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
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
Infants Baptisme Because Mr. Fox tells us out of Bede and Fabian and others that they refused to baptise after the manner of Rome which Fabian as I find more particularly explains to be in the point of Infants Baptisme and in confirmation thereof gave five Arguments First Because they kept themselves both in Discipline and Doctrine so ezpresly to the Scripture there being no express Scripture for Infants Baptisme as confest on all hands Secondly Because they were such zealous impugners of Tradition that being as Austin confesseth the only Divine Authority for it Thirdly Because Constantine the Son of Christian Parents was not baptised in this Island in his Infancy Fourthly Because their custom was to baptise after Confession of Faith being in Vnion and Communion therein with the French Christians whereof Instances are given Fifthly From the Question that was here put to Austin viz. how long a Child that was no in danger of death might stay unbaptised which he could not resolve till he sent to Rome for the Solution And to which me may add what the Magdeburgs tell us from Hilaries testimony p. 55. that none but the Adult were baptised in the Western Churches in his time Mr. Wills opposeth Fabians testimony from Bede To which he replyes as followeth First as to that oâ— Fabians testimony he saith it is only a mistaken Paraphrase of Bede and that Bede mentions nothing hereof And thâ—refore gives what Austin replyed to the Brittains in Bedes words L. 2. c. 2. vâ—z That in as much as you do contrary to our Custom in many things yea to the Custom of the Vniversal Church nevertheless if you will obey me in these 3. things viz. that you keep Easter in its proper time Administer Baptisme whereby we are born of God after the manner of the Church of Rome and the Apostolical Church and preach the Word of God together with us unto the English Nation we will patiently bear all other things you do although contrary to our Customes but they answered they would none of these nor own him for Arch-bishop To which I say Answer Fabian did not mistake Bede and why that it doth appear from his Repetition out of Bede that Fabian has fully hit his meaning First Because he tells the British Christians that amongst many things where in they were contrary to the Church of Rome one was in this particuler about Baptisme wherein they did not only contradict the Universal but Apostolick Church Now this must needs be in their refusing to baptise Children First Because as to the baptizing the Adult they were not contrary to the Church of Rome the Universal or Apostolical Church as appears p. 228. Secondly Neither could it respect the particuler Mode Rite or Ceremony of Baptisme for the Custom of the Church of Rome was not Vniversal which was so much opposed by the Greeks and Eastern Churches and not at all to be made out to be Apostolical Thirdly Therefore must needs respect Infants Baptisme First Because the Church of Rome had particulerly enjoined and imposed it to beget Infants to Regeneration that they might be born of God as the words of their Canons demonstrate and which words carry the Reason and ends of it and that they intended the substance and not the particuler Ceremony of the Ordinance Secondly Because Infants Baptisme was so universaly received in this seventh Age in other parts of the World to this end here mentioned Thirdly Because it was also received and enjoined to be an Apostolical practise Fourthly It would have been Childish and ridiculous to have said Baptisme in general was Apostolical which none ever denyed and so fully before received by them therefore Austin could intend nothing else nor Bedes words import any thing else which therefore Fabian did so fully and significantly represent in saying give Christendom to Children viz. let them as the Church of Rome has received and enjoined it be born of God by Baptisme and become Christians as so generaly also receiv d. And for Mr. Wills saying They did no more reject Infants Baptisme then they did preaching to the Saxons with Austin Is very true having as much Reason to reject the one as the other for by preaching here with them must be understood Authoritively by being ordained by them that they might not preach as they did as a company of Lay-men and Mechanicks but to be set apart thereto by this Apostolical Embassador or proud Lordly Prelâ—t which they refused not admitting him therein to be their Arch-Bishop and which explains Austins meaning in the business of preaching and their denying thereof which they hâ—d as good Cause to do as to deny their Romish Infants Baptisme and their Superstitious Observation of Easter And therefore it was that this Ante Christian Wolf did devoure and worry this Flock of Christ because they refused the Popish Baptisme and Ministry Secondly As to those five other Arguments given by me to confirm the former he saith they are meer trifles which is an Excellent way of Answering and next to Bellarmin thou lyest which is submitted to judgement And Lastly He gives another Argument Mr. Wills saith Pelagius was a Monk of Bangor for Infants Baptisme why the Brittains were not against Infants Baptisme viz. Because Pelagius who as he saith was one of their Fellow Monks of Bangor yet did owne Infants Baptisme which was two hundred years before this and which was a good Argument that they did also To which I say Questionable that as to Pelagius being one of these Old Brittains and belonging to this very People is by no good Authority to be found For though it is true Humphry Loyd and Mr. Fuller do so guess yet they produce no Antient Author to confirm it It is true in Austins 106. Epist he is called Pelagius Britto to distinguish him from another Pelagius of Tarentius but whether because he was sent into that Nation or of it not certain But Secondly If it be granted It follows not that the Britains where of his judgemenâ— why that he was a Brittain and one of these Monks it no more follows that they must all be for Infants Baptisme because he was so then that they were all for the Pelagian Heresy because he was the head thereof which it is eminently known they rejected when they sent for the help of those famous French Christians Germanus and Lupus who were sent to them again and again from the Elders and Ministers about Lyons to expel that Poyson and therefore do I call them the Waldesian Christians who inhabited those parts where their abode was Magdeb. Cent. 5. p. 1147 c. An Hist Account of Pelagius But as to Pelagius the Magdeburgs do give us this Account of him from Austin and Lucelbergius Cent. 5. pag. 1453. viz. that he was full of zeal and affection a d that his beginning was good and holy so that if he was a Monk of Bangor he began well And that
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