Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part 2 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
Containing his Exceptions againſt Infant-Baptiſm, becauſe built (as he ſays) upon, 1. Fabulous Traditions. 2. Miſtaken Scriptures, with an Anſwer thereto.
1. The firſt and Principal ground (ſaith he) that hath been aſſerted for this Practice is Eccleſiaſtical and Apoſtolical Tradition.
THis is a falſe ſuggeſtion, and exceeds all modeſty: for although the Church of Rome aſcribes too much to Tradition, as in many other things; yet the Ancient Fathers, as Cyprian, Nazianzen, Chryſoſtom, with divers others, as is before ſhewn, plead Baptiſm to come in the room of Circumciſion, and that Infants have right thereto, from the Infants of the Jews having right to Circumciſion, whereby 'tis evident that Tradition hath not been primarily aſſerted to be the ground of Infant-Baptiſm.
2. He farther ſaith, The Proteſtants ſince the Reformation, have choſe to fly to ſome conſequential Arguments deducted, as they ſuppoſe, from the Scriptures, to prove the ſame: both which in this Chapter are brought forth, and duely weighed in the Ballance of Truth.
We doubt not in the Proceſs of the diſcourſe to ſhew, that after we have weighed what she ſaith, we ſhall find it too light, and to be but chaff in ſtead of Truth. The Proteſtants, he ſaith, have choſe to fly to conſequential Arguments, deduced as they ſuppoſe from Scripture. But the Antipaedobaptiſts are of another mind, and ſuppoſe themſelves to be Men of deeper Reaſon, and more piercing inſpection into the ſence of the Scriptures, than all the Godly and Learned Proteſtants ſince the Reformation. They ſee the miſtaken conceits they have of Scripture, and how ungroundedly they draw their conſequences from thence. An Argument indeed it is of much modeſty, for the Author to ſpeak at this rate: I would ask any of theſe Men, who are ſo highly conceited of their Scripture-Knowledg, why Paedobaptiſts, that are humble, ſearching, praying Chriſtians, may not underſtand ſo much of God's mind in Scripture as they? Doth the Word of God come out from them? or doth it come to them only? John 17.14. 1 Cor. 14.37.or have they only the Spirit of Illumination? or are they the only Maſters of right Reaſons? Or dare they ſay 'tis unlawful to make uſe of Conſequences? Or may not we be permitted to uſe them for Infant-Baptiſm aſwel as they againſt it? Do not they argue from Matt. 28.18, 19. and Mark 16.16. None ought to be Baptized but ſuch who are firſt taught, and conſequently that no Children ought to be Baptized, becauſe they be not capable of teaching.Vide Tombes. Is not this. their conſtant way of Arguing? Now how unreaſonable is it for men to practiſe that themſelves, which they will not allow of in others. I remember Mr. Staltmarſh in his ſhadows flying away, doth much condemn Conſequences, and ſaith Prudence and Conſequence are the two great Engins of Will-Worſhip: good Doctrine indeed, and a fine preparative to an Implicit Faith! But Mr. Baxter chaſtiſeth the folly of theſe men in his Plain Scripture-Proof &c. Poſition 10. pag. 8. Evident Conſequences,Quae colliguntur ex Scripturi… ſacris, perinde habenda ſunt ac ſi in illis ſcripta eſſent. G…eg Naz…anzen. L. 5. Thelog. or Arguments drawn by reaſon from Scripture, are as true Proof, as the very words of a Text — would it not make a man pity ſuch ſenſeleſs, ignorant wretches (ſaith he) that will call for expreſs words of Scripture, when they have the Evident Conſequences or Sence? Is Scripture-Reaſon no Scripture? If I prove that all Church-Members muſt be admitted by Baptiſm, and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-Members, is not this aſmuch as to prove that they muſt be Baptized? I ſuppoſe no man of ſound judgment will deny that the ſence, or meaning of Scripture, is Scripture as well as the Letters, and Syllables in the Bible: For the ſence, and meaning of the Letter of the Word muſt be drawn out by rational Conſequence, as the concluſion from a Propoſition by a fit medium; and if this were not ſo, the ſearching and ſtudying of the Scriptures were a needleſs undertaking, and ſo would all Preaching and Expounding be. It is a good obſervation of Dr. Sclater in his Comment upon the 5th verſe of the 4th Chapter of the Romans; That God's Spirit in Scripture ſpeaks as well what he implyeth, as what he expreſſeth; as well what by Conſequence is deduced, as what in ſumme of Words he uttereth: And inſtanceth in that of James, 4.5. ſaith the Scripture in vain? &c. It is uſual for our Adverſaries to cavil againſt this Theological Axiom. Say the Papiſts, and Anabaptiſts (for in this like Sampſon's foxes they are joyned together by the tayls, whilſt their heads look ſeveral ways) where have we it taught, that Infants ſhould be Baptized in all the Scripture? To which we anſwer, we have it not in Expreſs terms, but by juſt Conſequence. Where find we that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is imputed to us for Juſtification? ſaith Bellarmine. Why, in Expreſs terms we have it not, but Virtually and by juſt Conſequence we have it; 2 Cor. 5.21. In the Equivalent we have it, Rom. 5.17, 18, 19. You are wont to boaſt, ſaith Bellarmine, of the Word of God, and to reduce all your Opinions to this one head, but in the Caſe of Juſtification by Faith only, that help fails you; for you were never able to ſhew in the Scripture that particle [only]. To this we Reply, that if we have it by Conſequence from Scripture, and if we have it in the Equivalency, we have it in the Scripture.
That Tradition hath been the firſt and principal ground of Infant-Baptiſm, he would prove from Auſtin, and Chryſoſtom's ſayings.
But how, and in what ſenſe do they call it a Tradition of the Church? why certainly not as if the Church had been the Author, but the Subject of it as before, as continued therein all along down from the Apoſtles. And if any of the Fathers ſpeak too hyperbolically of Tradition, what is that to us who plead Scripture as its primary ground for it? Beſides Anciently the greateſt points of Faith were called by the name of foreign (i. e.) Divine Doctrines or Ordinances, for ſo it is rendred 1 Cor. 11.2. and the ſame word is rendred Traditions, 2 Theſ. 2.15. So that Auſtin's Intendment by that expreſſion of Apoſtolical Tradition, is nothing elſe but Apoſtolical Ordinance, or Doctrine, as appears from his own words; ſaying, The Cuſtom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing little Infants is not to be deſpiſed, nor to be judged Superfluous, nor to be Believed unleſs it were an Apoſtolical Tradition Lib. 10. de Gen. c. 23. (i. e.) an Apoſtolical Ordinance.
What follows from 153 p. to the 155th, is moſtly borrowed from Mr. Tombes his Praecurſor, Sec. 20. p. 86, 89.
As firſt, The Aſſertion of the Cardinal Raguſi, in his Oration in the Council of Bazil. Tombes indeed hath it in Latin, but the Author is at the pains to tranſlate it. And ſince it is ſo notorious, and intolerable a piece of Plagianiſm, thus to take and conceal from whence he had it, contrary to the Laws of ingenuity provided in that behalf, we ſhall make diſcovery thereof by a Paralel.
H. D (i.e.) [The Author] In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of of the Cardinal of Raguſi, It is aſſerted that in the beginning of this Sacrament of Baptiſm, they only were to be Baptized, who could by themſelves anſwer Interrogatories concerning their Faith; and that it was no-where read in the Canon of Scripture, that a new-born Infant was Baptized, who could neither believe with the heart to Juſtification, nor confeſs with the mouth to Salvation; yet nevertheleſs, ſaith he, the Church hath appointed it.
H. D. Whereas ſome Object, that Bellarmine, and others do alſo bring Scripture for it; Becan. Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. anſwers, that ſome things may be proved out of Scripture, when the Church's ſence is firſt heard about the Interpretation (thereof; for ſo, he ſaith, it is concerning Infants-Baptiſm, which is proved from John 3.5. But the ſenſe whereby to prove it, is only manifeſt by Tradition.
H. D. and it is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men, that Infant-Baptiſm was not reckoned perfect till the Biſhop laid on hands which was called Confirmation, viz. of the imperfect Baptiſm in Infancy: and therefore ſaith Caiſtans ſecundum Jewel, that an Infant wanting inſtruction in the Faith, hath not perfect Baptiſm.
H. D. Dr. Field. Lib. 4. p. 375. ſaith, That Infant-Baptiſm is therefore called a Tradition, becauſe it is not expreſly delivered in the Scriptures, that the Apoſtles did Baptize Infants or that they ſhould do ſo. Here the Author ſtops and goes no farther being afraid of the next lines.
H. D. Prideaux controv. Theol. Sec. 392. Infant-Baptiſm, ſaith he, reſts upon no other Divine right than Epiſcopacy. viz Dioceſan Epiſcopacy in uſe in theſe Nations. Here he adds as before he ſubſtracted from what Mr. Tombes ſaid out of Field.
I. T. (i.e.) John Tombes. In the Council of Bazil, in the Oration of the Cardinal of Raguſi, it is aſſerted, Item nuſquam legitur in Canone Scripturae S. quod parvulus recenter Baptizatus, qui nec corde credit ad juſtitiam, nec ore confitetur adſalutem, inter fideles & credentes computetur; & nibilominus, Eccleſia ita determinavit, & ſtatuit &c. And, in principio hujus Sacramenti Baptizabantur ſolum illi qui per ſe ſciebant fidem interroganti reſpondere.
I. T. And whereas it is Objected that Bellarmine, and others do bring Scripture for it; Becan. Manual. Lib. 1. C. 3. Sec. 24. anſwers, aliqua poſſunt probari ex Scriptura, quando conſtat de vero, & legitimo Scripturae ſenſu. So he ſaith, it is concerning Infant-Baptiſm, which is proved from John 3.5. but that the ſenſe whereby to prove it, is only manifeſt by Tradition.
I. T. Which is confirmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men; an Infants-Baptiſm, was not reckoned perfect, till the Biſhop layd on hands, which act was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptiſm in Infancy. Jewel alledgeth it as Caiſtans Tenent, that an Infant, for that he wanteth inſtruction in Faith, therefore hath not perfect Baptiſm.
I. T. Dr. Field, of the Church 4th Book Chap. 20. of this ſort is Infant-Baptiſm, which is therefore called a Tradition, becauſe it is not expreſly delivered in Scripture that the Apoſtles did Baptize Infants, nor any expreſs Precept that they ſhould do ſo. [Tombes is ſo ingenious as to ſet down the reſt] yet is not this ſo received by bare, and naked Tradition, but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it.
I. T. Dr' Prideaux, Faſci. Controv. Theol. Loc. 4. Sec. 3. q. 2. Paedobaptiſm reſts on no other Divine right than Epiſcopaey.
Now to all this we have ſaid enough before, as to the Subſtance of it, and I love not needleſs repetitions: only let me mind you with this, That though Papiſts and others, attribute too much to the cuſtom of the Church, or Tradition, yet all ſound Proteſtants when they uſe that word they do it in Senſu ſano, quite different from the corrupt ſenſe of the Romiſh Church.
And becauſe the Author ſaith Dr. Taylor doth ſo fully and ſtrenuouſly argue againſt us in his Lib. Proph. p. 237, viz. Tradition, ſaith he, muſt by all means ſupply the place of Scripture, and there is pretended a Tradition Apoſtolical, That Infants were Baptized: I think it not amiſs to bring in Dr. Hammond to cope with him, in his Letter of Reſolution, Quaere 4th of the Baptizing of Infants, Sec. 104. pag. 277. where, having before ſpoken of what ſort of Traditions, have been rejected by the Reformed Churches, he then adds, Having no neceſſity to deſcend to any more minute Conſiderations, the whole matter will be reſolved into this one Enquiry, whether the Baptizing of Infants, doth ſufficiently appear to be of the Inſtitution of Chriſt, or Practice Apoſtolical? And if it do, we have all that we pretend to, upon the ſcore of Tradition; and if it do not, we are obliged to diſclaim that means of maintaining our plea, or inferring our concluſion.
And becauſe the way of ſatisfying this enquiry, is but the ſaying over again all that hath been formerly ſaid on this ſubject, this whole Diſcourſe having laid the weight of all upon this one Baſis, the Inſtitution of Chriſt, and Practice of the Apoſtles, it will be unreaſonable to do this any farther, ſave only upon a brief Recapitulation, to refer it to the judgment of any ſober Chriſtian; Whether firſt, by Chriſts founding of the Inſtitution of this Sacrament in the Jewiſh Cuſtom of Baptizing of Proſelytes, Baptiſm in uſe in the Jewiſh Church and applyed to Infants aſwel as grown men. The Learned Mr. Selden & Light-foot ſpeak the ſame.which appears to have belonged to the Infant Children of the Proſelytes, as is before ſhewn out of Goodwin Ainſworth & others, Chap. 1. and Secondly, by his being ſo far from excepting againſt the Age of Children as a Prejudice, or hinderance to their coming to him (that is to their Proſelytiſm) that he affirms them to be the pattern of thoſe,Though Children are brought to him by others, yet they are ſayd to come unto him in Mark 10.14. foreign the very words of which Proſelyte is made. of whom his Kingdom is to be made up; and though he be not affirmed in the Goſpel to Baptize ſuch (for he Baptized not at all) Mark 10.16. (Which being the Ceremony uſual in the Church, for thoſe that were fitted for Baptiſm, and diſtinctly Preparative to it, they that were by Chriſt afforded that, cannot be thought by him leſs capable of (Baptiſm than of that): And Thirdly, by the expreſs Words of the Apoſtle, that their Children are Holy, interpreted by the Context, ſo as to infer from the Apoſtles way of Arguing, that it was the Cuſtom of thoſe Apoſtolick times to Baptize the Children of the Chriſtian Parents, and ſo interpreted by the Chriſtian Writers of the Firſt and Pureſt Ages; And Fourthly by the Teſtimonies of all the Ancients, that are found to ſpeak of this matter, without any one pretended to diſſent, that this was the Practice of the Apoſtles; Whether I ſay, theſe four things being put together (the truth of each of which, hath been before more largely evinced) it be not ſufficiently Evident, That the Baptizing of Children is of the Inſtitution of Chriſt, and Practice Apoſtolical. Thus far Dr. Hammond.
Next the Author ſaith, he will give us ſome account of the inſufficiency and Weakneſs, if not wickedneſs of thoſe firſt Authorities, that have been leaned upon to prove this Practice to be an Apoſtolical Tradition &c. and he reduceth it to theſe following. Dionyſius the Areopagite, the Decretal Inſtitutions, or Epiſtles of ſeveral Popes (as he calleth them) Juſtin Martyr, Origen, and Cyprian.
Concerning the two firſt of theſe we look upon them as broken Reeds and we lean not on them at all: and to produce an Argument for the Apoſtolicalneſs of Paedobaptiſm from theſe is (as Dr. Hammond ſpeaks of ſome which he likes not) to be look upon of the number of the Blind and the Lame, that are of more uſe to betray and loſe, than defend and ſecure that Fort in which they are placed. Know then, Sir, that we except againſt them as much as your ſelf, and you know you have taken all your exceptions againſt theſe Romiſh Forgeries, from the learned Pens of Paedobaptiſts. 'Tis by the elaborate pains of the Magdeburgenſes, Oſiander, Perkins, Reynolds, Rivet &c. that they are detected, who (as you obſerve) have laid open the Baſtardy both of the one and of the other. From theſe Mr. Tombes gleans what he hath to ſay upon this point in his Praecurſor, Mr. Tombes his Praecurſor.where you have them collected to your hand, and from whence you fetch what you preſent us with: and here I am tempted again to draw another Paralel, you do ſo exactly tread in his ſteps, as firſt, beginning as he doth, with Oſiander, then follows Rivet, afterward Perkins, then the Decretal-Epiſtles, which paſs under the name of Clement, Hyginus &c. All which are condemned as Spurious by Mr. Perkins, and he gives undeniable Arguments for it.
But I obſerve your little deſign, to render Infant Baptiſm the more odious by that appellation you give Clement, Hyginus, with the reſt of them; namely, Pope ſay you, the Decretals and Inſtitutions of ſeveral Popes in this Second Century, as that of Pope Clement, Pope Hyginus: and is it not ſtrange …hat the Pope ſhould appear ſo early? 'Tis not handſome thus to impoſe upon the weaker ſort, that are not read in Church-Hiſtory: As for others that are more learned they know that Hyginus, (the Verus or true one of that name) is numbred amongſt the firſt good Biſhops that ſucceeded the Apoſtles; for ſo we find him in Dr. Prideaux his Catologue, and to be the man that ſet Juſtin Martyr at work to frame his Apology for the Chriſtians, and was no Pope in the ſence it is uſually taken, viz. An Oeconomical Biſhop challenging unto himſelf, and uſurping Authority over the whole Church.Euſeb. Lib. 4. c. 9. He is calculated to be the 8th Biſhop of Rome, living in the dayes of Antoninus Pius about a hundred and fourty years after Chriſt and very near to the Apoſtles.
Having thus diſcarded the feigned Dionyſius, and the Perſonatus Hyginus (as Mr. Tombes obſerves he is called by Oſtander) with the reſt of the cheating Tribe; laying no ſtreſs at all upon what they ſay, as touching the Apoſtolicalneſs of Infant-Baptiſm, we ſhall notwithſtanding, by the Author's good leave, ſtill retain a Venerable eſteem of the other three that follow. For honeſt Men are nevertheleſs honeſt, for being rankt with cheats, though I confeſs, they are the more lyable to ſuſpicion, by ſuch as do not examine things.
Firſt for Juſtin Martyr, we ſhall not altogether quit our claim to him, though there be ſo litle left of him, as Mr. Baxter notes, that we cannot expect that he ſhould ſpeak expreſly to the point,Juſtin Martyr, is ſuppoſed to have lived in St. John's days. Scultetus ſaith he flouriſhed Anno 140. both becauſe he is brief, and treateth on other (Theams, to which this did not belong, and becauſe the Church then living amongſt Heathens had ſo much to do in converting, and Baptizing the Aged that they had little occaſion to treat about Children, eſpecially it being a point not Controverted, but taken for granted by the Chriſtians, who knew God's dealing with the Jews Church; yet nevertheleſs, ſaith Mr. Baxter, Juſtin Martyr gives ſuch hints, by which his Judgment and the Practice of the Church,Baxter, plaint Scripture-Proof. p. 155. even in thoſe dayes may be diſcerned.
Touching what is ſaid in Juſtin Martyr's Reſponſes (againſt which the Author levels his diſcourſe) and eſpecially what is ſaid in his 56th Queſtion ad Orthodoxos, the Author ſayes right, that many of the afore-ſaid Learned Writers that are Paedobaptiſts do diſown it as ſpurious — And Mr. Baxter himſelf Acknowledgeth the ſame that though the Book be Ancient, yet it was either Spurious or Interpolate: True, but withal gives divers paſſages for our turn out of other Works of his, as that in his Dialogue with Tryphon, Part 2. Propoſ. 3. Nos certe qui hujus ope ad Deum acceſſimus, non carnalem iſtam Circumciſionem, fed Spiritualem — Hanc, nos per Baptiſma, ut pote peccatores nati, a Deo miſerante accepimus; eam licet omnibus ſimiliter accipere. (i. e.) It was Lawful for all to receive the Spiritual Circumciſion, which he ſaith was done by Baptiſm, and if all might receive it, even ſo Infants (who were the ſubjects of the Legal Circumciſion) for they muſt be a part of the All and not excluded.
Another touch we have in that Paſſage of Juſtin, importing Baptiſm to be the only way to Remiſſion of Sins and Salvation; and he judged that Infants are forgiven, and ſaved; therefore he judged that they might be Baptized. As for the places, I refer the Reader to Mr. Baxter's Plain Scripture-Proof, where we have them quoted, pag. 155.
2. For Origen we ſhall with greater confidence adhere to him, notwithſtanding the frivolous Cavils of the Author which are reducible to theſe 6 Heads.
1. His Firſt is, That Origen is but one ſingle Teſtimony for the practice of Infant-Baptiſm to be Apoſtolical.
Reply.
This will not paſs for a Truth, becauſe we have alſo the Teſtimony of Irenaeus, Irenaeus lived in the 2d. Century with Juſtin Martyr, in the Age of thoſe that ſaw the Apoſtles, and therefore could not be ignorant of their Practice.who lived in the Second Century with Juſtin, even in the Age of thoſe that ſaw the Apoſtles; within the firſt Century after them. Dr. Hammond in his Letter of Reſolution Sec. 40. pag. 212. where alſo we have quoted that Common, though Famous paſſage of his Extant in Lib. 2 Adv. Haereſ. C. 39. Omnem aetatem Sanctificans per illam quae ad ipſam erat ſimilitudinem. Omnes enim venit per ſemet ipſum ſalvare, Infantes, & Parvulos & Pueros — Omnes inquam qui per eum renaſcuntur in Deum. (i. e.) Chriſt did Sanctify every Age, by his own ſuſception of it, and Similitude to it — All I ſay, who by him are born again to God: where the Infants being Regenerate, and born again into God, muſt needs be interpreted after the Scripture-Notion of foreign, being born again, or Regenerate by that laver of Regeneration.'Tit. 3.5. The Apoſtle ealls Baptiſm foreign: and Mr. Mede in his Diatribe ſaith, none will deny but that he means by the Waſhing of Regeneration, Baptiſm. And as Voſſius upon the place, ſaith, to call Baptiſm Renaſce…ia, is uſitata veteribus loquendi forma. By being born again all the Ancient Church-Writers underſtand Baptiſm, and that they took it in this ſence, is evinced from that of Juſtin Martyr (noted by Mr. Marſhal) who ſpeaking of the manner of the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm uſeth it in this ſence.
The Baptized party, (ſaith he) is brought to the place where the water is, and Regenerated in the ſame manner, wherein we were Regenerated; And that he is there ſpeaking of Baptiſm under the name of Regeneration,Juſtin Mart. Ap. foreign, &c. appears by what is added — 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, & the Holy Ghoſt. This is taken out of Juſtin Martyr's Apology, which no man ever queſtioned for Authentick.
2. A Second exception, is, That Origen's Writings are very Corrupt as the Magdeburgenſes do affirm.
And is there not much Corruption in the Writings of all the Fathers? and do not the Magdeburgenſes ſet down the Naevi or Errors of the reſt of the Eathers? and particularly is not Tertullian (one of the Authors Witneſſes whom he cryes up as Oppoſite to Infant-Baptiſm, when 'tis no ſuch matter) branded by them, for abominable foul errors concerning God and Chriſt? and do they not charge him to be infected with Montaniſm, and to be the firſt inventor of that filthy Ceremony of Chryſm? And notwithſtanding Origen's errors, there are very precious and Golden Truths in ſome of his Works, particularly in his Comment upon the Galathians, which ſeem not to be coined in a Popiſh Mint: So that what hath been long ſpoken of him is very true, — Ʋbi bene nemo melius, ubi male nemo pejus. Where he ſpeaks right, none better, where wrong, none worſe.
3. A Third charge againſt Origen (which the Author borrows from his old friend Mr. Tombes) is that of Eraſmus who paſſeth this Cenſure on him, That he that reads his Homilies,Mr. Tombe's Exercit. p. 28. knows not when he reads Origen or Ruffinus: and Perkins puts his Homilies upon the Romans among his conterfeit Works, Mr. Tombe's Examen, p. 7.as Eraſmus Cenſureth thoſe on Leviticus.
To which we Reply,
1. It is to be noted that neither the Author, nor any one elſe hath any thing to ſay againſt Origen's Homilies upon Luke, where he is expreſly for Infant-Baptiſm, even Mr. Perkins lets this paſs without the Cenſure of being ſpurious.
2. All that Mr. Perkins ſaith of his Homilies upon the Romans is, That they were not fideliter redditi a Ruffino (i.e.) not faithfully Tranſlated by Ruffinus, which comes not up to a concluding them ſpurious.
It was then in his account Origen's own work, but errors were committed in the Tranſlation, of which that of foiſting in Infant-Baptiſm is but a weak conjecture; for why ſhould that be thought? ſince it was ſo univerſally practiſed, and owned in thoſe dayes.
3. He ſaith, They may well be rejected as ſpurious if we conſider the Story the Magdeburgenſes tell of this Ruffinus, Cent. 4.De illis quae ex Origine aeb Hieronimo tranſlata, foreign videantur Eraſmo, Magd. Cent. 4. C. 10. de Epiſc. & Doct. p. 1218. c. 10. p. 1218, 1219. and I find there is ſomething added to the Story in the carriage. The Sum of all is that Ruffinus was a naughty man, whoſe wickedneſs (ſaith the Author) was diſcovered by Jerom, eſpecially his abuſing Origen's Works, many of which he tranſlated out of Greek into Latin, Sophiſticating them at his pleaſure, and for which Jerom. writes ſeveral pieces to detect and reprove him.
Reply.
This is ſomething more than the Magdeburgenſes ſpeak of him, and they have only Jerom's word for what they ſay; who was his mortal enemy, and they report none of the beſt neither concerning Jerom, as they have it from the Pen of Ruffinus. No doubt Ruffinus was no better than he ſhould be; but for certain the Author is too partial for an Hiſtorian, laying all the blame upon Ruffinus, when the Magdeburgenſes do condemn them both for their Enmity and unchriſtian-like carriage to each other, and in ſome things do vindicate Ruffinus and blame Jerom.
I ſhall therefore take the freedom partly for diverſion, and to rectify the Story, to give a brief account of the matter. In the firſt place the Magdeburgenſes do inform us, That there was at firſt a more than ordinary friendſhip, and familiarity between theſe two, how they were as Brethren and Companions in Study; but at length there happened to be vehemens diſſidium, a great breach between them, in ſo much that they became great enemies. But what was the cauſe hereof cannot be found in any of Jerom's Writings: after this they became friends again, at leaſt in appearance.
But the wound was not thorowly healed, but only skinned over, for a while after there aroſe a new quarrel, and they were ſet at a farther diſtance than ever; they fall to calumniating and writing bitter invectives againſt each other, and they are both accuſed by the Magdeburgenſes for the virulency of their Pens.
Firſt Ruffinus chargeth Jerom to be infected with Origen's Hereſies, and put him to the trouble of an Apology; and beſides he accuſeth him that he had not rightly tranſlated the Scriptures, inſtancing in ſeveral places. Then Jerom recriminats and accuſeth him for tranſlating Origen's Works with his Naevi or Errors, to the blemiſh of Origen, and danger of infecting the World thereby. And here let me tell you the Magdeburgenſes interpoſe and ſpeak their ſence of the matter, that though Jerom charged him ſo highly, yet it was nimis languida ut videtur ratione, without ſufficient ground for ought that they could find: For ſay they, Ruffinus, neither defended nor aſſerted Origen's errors, nor was the firſt that tranſlated his Works; nor did he undertake it arbitrio ſuo by his own inclination, but ad Fratrum preces at the deſire of his Brethren, as he fully ſhews in the Apology which he made to Anaſtaſius for his Faith, a confeſſion whereof they alſo ſet down, which is very Orthodox. Cent. 4. Cap. 10. p. 1202, 1203.
4. The Author is again out in ſaying, There is only a corrupt Tranſlation of Origen by Ruffinus, who ingeniouſly confeſſeth that he took ſo much liberty in his tranſlation as to add and alter at his pleaſure &c.
It is a great miſtake to ſay there is only a corrupt Tranſlation of Origen by Ruffinus, and he might have learned the contrary from the Magdeburgenſes Cent. 4. cap. 10. p. 1218, 1219. where they ſay — extant inter Origenis opera Latina facta quaedam, quorum interpres fuit Hieronimus, Eraſmi judicio; Divers of Origen's Works are Tranſlated by Jerom. This is the judgment of Eraſmus, as his Homilies upon Jeremy, Ezechiel, his Homilies upon Luke and the Romans, to both which Jerom affixeth his own Preface as Eraſmus obſerves, and in both theſe, have we the point of Infant-Baptiſm aſſerted; and ſo we ſee the Author might have ſpared the pains of telling ſuch a Story of Ruffinus, for we give the places which are for our turn out of Origen according to Jerom's verſion, and if Ruffinus hath no credit with him, I hope he will allow a little to Jerom.
3. Laſtly, for that other ancient Father Cyprian, he cannot let him paſs without ſome exceptions ſuch as they are, though me thinks that of Voſſius ſhould ſilence all Cavils viz, That the Teſtimony of Cyprian for Infant-Baptiſm, both in his time and before, is beyond all exceptions. And Grotius likewiſe tells us that the Epiſtle of Cyprian to Fidus, makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infant-Baptiſm, for Fidus did not deny their Baptiſm, but only denyed they ought to be Baptized before the eight day. But let us hear what he hath to except againſt Cyprian, which is;
1. Becauſe he doth not urge the Practice from any Apoſtolical Tradition or Precept, but from his own and the Council of ſixty ſix Biſhops Arguments.
Reply.
But what though no mention be made here of Apoſtolical-Tradition, Origenes & Cyprianus Authores ſunt Apoſtolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos eſſe. Magdeburg. Cent. 1. Lib. 2. c. 6. p. 496.yet it follows not that he held it not as ſuch, and the Magdeburgenſes have before told us that both Origen and Cyprian that lived near the Apoſtles affirm that even in the Apoſtles time Infants were Baptized.
But to ſee how inflexible and ſtiff this Antagoniſt is — if ſaith he, he had Aſſerted it for an Apoſtolical Tradition, his word would have been no ſooner taken than when he tells us that Chryſm was ſo.
To which I Reply,
And why then ſhall Tertullian's ſuppoſed Word againſt Infant-Baptiſm be taken, and paſs for currant, who was as the Magdeburgenſes inform us the firſt inventer of Chryſm; and Cyprian 'tis like learned it of him who was as the Author calls him his great Maſter. Judg Reader whether this be fair and equal dealing.
2. His other Exception, which he never learned from his great Maſter Mr. Tombes, (who was too wiſe to urge it when he oppoſed the Teſtimony of Cyprian. Examen, Sec. 7. pag. 10.) is, becauſe there is good ground to queſtion whether this was Cyprian's and ſixty-ſix Biſhops Concluſion.
And why ſo?
1. Becauſe we meet with no ſuch Council, (and that is ſtrange for one that hath launched as he hath done into the vaſt Ocean of Antiquity) neither yet can it appear where it was held.
Something muſt be ſayd, though it be but meer wrangling; Well I perceive the Ancient Fathers that lived next after Cyprian were dim-ſighted, and could not ſee what good ground there was to queſtion, whether ever Cyprian had ſuch a Council. Had they had the perſpicacity of this Author, they would never have retained ſo venerable an eſteem of it, as is evident they had in their frequent and reſpective quotations of it. As Nazianzen Orat. 3. in S. Lavacrum. Chryſoſt. Hom. ad Neophit. Ambros in Luc. and Hieronimus Lib. 3. Dialog. Contr. Pelag. and Auſtin in very many places; and no leſs weakneſs is there in what follows, viz.
And if Auſtin's Argument before mentioned be good to prove an Apoſtolical Tradition, becauſe no Council had determined it, it concludes againſt any ſuch Council.
Reply.
A pittiful miſtake, or miſunderſtanding Auſtin's Words, which are, Quod univerſa tenet Eccleſia &c. That which is univerſally received, and practiſed in the Church, and had not its firſt Inſtitution from ſome Council: (The Author ſhould have markt that) but hath been ever retained, may be believed to be an Apoſtolical Tradition: which indeed is an undeniable Poſition, and being applyed by Auſtin to the point in hand ſeems to be a Demonſtration of the Apoſtolicalneſs of Infant-Baptiſm: Auſtin therefore calls it an Apoſtolical Tradition, becauſe it was alwayes practiſed in the Church, and had not its firſt Inſtitution from Councils, neither in Cyprian's Council nor any one elſe, being of greater Antiquity than any of them. Neither can any man name when it began ſince the Apoſtles: and for that reaſon we cannot otherwiſe conceive rationally of it, than that it had its firſt Original from them.
I ſhall only add thoſe remarkable Words of Mr. Philpot, the Martyr, in his Letter to his fellow-ſufferer that ſcrupled Infant-Baptiſm; which with the Scripture-Arguments he uſed, proved ſo effectual, that (as Mr. Fox in his Book of Martyrs tells us) the diſſatisfied Perſon came thereby to be eſtabliſhed in the doctrine of Infant-Baptiſm, and dyed in the Belief of its warrantableneſs. I can declare (ſaith Mr. Philpot) out of Ancient Writers, that the Baptiſm of Infants hath continued from the Apoſtles time unto ours; and then cites Origen and Cyprian out of Auſtins 28th Epiſtle to Jerom: where are theſe words viz, Cyprian did not make any new Decree but firmly obſerving the Faith of the Church, judged with his own fellow-Biſhops, that as ſoon as one was born, he might be lawfully Baptized — Theſe Authorities (ſaith that famous Martyr a little before his death) I do alledg not to ty the Baptiſm of Children unto the Teſtimonies of Men, but to ſhew how Mens Teſtimonies do agree with God's Word, and that the verity of Antiquity is on our ſide, and that the Anabaptiſts have nothing but lies for them, and new-Imaginations, which feign the Baptiſm of Children to be the Pope's Commandment. And ſo I ſhall leave the Author to his Boaſting in what follows, and the impartial Reader to judg whether our Teſtimonies from Antiquity be forged and fabulous as he would render them; only I muſt not let paſs an Objection which he ſtarts, and which is uſually made by us, which he had better have left Dormant than to give ſo ſlight an Anſwer to it.
Objection.
It is ſayd, That by Tertullian's oppoſing it, it may ſeem that there were ſome that practiſed it in the 3d Century, and can it be ſuppoſed that any did ſo, except it had been warranted by ſuch Apoſtolical Tradition. Obſerve, Reader, the anſwer which he gives.
Anſwer.
It is granted, Tertullian did oppoſe it. But who it was that did aſſert it, and whether upon any ſuch account as ſuppoſed, is not mentioned, it will be on their part to prove the one and the other.
Reply.
1. We gather from this Anſwer that the Author cannot have the face to deny it was practiſed in the 3d Century, for if Tertullian did Oppoſe it, it muſt be ſuppoſed it was Practiſed, elſe how could he oppoſe it.
2. But we muſt give the names of thoſe that were for it, as before he muſt know where Cyprian's Council was held, or elſe he could not aſſent to the being of it: But how many names will ſuffice him I know not. What if I ſay Origen was one, for I hope by this time he may ſtand rectus in curia and not be excepted againſt for a Witneſs, he ſpeaks point blank to the Caſe. Eccleſia ab Apoſtolis Traditionem accepit parvulis dare Baptiſmum. The Church hath received a Tradition from the Apoſtles, to give Baptiſm to little Children; as we have it in his Comment upon the ſixth Chapter of the Romans. And though Ruffinus riffled his works as is ſaid, yet Jerom Tranſlated that out of Greek, and ſo alſo his other Comment upon Luke, where he is expreſs to the ſame purpoſe; and this is atteſted by Eraſmus, and Jerom's Prefaces to both Books puts it beyond doubt. Let me add what I find in Mr. Baxter for farther ſatifaction. You, ſaith he,Baxter plain Scripture-proof. p. 157. to Mr. Tombes think the worſe of it, becauſe it is pleaded by Origen as a Tradition, from the Apoſtles; I think very much the better for it, both becauſe it the more fully reſolveth the queſtion concerning the matter of fact, and Apoſtolical Cuſtom, and ſhews that it was no late invention, or Innovation. And the Fathers (as is hinted before) took not the word Tradition in the Popiſh Sence, for that which hath been delivered in Doctrine from Age to Age, above what is delivered in Scripture, as to ſupply the ſuppoſed defect of Scripture. But for the very written word it ſelf, by which the Apoſtles delivered the Truth, and for their Examples and the report of it, and of ſome other paſſages, eſpecially in matter of Fact, tending only to the explication of their Doctrines, and not to the adding of new-Doctrines, as if the former were defective.
What if I name once more Irenaeus; Qui proximus fuit temporibus Apoſtolorum, S. Baſil de S. Sto. Cap. 25. That was next to the Apoſtles; who is calculated to live within ſome fourty-three years of St. John.
I find the Author hath paſſed him by, and yet as hath been before ſhewn he was for Infant-Baptiſm, otherwiſe what ſence ſhall we put upon thoſe Words of his, Lib. 2. C. 39. which are before ſpoken to; and which occaſioned Dr. Taylor to ſay, The Tradition of Infant-Baptiſm paſſed through his hands, in his Conſideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants. Sec. 29. pag. 55.
3. We ſhall by no means grant that Tertullian was againſt Infant-Baptiſm, we have given ſome hints why already. But ſhall reſerve our diſcourſe about that till we come to its proper place, that is, the Examination of the Witneſs produced againſt Paedobaptiſm, whereof Tertullian is the firſt.