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
reverend Author from the Church for answering my Arguments satisfactorily and by searching into so fully confuting all my pretended antiquities thereby defending as he saith Gods truth the Churches right whilst other of his bretheren by ignorance and sloth treacherous silence or silly unsatisfactory Arguings have betrayd the cause But whether instead of the Churches thanks they ought not both in Mr B's own language to have the Church told of them for pestering the world with such impertinencyes one for his heedless writing of them and the other for his rash and careless Commendation is submitted to judgment And lastly Whether it is not now demonstrably evident to all men that will impartially consider that notwithstanding the confident vain-glorious boast of these great undertakers that till better proof be manifested there as yet appears as little Antiquity for Infants Sprinkling in the first Ages as they themselves acknowledge express scripture for the same THE WITNESSES FOR Believers Baptisme Freed from Forgery and Prevarication CHAP. I. The Baptisme of Believers with the Authorities urged for the necessity of Confession of Faith before it is defended and the Quotations out of the Magdeburg's vindicated from Mr. Wills's charge of Prevâ—rication and Falshood THe Method I shall observe he ein shall be to give you a briefe account of the Antiquities and Authorities brought by me to prove the necessity of Faith before Baptisme and then his Exception against them and my Reply thereto whereby the Reader may be able to make an easie and speedy judgement at whose door the Prevarications and Falshoods lye Having as you 'l find in the 6. first Chapters by 6. Arguments from posiâ—ve scripture proved That Believers upon Profession of Faith are the only Subjects of Baptesme did in my 7. Chapter by way of Illustration only confirm the same from the eminent Testimony that had been born thereto throughout all ages Firmly witnessing That Confession and Profession of Faith with frée choice was necessary before Baptisme And which evidence as I have given it you through all the Centuries you may gather up under 2. Heads All the Authorities under 2. Heads First What hath been said thereto by the Ancients themselves in the first four Centuries before Infants Baptisme was enjoyn'd and how confirm'd by our moderne Writers And secondly what witness of that kind hath been born thereto after Infants Baptisme was imposed as well by those that deny'd Infants Baptisme as those that own'd and practised it not only of the Romish Church but others through all the rest of the Centuries Mr. Wills charge for Prevarication and Falshood To which Testimonies Mr. Wills makes his Exceptions charging me with Prevarication in relating somethings partially others falsly and for the most part contrary to the intention of the Writers and to that degree that except only two viz. Boemus and Strabo That I have perverted the sayings of all the Authors throughout the Centuries But how he makes this charge appear is now to be the Question And therefore in order to the due Examination thereof we shall join issue with him and put it to the tryall how and in what particulars he will make good either the Prevarications or falshoods suggested by him First as to the Prevarications The Prevarications he mentions must appear 1. Prevarications either in the Authorities produced before or since Infants Baptisme was enjoyn'd First as to those produced by me before Infants Baptisme was imposed viz. from the four first Centuries It is manifest that as to all the Testimonies I bring in the three first Centuries so positively affirming that Profession of Faith was to procede Baptisme He gives no materiall Exception only saith this of Tertulian pag. 6. second part That the Magdeburgs tell us indeed that Tertullian in this age opposed himself to some that Asserted Infants Baptisme affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects But how weakly he doth it may be seen afterwards when we come to examine the witnessâ—s of which Tertulian is the Van. So that I hope it will be acknowledged None in the 3. first Cent. that here is no Prevarication or perverting evidence in these my first Testimonies in the three first Centuries and where you will find there is more then seven times two Boemus and Strabo being none of their number so that if we should go no further my first Proposition stands firme that Beleevers Baptisme was the only Baptisme for near 300. years But to proceed I perceive his great cry against me is for the Authorities I produce out of the fourth Century but how justly will speedily appear I do indeed say that it is manifest to me from the Evidence the Magdeburg's give us herein That Adult Baptisme only practised in the 4. Cent. appears That it was the approved and universall practice of this Age as well in the Eastern as Western Churches to Baptise upon Profession of Faith And which is made good by a threefold evidence 1. From the sayings of the Fathers First from the sayings of the Fathers and greatest men of this Century both in Africa Asia and Europa 2. Decrees of Councels Secondly from the positive Decrees of three Eminent Councells in this Age. Thirdly from thâ— pregnant instances of ten of the most eminent Men 3. From the Children of Christians not Baptised till aged that were not Baptised till aged though the Children of Christian Parents in this Century First from the sayings of the Fathers both in the East and West First that it doth not appear that any other then Adult Baptisme was practised in the Churches of Africa Affrica 1. Athanasius is manifest by the sayings of Athanasius and Arnobius 2. Arnobius two of the most eminent in those Parts in this Age Who do positively affirm as appears by their saying at large p. 55 56. That Teaching Faith and Desire should according to Christ's Commission precede Baptisme And to which we may add what we have from Optatus Milevitanus 3. Optatus Milev an otheâ— Person of great Name in this Church in this Age who tell us in his 4. Book as say the Magdeburg's Century 4. pag. 237. That none denyes but that every Man by nature though born of Christian Parents is unclean and that without the Spirit he is not cleansed and that there is a necessity of the Spirits cleasing before Baptisme So that the house must be trim'd and fitted for the Lord viz as he saith the Soul of the Believer is that God may enter and dwell in it according to the saying of the Apostle You are the Temple of God and he dwells in you Secondly that is was the Faith and Practice of the Churches of Asia Asia appears by the like sayings of Bazil Greg. Nazienzen Ephrim Syrus Epiphanius c. as at large you have them p. 55 56 57. Thirdly that it was the universal practice in the Western or European Europ Churches
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
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
INNOCENCY and TRUTH VINDICATED OR A Sober REPLY to Mr WILL 's ANSWER to a Late TREATISE of BAPTISME Wherein the Authorities and Antiquities for Believers and against Infants Baptism are Defended and the mis-representations and Forgeries he boasts of all returned upon himself With a brief Answer to Mr Blinmans Essay By Henry Danvers Vt ex lapidum attritu ignis elicitur sic saepe veritas ex alternantium imo altercantium sermonum conflictu Lipsius Prov. 18.17 He that is first in his own Cause seemeth just but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him Printed for Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle near the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1675. THE PREFACE IT is an Ancient and well approved Maxim among the Learned that the more truth is winnowed and sifted the more opposed and contended against the more transparent and illustrious it appears Veritas ventilata plus rutilat impugnata magis elucesit A further confirmation whereof you may meet with from the late opposition Mr. Will 's hath made against the truth in his late Book called Infants Baptisme attested and vindicated by Scripture and Antiquity in an Answer to a treatise by Mr. H.D. c. Wherein notwithstanding the dilligent search he tells us he has made in the Vniversity Library at Oxford the utmost assistance that all the learned writers Mr. Marshall Baxter Cobbet Cotten Holmes c. can give him to disprove and weaken the Authorities urged from Scripture and Antiquity for Believers against Infants Baptisme yeâ— you 'l finde they serve but so much the more to illustrate that truth he pretends to foil giving only an opportunity for further confirmation and ratification and to create more full satisfaction or conviction to any that have been in suspence as to the truth of any of those Authorities urged by me Wherein notwithstanding his great flourish and noyse you 'l finde he is not able to reprove the truth so much as of one of those many Authorities in the Historical part and excepting that one in the Doctrinal part viz. Calvin for Eckius not another that is considerable in the whole Book Therefore all that I have to ask of the Candid Reader at whose Barr the matter is now brâ—ught betwixt Mr. Will 's and me is only to do themselves and the truth in Question so much right as to afford the Common Justice of an open Ear that having heard the Recrimination they will also attend to what is said herein for vindication Wherein y u have his Arguments duely weighed and refuted his caviling exceptions answer'd his pretended forgeries and falshoods disproved the Antiquities of Believers Baptisme defended the innovation groundless Tradition and novelty of Infants Baptisme confirmed The witness against it by eminent men and famous Churches for many Ages maintained his injurious Calumnyes and reproaches that he not only designes to load the Professors of believers Baptisme with but the Profession it self also detected and reproved The groundless custome of sprinkling instead of Dipping further evinced As for his undue and uncomly reflections the haughty bitter wrathfull frothy and provoking spirit he appears in through the whole Book sâ— unbecoming Christian candor his holy Profession or the nature of the ordinance treated of I shall the beast concern my self abâ—ut but leave it to him that can convince and will certainly reckâ—n for such hard speeches for his names sake and rather so farr as concerns my self with Job to binde it about me for a Crown Job 31.36 And as exhorted Mat. 5. To rejoyce to be accounted worthy to suffer contempt reproach for the truth sake c. then to render Railing for Railing It being also ever judged the signe of a bad cause for persons to betake themselves to such courses and thereby to supply the want of matter and sound Argument with rage clamour and noyse The Scripture arguments 't is true I have little medled with and that for these following reasons First because the Historical part upon which so much stress hath been laid though the leanest part of the controversy was the principal new thing added by me it being as Mr. Will 's observes next to an impossibility to offer any new Scripture or almost any new Argument that hath not been before urged in the controversy and is mainly therefore by him opposed Secondly Because he has ingeniously confess'd that there is no express Scripture fâ—r the same And so many of themselves with one Mouth have owned the necessity of express Scripture to warrant and justify the practise of every part of Gods worship and that to practise any thing in the worship of God without express warranty from the Word is superstition and false worship And that such a Principle ought to be held fast as the great Protestant Bulwark to secure us against all Popish Innovations and Traditions and which is a sufficient answer out of their own Mouthes against any thing they urge from pretended inferences and farr-fetch't Consequences being all that can possibly be said for it Thirdly because M. Tombes hath now given a particular Answer to him and Mr. Blinman therein who being none of those rigid Anabaptists that Mr. Will 's expresseth so much enmity against his Arguments may be more acceptable to him And 4ly because I intend to do it more particularly hereafter if God please by it self having yet much to reckon with Mr. Will 's for his further abuses and grand mistakes in the Doctrinal part In the next place it is very observable and I desire the Reader to take special notice of it that the things he would so injuriously Father upon me he is himself found fouly guilty of making good Prov. 26.27 and of which I shall point you to a few instances viz. First that the forgeries and prevarications he charges upon me do all return upon himself and not one of them made good against me as appears from l. 1. to p. 29. Secondly that the several falshoods he lays to my charge are all of them of his own making and not one of them to be proved against me as is particularly evidenced from p. 29. to p. 62. Thirdly the notorious abuse he has put upon Authors by forgery curtilations mis-quotation mis-translation and which fully appears by the following instances viz. 1. by making an Authâ—rity of his own for Infants Baptisme and fathering it upon Basil in the 4. Cent. in his Book contra Eunom and asserting it to be the very next lines to what I had repeated from him thence reproving me for unfaithfullness in leaving it out and to be duely suspected in all my Quotations when not one sillable of any such thing is to be found in him as demonstrated p. 43. to 49. 2. For mis-translating mis-representing abusing and curtailing Greg. Nazien as appears p. 8. and 9. and p. 47. and 48. 3. For his curtailing and abusing the old confession of the Waldenses leaving out a considerable part thereof and then making flourishes and inferences
perfect invention wherein these Fathers did so much abound only that sprinkling was not the rite and that dipping was owned to be the custome in these first times which Mr. Wills will not admit Secondly 7. Falshood charged he charges me to pervert the saying of Athanasius as when speaking for Adult Baptisme he might not be for Infants Baptisme also Whereas he meant by the former only Pagans and Infidels who according to Christs Commission must first be taught then baptised Athanasius saith he was for Infants Baptisme and it was practised in his dayes as appears by the 114 Question to Antiochus Where he resolves a doubt that might arise from the death of Infants whether they go to Heaven or no Seeing the Lord saith suffer little Children to come to me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven And the Apostle saith Now your Children are holy it is manifest that the Infants of Believers which are baptised do as unspotted and faithful enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Where saith he mark again how unworthly Antipaedobatists abuse the Fathers in saying their strongest Argument for Childrens Baptisme is from Tradition which they fly too for want of Scripture Implying here are two Scriptures for Infants Baptisme improved by this Father one Mat. 19.14 of such is the Kingdom of Heaven and the other because the Infants of Believers are baptised they are therefore holy alluring to holiness of Children mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.14 as though that was obtained by Baptisme and which was the opinion of some of the Ancients also Answer ∣ ed. 7 To which I say is not this excellently remark'd from this famous instance and Anabaptists unworthyness too in taking no more regard how well they proved Infants Baptisme of old from the Scripture But now this Book of Questions fathered upon Athanasius proving such an other Fable as that goodly piece that was fathered upon Dionysius It will only serve further to discover what inventions the Father of Lyes had by the working of the Mystery of Iniquity not only to beget and usher in but to nurish and strengthen this Illegetimate Birth but the artifice also he had to time the several forgeries viz Dionysius for the first the Popes Decretals and Justin Martyrs Responses for the second Origen's Storyes for the third these Questions of Athanasius for the fourth Age. And how ready and willing Persons are to this very time to catch up any of these lying Fables to strengthen themselves in deceits Nay there is good ground to believe that they know them so to be that so abuse the World therewith For how can Mr. Wills that is so well read in the Magdeburgs be ignorant how notably they have detected this Cheat and the reasons and grounds they give of its Spuriousness and therefore it must needs be so much worse in him to impose this falacy a fresh and so to improve it too as though it was a piece of Gospel Know therefore besides what Merningus and Montanus say of its forgery of which I gave you a hint pag. 57. whereof Mr. Wills would take no notice And what Scultetus as Mr. Tombes tells us in his Medul Pat. p. 2. l. 1. c. 42. saith of it also The Magdeburgs do give us this account which I presume Mr. Wills can tell you as well as my self being so considerable a Remark in the History of Athanasius his life as you have it Century 4. cap. 10. p. 1032 in these words speaking of his works Quartus tomâ—â— quaedam habet a diversis translata interpretibus ut Libellum de variis Quaestionibus Sacrae Scripturae ad Antiochum Principem interprete Valentino Ampelandio quem Librum Athanasii non esse indeliquet quod ab ejus Authore Athanasius citatur Quaestion vigesima tertia hoc modo haec quidem multum valens in Divina Scriptura Magnus Athanasius nos vero qui ab ipso sumus illuminati c. Accidit huc quod multos videre est in eo scripto navâ—s atque opiniones ab Athanasio alienas The fourth Tome hath some things translated by diverse Interpreters as for instance the Book of various Questions of the holy Scriptures to Prince Antiochus Valentinus Ampelandius being the In-Interpreter which Book that it is not Athanasius's is thence manifested because Athanasius is cited by the Author thereof in the 23. Question in this manner And these things indeed saith the great Athanasius who was mighty in the Scriptures bâ—â— we who are inlightned by him c. And hereto it may be added say they that one may see in that Writer many errors and opinions that are far from Athanasius's By which you may see the design of this wicked cheat by fathering this false thing upon this maâ— of name to wit to bring some Reputation upon Infants Baptisme as though owned and practised by the great Athanasius in this Age and which our Antagonist falls in with and improves to the utmost First in the severe check he is pleased to give me for perverting as he calls it the Testimony given by him for Adult against his judgement and practice of Infants Baptisme as appears by these two Questions urged Secondly for our so little regarding what the Fathers say when they urge Scripture as well as Tradition for Infants Baptisme witness those two pertinent Scriptures urged by this eminent Father Thirdly for drawing the injurious conclusion that Infants Baptisme was not practised in Affrica in this Age from his Testimony for Adult Baptisme when the contrary so manifestly appears from those Questions But now this goodly story proving a lye doth not the contrary to all these naturally Revert upon himself And fully discover that till we have better evidence to the contrary that however Athanasius plaid the Bishop and baptised his School-fellow when a Boy in sport that when he came to better understanding he gave continuance to no other Baptisme then to that of the Adult only according to Christs Commission The next piece of fraud and injustice he charges upon me 8. Falshood charged is the curtailing and leaving out part of a Sentence quoted out of Bazil pag. 65. mentioned by him chap. 7. 1. part pag. 13. and hinted at also in his Preface The Quotation is to prove as he Remarks that Adult Baptisme was then only practised in the Eastern Churches which are two sayings out of Bazil One out of his 3. Book against Eunomius viz. must the faithful be sealed with Baptisme Faith must needs precede and go before And in his Exhortation to Baptisme that none were to be baptised but the Catechumens and those that were duly instructed in the Faith Upon which he saith Now this is sufficient to impose a fallacy upon any Reader that hath no Aquaintance with that Father and understand not in what sence he speaks who would not think that this Ancient Doctor was against Infants Baptisme and that no such thing was owned in the Church in his dayes very true
let the impartial Reader judge Who instead of answering hath rathâ—r inforced Dr. Hamond rather confirms then answers those Arguments and why and subscribed to the truth of so many of them and reproved rather the weakness and insufficiency of so many of the chiefest Arguments brought by the Paedobaptists concluding his Diâ—course with Doctor Taylers own words to that purpose viz. I consent to the truth of the Doctors observation That the Anabaptists have beâ—n encouraged in their error more by the accidental advantages given them by the weakness of those Arguments that have beâ—n brought against them then by aâ—y truth of their Cause or Excellency of their wit c. And therefore doth he in that Discourse acknowledge these following things First The weak argui gs from Circumcision either to its typicalness ideâ—tity Reason of difference or invalidity of paralel with Baptisme so as to found Infants Baptisme upon them pag. 482 c. comp 474. sect 20. Secondly The inconcludent Argument from Act. 2.39 Children their as he fully grants being really their Posterity not particularly the Infants of the Jews p. 490. sect 81. Thirdly That to infer Infants Baptisme from Christs Precept to baptize all Nations is one of the blind and lame that is of more use to betray and loose then to defend and secure the Fort p. 494. sect 96 Fourthly That to conclude Infants were baptised because Housholds are so mentioned to be is unconvincing and without demonstration it being so uncertain whether there was any Child in the Families p. 471. sect 21. Fifthly That Argumentt from Matth. 19.14 are imperfect ways of Probation p. 474. sect 23. The other Arguments Dr. Hamond urgeth for Infants Baptisme It is true the Doctor useth other Mediums to confirm and establish Infants Baptisme by which are not usually urged by the Paedobaptists and which because the Doctor layes so much stress upon and Mr. Wills seems also much to glory in we shall give you some account of them 1. From the Jewish Baptismeâ— The first is because Christs Institution of Baptisme doth not exclude Infants from Baptisme there being nothing in Christs Commission that is against it pag. 475. fect 75. And Mr. Wills pag. 131 132. To which you have an answer in the next Chapter by an other hand to whom I must refer you The Second and chief of the Doctors Arguments and upon which he seems to lay the greattest stress to found and inforce Infants Baptisme is from the Custom of Baptizing amongst the Jews of old from the first giving of the Law from whom Christ as he saith took the usage and made it a Sacrament And who did baptise as he tells us not only the Native Jews upon their admission into the Covenant but the Prosolytes both Men and Women and their Children also And which he pretends to make good out of the Jews Talmud by Maimonides Proved out of the Talmud a great Jewish Doctor Rabi Joshua another and the Gemara Babyâ— Tit. Chirithoth and particularly concerning their Infants that they were baptised upon the knowledge of the House of judgement viz. on their desire and behalf of the Children and their promise to let them know what they have undertaken for them as saith the Doctor and that thereby Gossips or Susceptors are also waranted so agreeable to what Saint Austin saith Our Mother the Church lends the little ones other Mens feet ears and tongue that they may come believe and confess and so be capable of Baptisme pag. 470. to 474. and which Mr. Wills takes in for Gospel too pag. 141. Now if this be a good and substantial basis and foundation for Infants Baptisme and well proved let all Men judge In answer to which new and strange Doctrine I shall refer the Reader to the Reply that I suppose was made hereto by that judicious and learned Gentleman Sir Norton Knatchbull Sr. Norton Knatchbull's answer hereto in his Animadversiones in Lib. Novi Testamenti pag. 315. Accum videam summi judicii Viros in his temporibus Rabbinis fundamenta petere veritatis c. But when I see in these times some Men of the greatest judgement to fetch the foundation of truth from the Rabbins I cannot but stick at it for whence was the Talmud sent to us they are the words saith he of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judicia that we should give so much credit thereto that we should believe that the Mosaick Law either may or ouâ—ht to be understood therefrom Much less the Gospel to which they are professed Enemyes The Talmud is called a Lâ—byrinth of errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fabâ—es It was perfected and acknowledged for authentick five hundred years after Christ And out of it Maimonides drew his Doctrine as also the rest of them thâ—refore we cannot acquiesce in such testimony And again upon the dâ—fference he takes notice of that was betwixt two of their greatest Rabbi's upon that point who were cotemporaries viz. Eliazer that affirmed that the Prosolytes were Circumcised and not Baptised And Joshua who aâ—tested the qui e contrary that thâ—y were Baptised and not Circumciseâ— saith Vâ—ri veâ—o potius assentia Eliezero qui affirmat quoâ— Scriptura an Joshua qui affirmat quod nusquam Scripâ—ura docet To which of them must we â—â—â—ear to Eliezor that affirms what the Scriptures teâ—ch or to Joshua that asseâ—ts what the Scripture no where teâ—cheth Though saith he the Rabbins too did cleâ—ve to the latter c. Magistri vero quid mirum slabant pro Rabbi Joshua faciâ—bat â—nim in rem suâ—m in honorem Religâ—â—niâ— Judaâ—â—ae c Now thâ—t the blind Rabbins should establish their vain Customs by such Jewish Fables is no wonder being so left by God to blindness of eye and hardness of heart But that any proâ—essing Christianity should be so left oâ— God to assert and establish Gospel Ordinaâ—ces from the Fabulous Talmud and their lying Rabbies so directly contrary to the Scâ—ipture is matâ—er of the greatest admiration A thrid Argument is from Antiquity endeavouring to pâ—â—vâ— the succession thereof from the Apostles and to make it out to be an Apostolical Tradition from the following Authorities viz. Justin Mâ—rtyrs Responâ—es Irenaeus â—â—ginus Origen Cyprian the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierachy St. Augustin and the Mileviâ—an Councel 479 to 482. The foâ—ce of all which you 'l have tryed in the next following Châ—pter to whâ—ch I refer you And so you have the substance of Doctor Hamonds strong Arguments wherein I have been the larger because you may be sufficiently informed that he rather confirmed then answered most of the â—nabaptists plea before mentioned And thâ—t the strength of those his stâ—ong Arguments having slighted and canciled so many of the old as weak and insufficient may appear to you And that upon the whole you may have your satisfaction wh ther I had not substantial ground to quote Doctor Taylâ—rs Arguments he gives in his Liberty of Prâ—pâ—ecy in
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
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
the Instauration and propogation of Christs Kingdom was only by sufferings So that the Reader may perceive that Cassander saith the quite contrary to what Mr. Wills saith of these People applying the Battenburg and Munster Principle of Resistance to these People that notoriously held the quite contrary and therefore doth Cassander plead with the Duke of Cleve for their Liberty who were therefore as he tells him Commiseratione potius emendatione quam insectatione perditione digni videantur More worthy of pity and amendment than persecution and perdition So you will understand hereby that he is an Author not to be much trusted in his Authorities and and Translations Whereby Mr. Wills would not only have all the German Anabaptists to be charged with that of Munstur but even those that witnessed against it also and is not that very hard measure And would Mr. Wills be content to be so dealt with For instance would he think it just and equal if we should retort his own story upon himself that he with so much Obliquy reflects upon us p. 99. And tell him that because those Personâ— that had the conduct of that affair that put all London into that fright were most riged Indipentant Poedobaptists as certainly they were what ever Mr. Wills may insinuate to the contrary That therefore all Rigid Poedobaptists Mr. Wills himself in number also are to be esteemed of the same mind and spirit notwitstanding all the witness that they either at that time or ever since would be thought to bear against that Action Yea and that the very Principle of Indipendant Poedobaptism tends to such Rebellious actions too which is his way of dealing with those poor People Mr. Wills is short in his Proofs against the Anabaptists in England But you may better judge of his forreign intelligence and proof by what he tells us to our faces at home which every body will be better able to discern and to make a Judgement of viz. That diveâ—s Anabaptists in our own Nation are guilty as he tells us of blasphemies and immoralities and therefore the Principle is false c. To the making good thereof he brings in Mr. Baxter for a Witness though if he speak any thing to the purpose the bare affirmation of a Party would I presume be judged as incompetent as if the next that Writes should produce Mr. Wills his say-so for authentick proof But let us hear what Mr. Baxter sayth to the point which he tells us p. 100. In these words Mr. Baxters Testimony against Anabaptists that though Mr. Baxter knew some good and sober Men amongst them yet that the generality were bad enough for so says he we must understand him in his plain proof p. 143. Where he tells us to this purpose that he had familiarly known very many of them And that the Ministers were for the most part censorious Opinionatists who designed to convert People more to their Judgements than to Christ And that Anabaptistry had been the ordinary inlet to the most horrid opinion and how negligent many are in Family Duties c. Now therefore let all men judge whether this amounts to any proof What if Mr. Baxter did know some of their Ministers over Zealous for their Opinion and some of the people too remiss and negligent in their Duties to God doth this prove the Immorality suggested and for his Apprehensions that it is the inlet into horrid Opinions So the Prelates think of Presbytery and the Papists of Protestanism is either of them therefore so and doth that prove them to be Blasphemers and that we must understand by Mr. Baxters words they are for the generality bad enough But suppose Mr. Baxter in his heat had indeed said what Mr. Wills would make him say which we nowhere find as I know of yet you will find Mr. Baxter in cool blood hath given another Character of the Anabaptists of which because Mr. Wills will take so little notice I shall here give it you over again upon this occasion which you may be pleas'd to read in his own words in his Book called The Defence of the Principles of Love p. 7. viz. that Anabaptists are Godly men that differ from us in a point so difficult that many of the Papists and Prelatists have maintained that it is not determined in Scripture Mr. Baxters late Testimony for the Anabaptists but dependeth upon the Tradition of the Church And I know as good and sober men of that mind as of theirs that are most against them And that I once motioned teâ—ms of Concord to the Anabaptists and was in as hâ—peful a way for Peace with them as with most others And in his late large Book called A Christian Directory he is pleased to say p. 287. that Anabaptists may not only be admitted to Church Communion but may be tolerated in their practice also 1. Because they agree with us in all points absolutely necessaâ—y to Communion 2. That the Antient Christians had liberty either to Baptize or to let them stay till Age as they thought best 3. And that the Controversie is of so great difficulty that if in all such Cases none that differ be tolerated we may not live togeâ—her in the World or Church but endlessly Excommunicate or Persecute one another Now therefore let it be considered Whether Mr. Wills hath proved his charge against the Anabaptists in England and so consequentlâ— according to his rate of Reasoning proved their principle false and dangerous And whether it is not just and equal that till he make good the same he ought to be reputed by all men a Slanderous Person and a false Acâ—â—ser of the Brethren and as justly to be suspected for his Forreign Intelligence and Accusation also Only this I would advise Mr. Wills that when he offers his next proof he be more particular as to the Persons and Crimes he chargeth as also since he makes it so comprehensive to take in the Generality of the Baptists and of so great moment as to judge their Principle by also that the Blasphemy and Immorality is such as is foster'd and borne with by the Churches otherwise they are no more chargable with such Crimes if they have cast any such wicked Persons out of them then the Church of Corinth was to be charged with Incest though they had disowned and Excommunicated the Incestuous Person And truly I think I may with much confidence challenge him or any the worst of their Enemies to produce any Blasphemer or immoral Person so known to be in any of the Churches of Christ under that Denomination But if any either in this Nation in Germany or else where that have owned that Principle have turned Ranters and Athiests as too many 't is to be feared have I hope the Principle is no more to be charged with it than Poedobaptism is for all the Blasphemies and Immoralities that persons of that Perswasion do much more frequently fall into without or with so