and burden light: which can be understood of no other then his doctrine and commands, parallel to 1 John 5. 3. as our translators, Beza, new Annot. Pareus, Piscator, Grotius, &c. conceive. And he useth sundry arguments to draw them. 1. From the burdens on them, which I conceive to be rather meant (the whole context leading thereto) of such Burdens as are mentioned, Mat. 23. 3. then of sins which are not named. 2 From his mecknesse and low linesse, such as should be in a Teacher, 2 Tim. 2. 24. opposed to harshnesse, superciliousnesse, disdaine, &c. which is propounded rather as an encouragement to them to learne his doctrine, then (as Mr. B. and others) learn to be meek by my example. 3. From the rest they should find: to their soules, contrary to distraction and disquietnesse by Pharisaical doctrine. 4. From the ease of his commands, contrary to the rigorous impositions of those Doctors. And this interpretation seemes to me to be no foule interpretation, but so faire as that I can discerne no other in the words.