tradition, he says, -"The fourth kind of tradition is the continued practice of such things as neither are contained in the Scripture expressly, nor the example of such practice expressly there delivered, though the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of such practice be there contained, and the benefit or good that follows of it. Of this sort is the baptism of infants," &c. Grotius, from this and some other arguments, frames an hypothesis of the indifferency (libertas he calls it) of the ancient church in this matter †; and though Rivet does suppose that Grotius was a convert of Cardinal Perron in this point; for the said Cardinal, in his reply to King James, "had (as Rivet observes) ‡ pleaded the cause of the Anabaptists with all his might; and I see (says Rivet) that he has brought over Hugo Grotius; yet I count it proper to reckon Grotius as the author; because what the cardinal had said was, very probably, not from his real opinion, but from a design to embroil the Protestants, by giving strength to the schism of the Antipædobaptists, who then began to grow strong in Holland and other places: a design which the Papists have since earnestly promoted, -industriously putting it into their books, that infant baptisin cannot be proved from Scripture, but only from the practice of the church; and as some of them will have it, not from any evidence of the practice of the ancient church neither, but only from the authority of the present church. I am not willing to think that Grotius had so ill a design; but he being naturally inclined to trim all controversies in religion that came in his way, and using that vast stock of learning which he had (as princes that would hold the balance do their power) to help the weakest side, he maintains § (not that there was ever any church or any time in which infant baptism was not used, but) that, in the Greek churches, many " persons, from the beginning to this day, do observe the custom of delaying the baptism of their infants till they are able to make confession of their own faith." The mistake that he is here guilty of, in reference to the modern practice of the Greek churches, in which (as all men are now sure) there neither is, nor lately has been any such thing known as the delay of infants baptism (especially if he mean the Greek Churches, properly so called; for what dispute is raised concerning the Georgian Christians I do mention hereafter*) makes one take less notice of what he affirms concerning the ancient practice thereof. As he produces no proof at all of what he says of the late times, so what he urges for this indifferency of the elder times consists in these particulars. He cites the Canon of the Council of Neocæsarea, [214] mentioned above †, and expounds it to make against infant baptisın. This, if it proves any thing, proves too much; not a liberty, but an unlawfulness of infant baptism in the opinion of those 17 bishops. He himself says [300] That "it is plain that, in St. Austin's time, Pædobaptism was received in all churches; because the Pelagians being pressed with that as an argument, never could deny it ;" and was it not obvious likewise for him to observe, that the Pelagians, being pressed with this argument," that no Christian ever was against Pædobaptism," could deny it, but expressly granted itt And could Pelagius and St. Austin too have forgot that a council of 17 bishops had determined against it but 80 years before [214], if they or any body else had at that time gathered any such meaning out of their words? The Pædobaptists say, that this meaning lay hid for 1300 years after the men were dead, till he picked it out; but of this, and of the use that he makes of the words of Balsamon and Zonaras thereupon, was discoursed before §. * Chap. 8. See Part 1, ch. 19. + Part 1, ch. 8. § Part 1, ch. 8. He observes also, "That in the councils one shall find no earlier mention of Pædobaptism than in the council of Carthage." From whence he would infer, that "it did not universally obtain, but was more frequent in Africa than anywhere else." [318] St. Austin, as was before cited *, proves that it must have been instituted by the apostles; because it did and ever had universally obtained, and yet was not instituted by any council. Mentioned it was by a council under St. Cyprian †, which did not enact it, but take it for granted. I mentioned before his other argument, which is nothing else but the perverting of the sense of a few words of Gregory Nazianzen (where he, speaking of several sorts of persons that die without baptism, names, among the rest," those that are not baptized, dia vniornra, by reason of infancy") as if Nazianzen had thereby intimated his opinion to be, that infancy did incapacitate one for baptism; whereas, if the reader will turn back to Part 1, ch. 11, where I have cited the place at large, he will see that Nazianzen there reckons "those who are not baptized [or have missed of baptism] by reason of their infancy," among those whose own fault it is not that they are not baptized; and, therefore, their punishment shall be less in the world to come. The most material thing that he brings, is the instance of Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostom, born, as he takes it, of Christian parents, and yet not baptized till of age; which shall be discussed in the next chapter. He concludes, "That all that he has brought, is of no force to prove that infant baptism should be denied; but only to shew libertatem, vetustatem, et consuetudinis differentiam: - the liberty, antiquity, and difference of the custom." I said before, that Bishop Taylor is to be reckoned in this rank, if one knows where to reckon him, or *Part 1, ch. 15. Part 1, ch. 11, + Cypriani Ep. ad Fidum. can reconcile what I have quoted from him with that which I am going to quote. He, in his " Dissuasive from Popery," one of his latest works, being busy in defending the Protestant doctrine against the Papists,. who plead the necessity of tradition to prove infant baptism; and having answered, that it is proved enough from Scripture as to the lawfulness of it, goes on to shew that tradition does not do so much service in the matter; for that it delivers it to us as the custom of some Christians in all times, but not of all. His words are these*: "In the first age they did, or they did not, according as they pleased; for there is no pretence of tradition that the church in all ages did baptize all the infants of Christian Parents. It is more certain that they did not do it always, than that they did it in the first age. St. Ambrose, St. Hierom, and St. Austin, were born of Christian parents, and yet not baptized until the full age of a man, and more." A little time after, "That it was the custom so to do in some churches, and at some times, is without all question; but that there is a tradition from the apostles so to do, relies but on two witnesses, Origen and Austin [110]; and the latter having received it from the former [296], it relies wholly on one single testimony, which is but a pitiful argument to prove a tradition apostolical. He is the first that spoke it; but Tertullian, that was before him [100], seems to speak against it; which he would not have done, if it had been a tradition apostolical; and that it was not so is but too certain, if there be any truth in the words of Ludovicus Vives" [1422]; and then he recites what was before cited out of Ludovicus Vives. The most of this is what he said before, and on which I did before make what remarks are necessary; as I shall do in the next chapter on what he says of Ambrose, Hierom, Austin, born of Christian parents, + Page 118. * Part 2, lib. 2, sect. 3, p. 117. and yet not baptized in infaucy. From the whole, one may here see some of the workings of that singular fancy that this bishop had about original sin. I forgot when I saw his Dissuasive from Popery, to look at the date of the edition of it, and to see if it were not a posthumous one; which I suspect, because what he says in it of this indifferency,, is contrary to what. I quoted before out of his Great Exemplar and Ductor Dubitantium; and is more agreeable to what he had said in his youth, but afterward recanted. Mr. Thorndyke also, in the third book of his Epilogue (which is of the Laws of the Church) yields, that the eastern church (though they held infant baptisin necessary in case of the danger of death) yet did. sometimes defer it when there was no such danger; but that the western church enjoined it, as the present church does, to be given presently. He, as well as Grotius, Taylor, &c. seems to be moved to this concession by the instances of Nazianzen, Nectarius, &c. baptized at man's age; of which I shall speak in the next chapter, and shew the most of them to be mistakes. Monsieur Daillè has also something to this purpose. He says, *"In ancient times they often deferred the baptizing, both of infants and other people, as appears by the history of the Emperors Constantine the Great, of Constantius, of Theodosius, of Valentinian, and Gratian, out of St. Ambrose; and also by the Orations and Homilies of Gregory Nazianzen †, and of St. Basil, on this subject; and some of the fathers too have been of opinion that it is fit it should be deferred; as namely, Tertullian, as we have formerly noted out of him." I shall have occasion, in the next chapter, to discourse concerning those instances of the emperors; and whereas he speaks of the delay of the baptism of infants and other people, it is fit for the reader to * De usu Patrum, lib. 2, c. 6. † Εἰς βαπτισμὸν προτρεπτική. + Orat. 40. |