occasion of those that denyed or opposed it We have then our Witnesses throughout all Ages confirmed by himself yet with all I must remember him presently that though these first Canons and those in other Centuries were made against those that denyed Infants Baptisme to curse and Excommunicate and destroy them yet it was denyed long before any Canons were made to impose it And further he affirms That though Infants Baptisme was not imposed before the fifth Century yet that it was practised in the former Centuryes from the Testimonyes of Justin Martyr and Iraeneus Origen and Cyprian To which I say No proof that Infants Baptisme was practised in the 3. Century that as to the validity of our Authors testimonies as to the practise of Infants Baptisme in the first times we shall presently Examine though I deny not but that it was discoursed before the third Century and which appears as I have owned by Tertullians Reasoning against it but the thing I affirm is that it is not manifest by any Authentick Authority that it was practised as an Ordinance of Christ before As Doctor Barlow so well observes viz. that he doth believe it came in in the second Century viz. in the Notion and in the third and fourth began to be practised and defended to be lawful by the Text grosly misunderstood Jo. 3.5 And as to the Magdeburgs themselves though they tell us that from what they find from Origen and Cyprian concerning it they conclude it was practised and that many Superstitious Rites in Baptisme were also spoken of in those first Centuries Yet do tell us withal in express words Century 3. ch 6. p. 125. Nec de susceptione de Baptismo explicari quidquam inveniat in omnibus hujus saeculi veris probatis Scriptoribus Neither can one find any thing spoken of the Susception of Baptisme in all the true and approved Writers of this Agâ— They tell us indeed of oâ—e only instance mentioned by Vincentius who wrote of the affairs of the Gallican Churches mentioning a Family that was Baptized in the time of Aurelianus the Emperor in which there was a Godly young man by name Symphorianus who was Baptised by Benignus the Presbyter but with all they say of this Vincentius Author non ita satis probatus An Author not so well approved of Therefore till any instance be produced of any Child that was Baptised as an Ordinance of Christ within the first three hundred years or towards the Conclusion of it I am yet unreprovable in that my assertion For if it should be taken for granted that those four before mentioned had spoken of it yet if they do not speak of the practice of it which is all that I assert I am very safe in what I have said Tradition the principal Ground that hath been urged for Infants Baptisme Section 2 Tradition the principal Ground upon which Infants Baptisme was 1. founded THe next thing to be enquired into is the principal Ground upon which Infants Baptisme was first imposed and afterwards established which I have made appear to be humane or Unwritten Tradition by divers Authorities both Antient and Moderne p. 133. Austin Austin saith That Infants Baptisme is not to be believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition c. Bellarmin Bellarmin tells us That it is an Apostolical Tradition not written because saith he it is not written in any Apostolical B oks though in the Books of almost all the Antients c. Doctor Field Dr. Field That Infants Baptisme is therefore called a Tradition because it is not delivered in the Scriptures that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or that they spould do so Convocation at Oxford That without the consentaneous juâ—gement and practise of the Vniversal Church they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof in the point of Infants Baptisme With divers others asserting the same from pag. 133. to the 137. To which Mr. Wills saith pag. 115. 122. That it is a false suggestion and exceeding all modesty for although the Church of Rome ascribes too much to Tradition herein making it equal with the Scripture yet that the Antient Fathers do plead that it comes in the room of Circumcision and that Infants have right thereto from the right that the Jews Infants had to Circumcision And that the Protestants when they use the word Tradition do it as the Fathers before them in sensu sano in a wholesome sense quite different from the corrupt sense of the Church of Rome To which I say though Mr. Wills affirms Agreement betwixt Papist Protestant about the Tradition of Infants Baptisme there is such a vast difference betwixt the Church of Rome and them in the point of Tradition about Infants Baptisme wherein he ownes them too corrupt yet for my part I see not as Mr. Wills represents the Protestant sentiments about it where the vast difference lyes and what reason he hath to conclude they themselves that hold with the Fathers herein are so Orthodox and the Papists so corrupt and Heterodox For do the Church of Rome â—old 1. Papist a Tradition not written that it is an Apostolical Tradition not writen there being nothing written of it in any Apostolical Book but only found in the custom and practise of the Church Treat Bap. p. 134. Protestant an unwriten Tradition So doth Mr. Wills in behalf of the Protestants also affirm viz. That Infants Baptisme is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expresly delivered in the Scripture that the Apostles did baptize Infants nor any express Precept they should do so And that Tradition is the practise of such things as are neither contained in Scripture expresly nor the Examples of such practises expresly there delivered Mr. Wills p. 108. 2. Papists a Tradition gathered from the Scripture Do the Papists affirm That notwithstanding 't is a Tradition or Custom of the Church yet that it is plainly enough gathered out of the Scriptures viz. from Circumcision Bellarm. Tom. 3. L. 1. de Sacr. c. 8. Protestant a Tradition gathered from the Scripture So doth Mr. Wills for the Protestants say That notwithstanding there is neither prâ—cept nor practise expresly written in the Scripture yet it is gathered thence by good consequence as coming in the Room of Circumcision and therefore that Infants have a right to Baptisme from the right that the Infants had to Circumcision Mr. Wills p. 105. 3. Papists that it is of equal Authority with Scripture Thirdly Do the Papists maintain that the Ecclesiastical Tradition of Infants Baptisme as it is gathered from the Scripture and appointed by the Church is of equal authority with the Scripture it self and to be observed with the like holy reverence Treat Bapt. p. 132. Protestant of equal Authority in Scripture So doth Mr. Wills assert for Protestant doctrine That the Tradition of Infants Baptisme proved by Consequential Arguments from the Scripture
ought to be esteemed as firm and good as the Scripture it self p. 117. Do the Papists teach 4. Papists that the Church the subject not Author that Infants Baptisme was the appointment of Christ himself and practise of the Apostles though no mention when it was given forth nor when and where practised Treat Bap. 134. So doth also Mr. Wills in the name of the Protestants affirm Protestant that the Church the subject not the Author that Infants Baptisme was an Apostolical practise and Ordinance not that the primitive Church was the Author but subject thereof Christ himself having appointed it and approved thereof though no where written p. 119. Fifthly Do the Papists maintain 5. Papists Testefied by the Ancients That the Truth of this Ecclesiastical Custom of Infants Baptisme is handed down to us to be an Apostolical Tradition by the writings of almost all the Antients Treat Bap. p. 133. So do also the Protestant Paedobaptists defend Protestant witnessed by all the Ancients That the holy Ordinance of Infants Baptisme hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church for there is no ancient Writer that doth not aknowledge its Original from the Apostles Master Wills pag. 102. So that by this Parallel we cannot find where the great difference lyes betwixt Papists and Protestants But if the Papists are corrupt in the point of Tradition about it so are the Protestants also being in so great an harmony therein together That the Papists and many of the Protestants do much accord in the point of Tradition about it is fully owned by Mr Baxter in his Princâ— of Love as before And that Mr. Wills and other Protestants of his mind do so too is manifest For all do harmoniously acknowledge that it is not delivered in the Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or that there is any express precept there found they should do so and therefore an Unwritten Tradition Though the Ground and Reason thereof they say is â—airly to be gathered by Consequence p. 507. which therefore must needs be the principal Ground the Ground of the Ground so that if the Vnwritten Tradition prove a mistake the pretended Scripture Ground to justify it Communicating Infants is said to be an Apostolical Tradition as well as Infants Baptisme must needs be a mistake also As for instance the giving of the Sacrament to Infants was asserted by the sayings of the Antients to be an Apostolical unwritten Tradition and so practised for many Ages and this not without a pretended Scripture ground to justify the said practise to be good as Doctor Barlow observes from John 6 53. Which you have also urged by Austiâ— himself with great vehemency as necessary to Salvation Now this being since disowned to be an Apostolical Tradition which was the principal Ground the Scripture urged to prove and justify it doth necessarely prove a mistake And therefore saith Doctor Barlow upon the like gross mistake they did defend Infants Baptisme from John 5.3 and he affirms they may do one as well as the other Therefore let all Men judge whether Mr. Wills himself hath not justified that he calls a false suggestion and exceeding all modesty to assert that Tradition has been owned to be the principal Ground of Infants Baptisme For take away the Vnwritten Tradition then the pretended Scriptures to justify that avail nothing It is true the Papists are larger The Papâ—sts are larger in point of Tradition then the Protestants in the business of Tradition then the Protestants and affirm a larger power through their Infallibility to determine about it then the Protestants can owne who cannot only by their infallibility tell what our Saviour said to John lying in his bosom but also what he told the Disciples in the Mount not mentioned in the Scripture And by the large trust committed to them can impose those their conclusions as Oracles and of like Autority with the Scriptures As for instance their Chrysme Exorcisme Salt Oyl Spittle very antient Traditions if not more ancient then Infants Baptisme it seâ—f as Appendixes if not essentials to Baptisme And so Altars Copes holy Water Temples Holy dayes with a vast number more of like kind gathered also from Scripture Analogy from Old Testament rites as Infants Baptisme from Circumcision And therefore do they reprove the Protestants for not receiving all the rest as well as Infants Baptisme being all upon one bottom viz. Apostolical Tradition gathered from Scripture's Consequence The Fathers also herein The Fathers larger in point of Tradition then the Protestants do seem to exceed the Protestants too though Mr. Wills saith they do so agree with them in the point of Tradition as holding it more soundly then the Papists viz. Cyprian Austin and others of the Antients hold Chrysme Exorcisme Infants righâ— to the Supper c. to be Apostolical Traditions and to be made good from Scripture proof and Analogy And seem to be as large herein as the Papists have since been For instance Austiâ— Austin in his 118. Epist ad Johan saith Illa quae nâ—â— scripta tradita custodimus dantur vel Apostolis vel plenariis Consiliis c. The unwritten Traditions which we keep are given by the Apostleâ— themselves or general Councels c. And amongst other things with Infants Baptisme he mentioneth the Solemnity of good Friday Easter-day holy Thursday and Wednesday And adds if any other thing hath occurred which iâ— kept by the whole Church where ever it spreads it self This length our Paedobaptists cannot go with the Fathers and Papists in other Traditions though they hold fast that of Infants Baptisme with them which was the main Argument for it till Luthers time as Mr. Tombes tells Mr. Baxter in his third part of the Review pag. 767. Nor do I think Mr. Baxter can shew me one Author till Luthers day who made Infants Baptisme any other then an unwritten Tradition although they produce many of them Scripture for the Necessity Reasonableness and Lawfulness 〈◊〉 the Church to use it to whose authority they ascribâ— too much in the appointing such rites and interpreting Scriptures to that end I do not find thaâ— the engaged Papists cited by me did set Traditioâ— above Scripture but that they make it equal witâ— it I grant c. Therefore since by substantial Argument Tradition appears to be the principal Ground and with so much confidence asserted both by Papists and Protestants to be made good from the writings of all the Ancients as saith Calvin and Bellarmine more modestly by the writings of almost all the Antients Let us therefore in the next place particularly examine the respective Authorities from Antiquity avouched for the same for if they fail the whole Fabrick tumbles down Here also The Antiquities urged by Mr. Wills to prove Infants Baptisme an Apostolical Tradition disproved Section 3 THere are five Authorities 5. Authorities to prove Infants Baptisme Traditional that have been usually brought to prove
the behalf of Believers and agâ—inst Infants Baptisme and whether Mr. Will had reason to charge me with delusion for producing of them which as yet stand unanswered for the most part and I believe ever will do CHAP. II. That Infants Baptisme hath neither Foundation in Scripture or Antiquity is made good against Mr. Wills his pretences to both Section 1 AS in the former Chapter so in this I shall sum up what I have said to justify the truth of the assertion what Mr. Wills grants thereof wherein the force of his Objections lye and my Reply thereto That no Precept or Practise for Infants Baptisme The first thing I did herein was to make good the Scriptures total silence either as to Precept or Practise for Infnnts Baptisme and that by the full grant and acknowledgement of so many of themselves viz. the Magdeburgs Luther Erasmus Calvin Bucer Staphilus Choelens Melancton Zwinglius Rogers Baxter pag. 89. to 93 As also the necessity of Scripture Precept or Example to warrant every Ordinance by the sayings of Tertullian Austin Theophilact Luther Calvin Ball 6. Art of the Church of England pag. 93 to 97. Mr. Wills Answer grant All which our Antagonist fully grants with our foresaid Authorities viz. That there is neither Precept or Example for the Baptizing of Infants that is to say Expresly Literally and Sillabically p. 35 36 32. And that Scripture Authority is necessary to warrant every Ordinance But withall saith these two things viz. First 1. No Scripture forbidding that as there is no Scripture expresly commanding so neither is there any Scripture excluding Infants from Baptisme nor any Scripture that saith there was no Infants baptised pag. 36 38 101 131 132. Secondly 2. Good consiquence for it Though a thing may not expresly the commanded as Thus saith the Lord Iesus Baptise your Children for they believe yet that it may be commanded Implicitly and by Consiquence though not expresly injoyned in so many words And so was the Resurrection by Consiquential Reasoning proved Act. 22.31 32. Act. 13.33 34. And what was thus commanded is as valid and obliging as if it was in so many Letters and Syllables and thus we affirm Infants Baptisme is commanded p. 36. And we affirm against their practise of plunging over head and ears that there is no express command for the same nor Example to plunge them as they do with their Cloathes on pag. 101. And therefore in Mr. Baxters words tells us in his usual Civility what ignorant Wretches we are to call for express words of Scripture when we have the evident consequence or sence and is Scripture Reason saith he no Scripture with you To both which I reply First Reply to the first to his first Argument that Infants Baptisme may be lawful because not forbidden in the Scripture nor no where told where it was no done May also prove the Lawfulness of Baptizing Bells and Church Walls of Chrysme Exorcisme Communicating Infants and a hundred other inventions that were practised of old and still are in use amongst the Papists neither is it any where told us in Express terms that such things were not practised What not commanded in worship is forbidden But this we have clear in the Scripture and and which is to be a Rule to us in all such Cases that that worship which in express terms is not commanâ—eâ— is expresly forbidden and for which take the following Scriptures viz. Col. 2.20 21 22. If you be dead with Christ from the ruâ—iments of the World why as though living in the World are you subject to Ordinances touch not tast not handle not after the Commandements of Men. Matth. 15.9 But in vain do they worship me teaching for Doctrine the Commandâ—ments of Men. Deut. 4.2 You shall not add unto the Word whâ—ch I command you neither shall you demtnish ought from it that you may keep the Commandements of the Lord your God which I commanded you 12.32 What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish therefrom Jer. 7.31 And they have built the High places c. which I commanded not neither came it into my heart Jos 1.7 Observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my Servant commanded you shall not turn from it to the right hand or to the left Which great truth is well asserted and defended by Doctor Owin in his Book called Innocency and truth vindicated in reply to Doctor Parker Dr. Parke who having in his Ecclesiasticall Policy p. 189. said with Mr. Wills that what tâ—e Scripture forbids not it allows and what it allows is not unlawful and what is not unlawful may lawfully be done Doctor Owin Dr. Owin thus answers him p. 345. This tale I confess we have been told by many and many a time but it hath been as often answered that the whole of it as to any thing of reason is captious and Sophistical For if because they are not forbidden they may lawfully be introduced into Divine Worship then ten thousand things may be made lawful But the truth is although a particuler prohibition be needful to render a thing evil in it self A general prohibition is enough to render any thing unlawful in the worship of God so we grant that what is not forbidden is lawful but with all say that every thing is forbidden that should be esteemed as any part of Divine worship that is not commanded And therefore very excellently and undenyable proves pag. 339. That no part of Gods worship either in the Old or New Testament was lawful but what had some express warrant from his Word for the same And that all Additions and Traditions of Men therein God reproved and rejected as vaine worship Secondly as to his second Argument Reply to second viz. That express not Consiquential Scripture for every part of worship Mr. Collings that is so much a Kin to the former viz. That implicite and consiquential Commands are as valide and obliging as if expresly enjoyned and commanded I shall refer him and the Reader to some eminent Men of his own for an Answer Mr. Collings before his Vindic. Minist Evang. tells us That in things relating to the worship of God it is a general Rule in which our Brethren and we have long since agreed That nothing ought to be done without an express warrant in the Gospel Mr. Rutherford Mr. Rutherford in his due right of Presbytries pag. 364. doth also tell us What the Apostles commanded not in Gods worship that the Churches must not do Dr. Owin But especially Doctor Owin in his Communion with God pag. 169 170 c. saith thus The main of the Churches chast and choice affections to Christ lyes in their keeping his Institutions and his worship according to his appointment the breach of this he calls Adultery and Whoredom every where He is a jealous God and gives himself the Title only in
respect of his Institutions And the whole Apostacy of the Christian Church is called Fornication Rev. 17.5 And the Church that leades the other into false worship the Mother of Harlots This then they that hold Communion with Christ are careful of they will admit of nothing in the worship of God private or publick but what they have his warrent for unless it comes in his Name with Thus saith the Lord Iesus they will not hear an Angel from Heaven they know the Apostles themselves were to teach the Saints only what Christ commanded them Math. 28.20 Only plain Scripture for Gods worship So that what ever ventures Persons may make in drawing Consiquences and Inferrences from the Scripture for any supposed truths wherein great care and caution is to be used yet is it a known agreed Rule amongst Protestants That in the Worship of God wherein so much Sophestry hath been used to introduce and impose not only Ceremonies about worship but worship it self from Old Testament Rites and Observations Nothing therein as worship is to be admitted without some plain and express word by precept or practise to warrent the same out of the New Testament And therefore when Doctor Parker in the aforesaid Book falls so foul upon this Principle with intention to raze this great Protestant Bulwork and tells us p. 171. That the very Mystery of Puratinisme lyes in this very assertion viz. That nothing ought to be established in the worship of God but what is expresly commanded in the Word of God and that it is a vile novel and unreasonable Principle that takes away all possibility of settlement in the Church and the main pretence to all pious villanies c. You have Doctor Owin pag. 303. most worthely defending the same adding only this hereto viz. as part of worship And which he maintains by the Authority of Scripture Reason and Antiquity as well as from the testimony of the most learned Protestant writers Doctor Hamond Dr. Hamonds himself tells us as Mr. Tombes in his Review hath it pag. 827. viz. That it is highly unreasonable that an Institution of Christ such as each Sacrament is should be judged of by any other Rule whether the fancys or Reasons of Men but either the word wherein the Institution is set down or the Records of the practise of Christ or his Apostles in Scripture So that by all this evidence it appears Mr. Wills his unreasonableness that Mr. Wills is so Hetradox in both his positions that he has neither Scripture Reason Antiquity or the learned Protestant Writers to stand by him therein And wherein if he persist he gives up not only the Independent but whole Protestant Cause and all our Reformation at once For what inventions in worship are their that Men can impose with any presence to Decency and Order or Analogy to any of the Legal Rites that may not be introduced and given way too And Doctor Owin adds That all the Superstitions and Idolatryes yea all the Confusion Blood and Persecution yea all the Wars that for so long a season have spread themselves over the face of the Christian World have come in at this door Resurection proved by plain Scripture As to the two instances he gives to justify himself herein we say first as to the Doctrine of the Resurrection what is in more plain and express termes delivered to us in the Scripture and therefore we may the better admit of Consiquential Reasoning in such truths that are also plainly delivered to us in express termes else where Baptizing is Dipping in English And as for a plain word to dip over head and ears the word it self doth it because Dipping or Emerging as I make appear against Mr. Wills's Sophistry signifies nothing else but so puting the thing under water as to cover it all over and that not only by the most Eminent Criticks but the constant usage of the word both in the Old and New Testament And as for the Baptizing with Cloathes on as no Scripture mentions the putting them off so the light of Nature teacheth there should be some on And that the Cloathes are dipt matters not so long as the Person is dipt as all that experience it must needs acknowledge Consiquences from Circumcision proved not Infants Baptisme Though as to plain Consiquences and Scripture Reasoning we admit as well as they provided we have all the parts of worship kept to express words and Gospel Ordinances asserted by Gospel Institutions And therefore we deny the inferences usually drawn from Circumcision under the Law for Baptisme under the Gospel to be either plain proper or true And because Children were Circumcised under the Law by an express positive command therefore that they may be Baptised without any Precept or command under the Gospel holds not by any means For though in some things Circumcision may have some analogy with Baptisme viz. in heart Circumcision or Mortification must it therefore be good in all it holds not For though the Ark as Doctor Tayler well observes in some thing holds Analogy with Baptisme therefore to draw in all the Circumstances of the one to the other would make Baptisme a Prodegy not a rite and therefore saith he Types and Figures prove nothing except some Command accompanyes Had we as Express a command to Baptize Children under the Gospel as they to Circumcise them under the Law it would end the Controversy But as we have neither Command nor Example as granted so neither can there be any Analogy either in subject qualification or end as so largely proved Not in subject one being to be Males only in Israel the other Males and Females in all the World Not in qualification one to be the Natural Seed of Abraham without respect to Faith and Repentance the other the Spiritual Seed of Abraham with respect to Faith and Repentance for that is required in all Persons that are to be Baptised as so fully granted Neither in the ends the one to enter visibly into the National Church thereby the other into the Spiritual Church and to partake of Spiritual Ordinances so entring also into Covenant and acting Faith in the Promises and sharing of Priviledges in the very act of entrance that no Child under the Law or Gospel could be capable of In the next place as to the Anâ—iquity of enjoining Infants Baptisme with all its impious Concomitants of Salt Oyl Spittle Chrysme Exorcisme c. He grants it was not till above four hundred years after Christ in the Milevitan and Carthagenian Councels But withal saith the Reason why it was not enjoined sooner was because the Lawfulness of it was rarely if it all questioned before A good grant from Mr. Wills for the witnesses against Infants Baptisme To which I say then if it be so that the Canons in the respective Councels enjoining and inforcing Infants Baptisme whereof he saith he hath above thirty to produce were only made upon the
of the holy Ordinance of Infants Baptisme even from the Apostles And to Mr. Marshal also who saith that the Church hath been in possession of Infants Baptisme this fiveteen hundred years and that no one Authority can be found witnessing thereto for two hundred years after Christ. Origen's testimony tryed But in the next place with greater confidence saith Mr. Wills we adhear to Origen notwithstanding the frivelous cavils of the Author It is true Origen is the Authority especially gloried in as being so positive and express for its Apostolicalness as it is mentioned L. 5. ad Rom. c. 6. and confirmed in Lev. l. 8. Hom. 8. and in Luke Hom. 14. In these words the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptisme to Children who had the secret Mystery of Divine things committed to them because they being defiled with the pollution of sin ought to be washed or cleansed by the water and Spirit c. To which we have said these three things viz. Reason given before agaidst it in Treat of Baptisme First that Origen is but one single testimony as Doctor Tayler observes and that against so much authentick testimonie to the contrary that none but the Adult are found in the Apostles times and the next Century after them to be baptised Secondly that his writings are so notorious corrupt and erronious and particulerly in the point of Baptisme Thirdly that many of his Works and particulerly these that treat of Baptisme fell into such ill hands Mr. Wills answer to the first To which Mr. Wills answers First that Origen was not a single testimony because saith he we have the testimony of Irenaeus also But what Iâ—enaeus Testimony signifies you have heard and therefore that neither Irenaeus or any other but Origens Testimony was in the Case you have Doctor Tayler in his Deswasive against Popery 2. part pag. 118. printed 1667 one of his last pieces saying thus Dr. Tayler that Origen was but a single Testimony That there is Tradition to baptise Infants relyes but upon two witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having received it from the former it relyes wholy upon a single Testimony which is but a pittiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical he is the first that spoke it but Tertullian that was before him 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 Ludov. Vives saying that anciently none were baptised but persons of riper age And herein the Doctor it must be granted speaks his own sense not playing the Anabaptist as 't is said he did in his Liberty of Prophecy To the Second he ownes his corruptions Mr. Wills grants the 2. and great errors but saith to ballance him that Tertullian did not come much short of him in error and corruption that is one of my witnesses To which I say let them then go together only I shâ—ll have thereby the better bargain for Mr. Wills in parting with Origen parts with all but I have many more to witness for me besides To the Third that his Homelies on the Romans Mr. Wills to the 3. chargeth me with mistake were all translated by Ruffinus is my mistake for though Ruffinus might abuse some part of Origens works yet that Jerom did translate his Romans and Luks also and which he saith appeareth by Jeroms Preface affixed to them as Erasmus he tells us confesseth and therefore though Ruffinus hath no credit with me he hopes Jerom may they being Jeroms Version and which upon Erasmus testimony puts it beyond all doubt Reply to tâ—e charge â—herein Mr. Wills â—ppears to be grâ—sly â—â—staken To which I say first that what ever good thoughts Mr. Wills hath of the Translation of the Romans yet Mr. Perkins is pleased as I told him to put it amongst his spurious works Secondly that Erasmus what ever Mr. Wills so fa sly tells us is so far from asserting the Romans to be Jeroms and not Ruffinus that he saith just the contrary in his Censure before Oâ—igens works in these words At qui lâ—git ennar rationem Epistolae ad incertus Romanos est utrum legit Origenem aut Ruffinum And he that reads his Commentaires upon the Epistle to the Romans is uncertain whether he reads Origen or Ruffinus But is not Jeroms Preface before the Epistle and doth not Erasmus tell us so to put us beyond all doubt It is true Mr. Wills indeed tell us so but what credit is to be given to him let all Men judge when Erasmus and Grynaeus also tell us the quite contrary Erasmus his words are these Erasmus 〈◊〉 â—ct 〈◊〉 cheat Hic Lâ—brarii magnifice perfricuere frontem in Praefatione in per Oratione pro Ruffino Hieronymum supponentes hoc est vitrum pro Gemma Lectori obtrudere conantes hactenus sane fefellerunt incautos nam Praefatio poterat utcunque videri Hieronymi sed in per Oratione quasi Soriâ—es suo se produnt indicio Herein the Booksellers hâ—ve been very impudent both in the Preface and conclusion also putting Jerom instead of Ruffinus that is to say endeavouring to obtrude upon the Reader Glass instead of a Jewel and hitherto indeed they have deceived the unwary For however the Preface may seem Jeroms yet in the per-oration or conclusion the Rats do as it were betray themselves by their own discovery In like manner as saith the same Author Quod idem factum est in Symbolo Eum enim librum in Cypriani nomen transtulerunt sed ita multis commutatis ut ipsa res clamitet non casu sed de inaustria factum esse The same thing is done in the Symbolum For they transferred that Book on the name of Cyprian but many things being so changed that the matter it self manifests sufficiently that it was done not by chance but of design But then saith Mr. Wills Origen upon Luke examined what do you say to Luke For it is to be noted that neither the Author nor any one else hath any thing to say against his Homâ—lies on Luke what ever they have to say on that on the Levit. and the Romans where Origen expresseth the same thing concerning Infants Baptisme and Mr. Perkins himself lets this pass without the Censure of being spurious p. 132. To which I answer First 1. No Original Copy of iâ— then it is not denyed but that Leviticus wherein is the same thing asserted is so spoiled by Ruffinus that it may be justly censured for Mr. Wills saith nothing to it and if he did it is all one for Erasmus is as positive for that as for the other And as for that of Luke Mr. Tombes Tombes observes in his third Review pag. That Erasmus saith on Luke 1.3 Sic enim visus est sentire quis is fuit cujus extant in Lucam
Commentarii Adamantii titulo For so he seems to think whosoever he was whose Commentaries are extant upon Luke under the title of Adamantius which shews saith he that Erasmus took them not to be Origens or at least doubted thereof Vossius And Vossius Disputatio 14. Sect. 8. p. 181. saith thus having cited Origens whole testimony out of Luke c. Sed de Origene minus laborabimus quia quae citabimus Graece non extant But we care the less for Origens because the things we cited are not extant in the Greek And Scultetus Scultetus in his Medul Pat. L. 6. c 2. Cum Graeca Originis Opera non extant hodie quibus Latina versio corrigi possit emendari That Origens works in Greek were not at present extant by which the Latin vâ—rsion might be corrected and amended And Erasmus Erasmus Atque utinam extarent Graeca Originis monumentâ— quo Ruffinicas artes possemus deprehenâ—ere And I wish that the Greek Copies of Origen were extant that so we might thereby discover the cheats of Ruffinus 3. Origen was more a Pelagian tâ—â—n to assert Original sin But Serondly there is good Reason to question that those things about Infants Baptisme were not Origens from the Reasons that is added to them viz. to take away Original Sin whereas it is so well known that Origen was not only a great Arian but the very Fountain and head of them as Jerom and Epiphanius calls him Magdeb. Century 3. p. 261. c. But notoriously did deny Original sin as pag. 265. And therefore doth Doctor Owin in his display of Arianisme ch 12. say Nor did Origen Pelaginise a little only but is supposed first to have brought Pelaginisme into the Church And therefore doth Vossius in his History of Pelaginisme L. 4. Th. 6. pag. 153. So much Question whether those passages in his works mentioning Infants Baptisme could be his upon the account of Pelaginisme By all which I doubt not but that the judicious Reader will conclude there is a good Ground to judge this Testimony of Origens upon all these Accounts to be as invallid and insignificant as the former and that as yet we have not the least evidence to prove this our unwriten Tradition to be Apostolicall The Last and chiefest Cyprians testimony examined that is pretended to warrant this an Apostolick Tradition is that of Cyprian in his and his 66. Bishops Epistle to Fidus who is placed by Vsher in the middle of the third Century 250. wherein it is said to this purpose viz. That it seemed good not only to himself An Epitomy of his Epistle but a whole Councel that Infants might be baptised before the eight day the Reasons to inforce it are these that Follow First Because the Baptisme was simpely necessary to Salvation Secondly That it washes away Original Sin so as it is never to be imputed more Thirdly Because the Grace of God is tendered to all therefore all Children should be baptised Fourthly Because Children have lesser sins then others and so they need less pardon then Men of grown years therefore less hindrance in them to come to Gods grace Fifthly Because in their first birth they do nothing but pray by their crying and weeping Sixthly Because the Soul that is not baptised is lost Cypr. l. 3. Ep. 8. Against which I gave in three Exceptions Former Exceptions First Because Infants Baptisme is not hereby urged for an Apostolical Tradition nor upon any Authority of Scripture but upon his own and Bishops Arguments as said such as they are to inforce it though if he should have said it was an Apostolical Tradition his word would no more have been taken then when he tells us Chrysme and other inventions were so too Secondly Because there is ground to Question whether there was any such Councel First Because there is no place mentioned where such a Councel was kept Secondly the grounds are so weak and erroneous Thirdly Because it was a doctrine so much contradicted by his great Master Tertullian Fourthly Because there were many things fathered upon him not his Thirdly That if it did truly appear to be his yet there was as little ground to receive it upon his word as the rest of his corrupt erroneous and Antichristian doctrines vented by him whereof you have some account from the Magdeburgs in his Naevi Mr. Wills answer to the first To the first he says though he did not say it was an Apostolical Tradition it follows not that he did not so own it the Magdeburgs say that he did so affirm it Reply To which I say that in proofâ— of Apostolical Tradition it is necessary to bring such only that upon warrantable ground are positive in it For this at the best can be urged but as a consâ—quential proof and far fetcht too viz. Because Cyprian in his time gave his opinion for it therefore it was practised in that age and because it was practised two hundred fifty years after Christs time therefore it was the practice of the Apostles which if allowed would be excellent authority for all the Superstitious observations of Chrysme Exorcisme and an hundred more of those knacks But he tells us the Magdeburgs say that Cyprian affirmed it was so And that is just as much as if Mr. Wills should so affirm except some antient and authentick authority be produced for the same and it is not yet evidenced out of his writings that he any where saith so But as to what I say Mr. Wills Answer to the 2. part of the first that if Cyprian had any where upon his own word told us it had been an Apostolical Tradition yet it would have signified as little as his telling us that Chrysme was so He replyed And doth not the same exception lye against Tertullian who as the Magdeburgs tell us was the inventer of Chrysme and therefore says he is such inflexibleness stifness and partiality fair and equal To which I say Reply If Tertullian his Master was the inventer of Chrysme which Cyprian calls an Apostolical Tradition what credit then is to be given to his testimony that dares to avouch so fearfull a lye so knowingly Secondly If he should tell us upon his own word two hundred years after that both were Apostolical we have great reason to distrust that of Infants Baptisme when we know the other is a manifest Falshood Neither is there the like reason to reject Tertullians Testimony against Infants Baptisme First because it is only urged as matter of Fact that Infants Baptisme was denyed by him to be an Ordinance of Christ the verity whereof I think never any doubted with the Reasons he gives for the same in his Book de Baptismâ— as Doctor Barlow and Doctor Tayler so fully acknowledge Had he indeed told us that two hundred years before him without any proof but his own say so some of the Apostles had denyed it and at the same
practise of Infants Baptisme fails none proving it higher by any approved Author then the fourth or fifth Century And then no other Baptisme then hath been renounced by most Protestants as corrupt and erroneus And that however the Papists and those that go their way may prove Antiquity as high as the fourth or fifth Century Yet that Mr. Wills can go no higher for his then New England or at the furthest then Luther CHAP. III. Wherein the Witnesses against Infants Baptisme are vindicated from Mr. Wills Exceptions THe Witnesses produced by me against Infants Baptisme were either particuler Persons or Churches as you have them at large mentioned in the seventh Chapter And first as to the evidence from particuler Persons Mr. Wills in his Preface tells us 1. From particuler Persons That notwithstanding all the flourishes Mr. D. makes and the numerous Quotations he hath fetcht from the Magdeburgensian History in his seventh Chapter from the first Century to the end of the twelfeth there are but two Persons to be found against Infants Baptisme viz. Adrianus and Hincmarus Mr. Wills ownes bâ—t two in the whole which is just the same Number he was pleased to allow me before for Believers Baptisme But whether these and their fellows may not speed as well as the former shall be put to as fair a trial and so submitted to judgement The first of my Witnesses urged against Infants Baptisme was Tertullian who doth Tertullian thc first witness as expressed pag. 221. eminently oppose it in six Arguments First from the mistaken Scripture Matt. 19.14 suffer little Children c. by which it seems some would have introduced such a practise which could not as he saith be properly applyed to Infants Baptisme for several Reasons urged from their incapacaties Secondly from the weigthiness of that Ordinanee which required Caution and consideration and no such haste Thirdly from the sinfulness of such a practice by Prophaning an Ordinance and partaking of others sins Fourthly from the absurdety of such a practise in refusing to intrust them with Earthly things and yet commit Spiritual things to their trust Fifthly from the Folly of exposing witnesses propounded it seems to supply the want of capacity in them and to undertake for them Sixthly from the consideration that the Adult upon many considerations were the only proper Subjects of Baptisme And to which we may add a Seventh which he is pleased so falsly to say I purposly and subtilly omitted there being no cause for it that I know viz. From the insignificancy of the end propounded for the same viz. To take away sin from Children Mr. Wills owns Tertullians wit To which testimony in the First place he gives us this acknowledgement pag. 96. viz. That it is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church hath divers passages seemingly against Infants Baptisme but yet withal it must be considered that his Testimony such as it is is but the testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church Where by the way we may take notice that our witness is owned by him but the general custom of the Church he speaks of is yet to be proved as utterly disowned by us and for which there is not the least colour of truth as yet produced And again pag. 6. he doth grant That the Magdeburgs do indeed tell us that Tertullian in this third Age opposed himself to some that asserted Infants Baptisme affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects of Baptisme Charges him witâ— corruption and weakness But what a corrupt Person he was and how weakly he had Reasoned he endeavors with much keeness to demonstrate In answer whereto I say that his witness being allowed and to be such a Doctor of Note too in the Latin Church it is sufficient and I think we need say nothing to those cavils of corruption and weakness the evidence being acknowledged the main thing intended and which will be endless to answer in every Authority that may be urged pro and con But yet in as much as he is our first witness and speaks so much Reason and truth and so much to the purpose And to make Mr. Wills his unreasonable opposition the better to appear we shall give some distinct reply to his Exceptions against this our witness whom he areignes for so much corruption in Doctrine and folly in this his particuler witness And first for that great corruption in Doctrine 1. The corrupt Doctrine he charges Tertullian with he charges him with about Chrysme Exorcisme c. I presume there are none of his ancient Doctors comes short of him and who were as much Montanists as he therein viz. Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Austin c. only herein Tertullian was more Orthodox holding none of those to be Jure Divino whilest they took them to be Apostolical Traditions and essential to Baptisme Magdeb. Century 3. chap. 10. pag. 240. compard 82. 225. 248. And for those evil sentiments of God and Christ it is certain that Origen did far exceed him as you will find at large in his Naevi pag. 261. c. and which argues a very partial mina to be so quick sighted in the one and so stark blind in the other And as to his being a Montanist before he wrote his Book of Baptisme which Mr. Wills affirms I see it not confirmed by any good Authority the Magdeburgs tell us that from Carthage he went to Rome Tertullian no Montanist before he wrote foâ— Baptisme and lived long there where he wrote against the Montanist and wrote his Book of Prescriptions as Helvicus saith the fifth of Severus which Mr. Wills ownes to be about the fortyth year of his age And the said Helvicus tells us that it was twenty years after before he wrote fore the Montanists And he that writes the lives of the Primative Fathers pag. 82. tells us that in the eleventh year of Severus Tertullian wrote his Book of Baptisme against Quiâ—tila in his third Tome next to his Prescriptions and in the fivetenth year his Book of the Resurrection c. But if he was turned Montanist before the matter is not much for it must be owned that a Man that is erroneous in one thing mâ—y be Orthodox enough in another The business is whether as to matter of fact he spoke these things against Infants Baptisme and that is not denyed And in the next place whether he spoke not reason and truth in that his testimony which in the next place we shall examine Therefore Secondly as to the weakness of his Argument which he renders so contemptible and ridiculous and guilty of so much dotage I make the following particuler reply to each exception viz. First as to his first Argument 1. He abused not the Text Mat. 19.14 from the mistaken Scripture he saith he abuseth the Text by his Paraphrases But second thoughts will I presume tell him it
Infants Baptisme an Apostolical Tradition and the universal practice of the Church which we have examined distinctly and given an Account of the insufficiency and weakness if not the wickedness of most of them and which appearing falfe all the rest depending upon them necessarely fall to the Ground The first three of them viz. 3. of them owned to be spurious Dionysius the Areopagite in the first Century the Decretals of the first Popes or Roman Bishops with Justin Martyrs Responses in the second Century are all of them owned by Mr. Wills to be spurious and supposititious though to this day leaned upon by most of the Popish and many Protestant Writers also whereby the Mystery of Iniquity early discover it self not only to usher in but to support this Innovation by Lyes and Forgeries But Mr. Wills tells us that though these are forgeries Justin Martyr to Triphon examined yet Justin Martyrs Dialogue to Triphon is genuine who therein saith that it was lawful for all to receive the Spiritual Circumcision viz. Baptisme whereby it may well be inferred saith Mr. Wills from Mr. Baxter that if all may receive it then Infants who were the Subjects of Legal Circumcision for they must be part of all and not excluded Wills 128. Which I say is a meer impertinency and nothing to the purpose For first here is not one word of Infants nor of Infants Baptisme or its Apostolicalness Secondly it is very absurd the better to hook in Children to interprete the word all to be all Men for if all Men then it must comprehend wicked as well as good Believers as well as Unbelievers and which as confined to Baptisme by Master Wills is to contradict Christs Commission and the Apostles practise who limited it only to those that repented of their Sins and believed the Gospel And though it is true the Gospel was to be preached to all and all of all Nations in distinction to the Nation of the Jews who only were concerned in the first Commission yet only they taught Believers amongst them were to be Baptised not the ignorant and prophane And if the word All be so to be understood it is a witness for us not them for Infants thereby are excluded who are neither capable of Instruction Repentance or Faith And that it is so to be understood let Justin himself be the Interpreter who not only in his Apology before mentioned tells us Justin himself contradicts Mr. Wills sense that they Only who were instructed in the Faith and believed were brought to Baptisme to have their new Birth perfected But in this uery Dialogue to Tryphon tells us that by the Word and Baptisme Regeneration was perfected in all man kind viz. in all that did hear and receive the word and were capable to come to Baptisme And again that by the grace of God and the Baptisme of Repentance sins were expiated as Magdeburgs Cent. 2. pag. 4. 7. which sufficiently declares that this is nothing to the purpose except it be to confirm Believers Baptisme only And to which saith Mr. Tombes Mr. Baxters singular Notion This testimony for Antiquity of Infants Baptisme I remember not alledged by any before Mr. Baxter and therefore besides the impertinency of the words as he himself alledgeth them I see no need to search further into it Review 2. part p. 71. In the next place Mr. Wills tells us of an other Antiquity to prove Infants Baptisme Apostolical Iraeneus testimony examined viz. Iraeneus who in Lib. 2. c. 39. Advers Haeres tells us that Christ did sanctifie every age by his own susception of it and similitude to it All I say who by him are born again to God Whereby saith Mr. Wills we infer that being born again to God signifying Baptisme as the Antients for the most part took it then were the Infants baptised in his day Wills p. 129. To which I reply that if this be any more to the purpose then the former let all Men judge and whether it be not far fetch'd and unnaturaly screwed without either Reason or truth Very impertinent For first here is not one word of Infants Baptisme or its Apostolicalness and nothing but an impertinent begging Question upon Question to make up an inference Secondly The Interpretation upon which it is founded is wholy falacious for neither the Scriptures nor Justin Martyr do call Baptisme Regeneration absolutely but only as it is the Symbole of Regeneration already wrought by the word and so Justins words bâ—fore import and that only respecting the Adult that were capable thereof For if this be true Doctrine then must all Hypocrits and wicked Men that either now or ever were Baptised be actually thereby Regenerated and so consequently saved which is so absurd and Ridiculous as nothing can be more To which Mr. Tombes has so well answered Mr. Baxter in his third Review pag. 79. And which was never yet replyed to that we need say no more to it viz. Mr. Tombes But Christ was not in his Age an Example of every age by his Baptisme as if he did by it sanctify every age for then he should have been baptised in every age but in respect to the holyness of his humane Nature which did remain in each age and so exemplarily sanctify every age to God so as that no age but was capable of holiness by conformity to his Example Now if the meaning were that Christ came to save all that were baptised by him on by his appointment then he came to save Simon Magus and who ever are and have been baptised rightly Judas himself Therefore such a sense is most palpably false and therefore is this wrested by the Paedobaptists against its meaning to prove Infants Baptisme in his time So that I hope it will be manifest that these Authorities are as little to the purpose as the three former and all though these are not Supposititions yet wholy insignificant and nothing to the purpose Whereby it is manifest that for the first two hundred years we have not the least proof by any Authentick Au hor that Infants Baptisme was an Apostolical Tradition or that it was once practised within that compass of time And therefore saith Doctor Barlow Dr. Barlow I believe and know that there is neither precept nor practise in Scripture for Paedobaptisme nor any just evidence for it for above two hundred years after Christ And may it not be very well concluded in Mr. Baxters words about Confirmation That it was very suspicious to find in Justin Martyrs Description of the Christian Churches practise no mention of it p. 128. So neither to find in Justin Martyr nor as Mr. Tombes well observes the least of it in Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius or Epiphanius is very good ground to conclude against it and reproof to Mr. Calvin who saith Mr. Calvin and Mr. Marshal justly reproved that there is no Antient Writer that doth not acknowledge the Original