Innocency and Truth Vindicated, Chapter 2

Innocency and Truth Vindicated · Chapter 2

p. 62CHAP. 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.

p. 63Firſt, 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 p. 64terms, 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 comman…e…, is expreſly forbidden; and for which take the following Scriptures, viz.

Col. 2.20, 21, 22. If you be dead with Chriſt, from the ru…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 Command…ments of Men.

Deut. 4.2. You ſhall not add unto the Word, wh…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 t…e Scripture forbids not, it allows, and what it allows, is not p. 65unlawful, 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.

p. 66Mr. 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 p. 67to 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 HamondDr. 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 p. 68Cauſe, 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 p. 69Reaſoning, 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, p. 70without 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 An…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 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, p. 71yet 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 Ag…. They tell us indeed, of o…e p. 72only 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. foundedTHe 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.

p. 73Doctor 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 ju…gement, and practiſe of the Ʋniverſal 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 …old,1. Papiſt a Tradition not written. that it is an p. 74Apoſtolical 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 'tis 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 pr…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 p. 75Conſequential Arguments from the Scripture, ought to be eſteemed as firm, and good as the Scripture it ſelf, p. 117.

Do the Papiſts teach,4. Papiſts that the Church the ſubject, not Author. that Infants Baptiſme was the appointment of Chriſt himſelf; and practiſe of the Apoſtles; though no mention, when it was given forth, nor when, and where practiſed, Treat. Bap. 134.

So doth alſo Mr. Wills in the name of the Proteſtants affirm, Proteſtant that the Church the ſubject, not the Authorthat 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 p. 76it, is fully owned by Mr Baxter, in his Princ… 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 …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 Ʋnwritten 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 Auſti… 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. p. 77Wills 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 Ʋnwritten Tradition, then the pretended Scriptures, to juſtify that, avail nothing.

It is true the Papiſts are larger,The Pap…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 ſe…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) p. 78viz. Cyprian, Auſtin, and others of the Antients, hold Chryſme, Exorciſme, Infants righ… 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, Auſti… Auſtin.in his 118. Epiſt. ad Johan. ſaith: Illa quae n… ſcripta, tradita cuſtodimus, dantur vel Apoſtolis, vel plenariis Conſiliis, &c. The unwritten Traditions, which we keep, are given by the Apoſtle… 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 i… 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 aſcrib… too much, in the appointing ſuch rites, and interpreting Scriptures to that end; I do not find tha… the engaged Papiſts cited by me, did ſet Traditio… above Scripture, but that they make it equal wit… 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, Infants Baptiſme an Apoſtolical Tradition, and the univerſal practice of the Church, which we have examined diſtinctly, and given an Account of the inſufficiency, and weakneſs, if not the wickedneſs, of moſt of them, and which appearing falfe, all the reſt depending upon them, neceſſarely fall to the Ground.

The firſt three of them, viz. 3. of them owned to be ſpurious.Dionyſius the Areopagite, in the firſt Century; the Decretals of the firſt Popes, or Roman Biſhops, with Juſtin Martyrs Reſponſes, in the ſecond Century, are all of them owned by Mr. Wills to be ſpurious, and ſuppoſititious; though to this day leaned upon, by moſt of the Popiſh, and many Proteſtant Writers alſo; whereby the Myſtery of Iniquity p. 80early diſcover it ſelf, not only to uſher in, but to ſupport this Innovation, by Lyes, and Forgeries.

But Mr. Wills tells us, that though theſe are forgeries,Juſtin Martyr to Triphon examined. yet Justin Martyrs Dialogue to Triphon, is genuine, who therein ſaith, that it was lawful for all to receive the Spiritual Circumciſion, [viz. Baptiſme] whereby it may well be inferred, ſaith Mr. Wills from Mr. Baxter, that if all may receive it, then Infants, who were the Subjects of Legal Circumciſion, for they muſt be part of all, and not excluded, Wills 128.

Which I ſay, is a meer impertinency, and nothing to the purpoſe.

For firſt, here is not one word of Infants, nor of Infants Baptiſme, or its Apoſtolicalneſs.

Secondly, it is very abſurd (the better to hook in Children) to interprete the word [all] to be all Men; for if all Men, then it muſt comprehend wicked, as well as good; Believers, as well as Unbelievers; and which (as confined to Baptiſme, by Maſter Wills) is to contradict Chriſts Commiſſion, and the Apoſtles practiſe, who limited it only to thoſe, that repented of their Sins, and believed the Goſpel. And though it is true, the Goſpel was to be preached to all, and all of all Nations, in diſtinction to the Nation of the Jews, who only were concerned in the firſt Commiſſion; yet only they taught Believers amongſt them, were to be Baptiſed; not the ignorant, and prophane; And if the word All, be ſo to be underſtood, it is a witneſs for us, not them, for Infants thereby are excluded, who p. 81are neither capable of Inſtruction, Repentance, or Faith. And that it is ſo to be underſtood, let Juſtin himſelf be the Interpreter, who not only in his Apology, before mentioned, tells us,Juſtin himſelf contradicts Mr. Wills ſenſe that they Only, who were inſtructed in the Faith, and believed, were brought to Baptiſme, to have their new Birth perfected. But in this uery Dialogue to Tryphon, tells us, that by the Word, and Baptiſme, Regeneration was perfected, in all man kind, (viz. in all that did hear, and receive the word, and were capable to come to Baptiſme.) And again, that by the grace of God, and the Baptiſme of Repentance, ſins were expiated, as Magdeburgs Cent. 2. pag. 4. 7. which ſufficiently declares, that this is nothing to the purpoſe, except it be to confirm Believers Baptiſme only.

And to which ſaith Mr. Tombes, Mr. Baxters ſingular Notion.This teſtimony for Antiquity of Infants Baptiſme, I remember not alledged by any before Mr. Baxter, and therefore, beſides the impertinency of the words, as he himſelf alledgeth them, I ſee no need to ſearch further into it, Review 2. part p. 71.

In the next place Mr. Wills tells us of an other Antiquity, to prove Infants Baptiſme Apoſtolical, Iraeneus teſtimony examined.viz. Iraeneus, who in Lib. 2. c. 39. Adverſ. Haereſ. tells us, that Chriſt did ſanctifie every age, by his own ſuſception of it, and ſimilitude to it. All I ſay, who by him are born again to God: Whereby (ſaith Mr. Wills) we infer, that being born again to God, ſignifying Baptiſme, as the Antients for the moſt part took it, then were the Infants baptiſed in his day, Wills p. 129.

To which I reply, that if this be any more to p. 82the purpoſe then the former, let all Men judge; and whether it be not far fetch'd, and unnaturaly ſcrewed, without either Reaſon, or truth?

Very impertinent.For firſt, here is not one word of Infants Baptiſme, or its Apoſtolicalneſs, and nothing but an impertinent begging Queſtion upon Question, to make up an inference.

Secondly, The Interpretation upon which it is founded, is wholy falacious, for neither the Scriptures, nor Justin Martyr, do call Baptiſme Regeneration abſolutely, but only as it is the Symbole of Regeneration, already wrought by the word, and ſo Juſtins words b…fore import, and that only reſpecting the Adult, that were capable thereof: For if this be true Doctrine, then muſt all Hypocrits, and wicked Men, that either now, or ever were Baptiſed, be actually thereby Regenerated, and ſo conſequently ſaved; which is ſo abſurd, and Ridiculous, as nothing can be more. To which Mr. Tombes has ſo well anſwered Mr. Baxter in his third Review, pag. 79. (And which was never yet replyed to) that we need ſay no more to it, viz.

Mr. Tombes.But Christ was not in his Age, an Example of every age by his Baptiſme, as if he did by it ſanctify every age, for then he ſhould have been baptiſed in every age; but in reſpect to the holyneſs of his humane Nature, which did remain in each age, and ſo exemplarily ſanctify every age to God, ſo as that no age but was capable of holineſs, by conformity to his Example. Now if the meaning were, that Chriſt came to ſave all that were baptiſed by him, on by his appointment, then he came to ſave Simon p. 83Magus, and who ever are, and have been baptiſed rightly, Judas himſelf. Therefore ſuch a ſenſe is moſt palpably falſe, and therefore is this wreſted by the Paedobaptiſts, againſt its meaning, to prove Infants Baptiſme in his time.

So that I hope it will be manifeſt, that theſe Authorities are as little to the purpoſe, as the three former, and all though theſe are not Suppoſititions, yet wholy inſignificant, and nothing to the purpoſe.

Whereby it is manifeſt, that for the firſt two hundred years we have not the leaſt proof, by any Authentick Au hor, that Infants Baptiſme was an Apoſtolical Tradition, or that it was once practiſed within that compaſs of time. And therefore ſaith Doctor Barlow, Dr. Barlow.I believe, and know that there is, neither precept, nor practiſe in Scripture for Paedobaptiſme; nor any juſt evidence for it, for above two hundred years after Chriſt. And may it not be very well concluded, in Mr. Baxters words about Confirmation, That it was very ſuſpicious, to find in Juſtin Martyrs Deſcription of the Chriſtian Churches practiſe, no mention of it, p. 128. So neither to find in Juſtin Martyr, nor, as Mr. Tombes well obſerves, the leaſt of it in Euſebius, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanaſius, or Epiphanius, is very good ground to conclude againſt it, and reproof to Mr. Calvin, who ſaith, Mr. Calvin and Mr. Marſhal juſtly reproved.that there is no Antient Writer, that doth not acknowledge, the Original of the holy Ordinance of Infants Baptiſme, even from the Apoſtles. And to Mr. Marſhal alſo, who ſaith that the Church hath been in poſſeſſion of Infants Baptiſme this fiveteen hundred p. 84years, and that no one Authority can be found witneſſing thereto, for two hundred years after Christ.

Origen's teſtimony tryed.But in the next place, with greater confidence, ſaith Mr. Wills, we adhear to Origen, notwithſtanding the frivelous cavils of the Author. It is true, Origen is the Authority eſpecially gloried in, as being ſo poſitive, and expreſs for its Apoſtolicalneſs, as it is mentioned L. 5. ad Rom. c. 6. and confirmed in Lev. l. 8. Hom. 8. and in Luke Hom. 14. In theſe words, the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apoſtles, to give Baptiſme to Children (who had the ſecret Myſtery of Divine things committed to them) becauſe they being defiled with the pollution of ſin, ought to be waſhed, or cleanſed by the water, and Spirit, &c.

To which we have ſaid theſe three things, viz.

Reaſon given before agaidſt it in Treat. of Baptiſme.Firſt, that Origen is but one ſingle teſtimony, (as Doctor Tayler obſerves) and that againſt ſo much authentick testimonie to the contrary, that none but the Adult are found in the Apoſtles times, and the next Century after them, to be baptiſed.

Secondly, that his writings are ſo notorious corrupt, and erronious, and particulerly in the point of Baptiſme.

Thirdly, that many of his Works, and particulerly theſe that treat of Baptiſme, fell into ſuch ill hands.

Mr. Wills anſwer to the firſt.To which Mr. Wills anſwers, Firſt, that Origen was not a ſingle teſtimony, becauſe, ſaith he, we have the testimony of Irenaeus alſo. But what I…enaeus Teſtimony ſignifies you have heard; and therefore that neither Irenaeus, or any other but p. 85Origens Teſtimony was in the Caſe, you have Doctor Tayler in his Deſwaſive againſt Popery, 2. part pag. 118. printed 1667, one of his laſt pieces, ſaying thus:Dr. Tayler that Origen was but a ſingle Teſtimony. That there is Tradition to baptiſe Infants, relyes but upon two witneſſes, Origen, and Auſtin, and the latter having received it from the former, it relyes wholy upon a ſingle Teſtimony, which is but a pittiful Argument, to prove a Tradition Apoſtolical; he is the firſt that ſpoke it: but Tertullian, that was before him, ſeems to ſpeak againſt it, which he would not have done, if it had been a Tradition Apoſtolical. And that it was not ſo, is but too certain, if there be any truth in the words of Ludov. Vives, ſaying, that anciently none were baptiſed, but perſons of riper age.

And herein the Doctor, it muſt be granted, ſpeaks his own ſenſe, not playing the Anabaptiſt, as 'tis ſaid he did in his Liberty of Prophecy.

To the Second, he ownes his corruptions, Mr. Wills grants the 2.and great errors, but ſaith to ballance him, that Tertullian did not come much ſhort of him, in error, and corruption; that is one of my witneſſes.

To which I ſay, let them then go together, only I ſh…ll have thereby the better bargain for Mr. Wills, in parting with Origen parts with all, but I have many more to witneſs for me beſides.

To the Third, that his Homelies on the Romans, Mr. Wills to the 3. chargeth me with miſtake.were all tranſlated by Ruffinus, is my miſtake, for though Ruffinus might abuſe ſome part of Origens works, yet that Jerom did tranſlate his Romans, p. 86and Luks alſo; and which he ſaith, appeareth by Jeroms Preface, affixed to them as Eraſmus, (he tells us) confeſſeth, and therefore, though Ruffinus hath no credit with me, he hopes Jerom may, they being Jeroms Verſion, and which upon Eraſmus teſtimony puts it beyond all doubt.

Reply to t…e charge …herein Mr. Wills …ppears to be gr…ſly …ſtaken.To which I ſay, firſt, that what ever good thoughts Mr. Wills hath of the Tranſlation of the Romans, yet Mr. Perkins is pleaſed, as I told him, to put it amongſt his ſpurious works.

Secondly, that Eraſmus (what ever Mr. Wills ſo fa ſly tells us) is ſo far from aſſerting the Romans to be Jeroms, and not Ruffinus that he ſaith juſt the contrary, in his Cenſure before O…igens works, in theſe words: At qui l…git ennar rationem Epiſtolae (ad incertus) Romanos eſt utrum legit Origenem, aut Ruffinum: And he that reads his Commentaires upon the Epiſtle to the Romans, is uncertain whether he reads Origen, or Ruffinus.

But is not Jeroms Preface before the Epiſtle? and doth not Eraſmus tell us ſo, to put us beyond all doubt? It is true, Mr. Wills indeed tell us ſo; but what credit is to be given to him, let all Men judge, when Eraſmus, and Grynaeus alſo, tell us the quite contrary? Eraſmus his words are theſe:Eraſmus … …ct. … cheat. Hic L…brarii magnifice perfricuere frontem, & in Praefatione, & in per Oratione pro Ruffino, Hieronymum ſupponentes, hoc eſt vitrum pro Gemma Lectori obtrudere conantes, & hactenus ſane fefellerunt incautos, nam Praefatio poterat utcunque videri Hieronymi, ſed in per Oratione quaſi Sori…es ſuo ſe produnt indicio: Herein the Bookſellers h…ve been very impudent, both in the Preface, and p. 87concluſion alſo, putting Jerom inſtead of Ruffinus, that is to ſay, endeavouring to obtrude upon the Reader. Glaſs inſtead of a Jewel, and hitherto indeed they have deceived the unwary: For however, the Preface may ſeem Jeroms, yet in the per-oration (or concluſion) the Rats do as it were betray themſelves by their own diſcovery. In like manner (as ſaith the ſame Author) Quod idem factum eſt in Symbolo: Eum enim librum in Cypriani nomen transtulerunt, ſed ita multis commutatis, ut ipſa res clamitet non caſu, ſed de inauſtria factum eſſe: The ſame thing is done in the Symbolum: For they transferred that Book on the name of Cyprian, but many things being ſo changed, that the matter it ſelf manifeſts ſufficiently, that it was done not by chance, but of deſign.

But then ſaith Mr. Wills,Origen upon Luke examined. what do you ſay to Luke? For it is to be noted, that neither the Author, nor any one elſe, hath any thing to ſay againſt his Hom…lies on Luke (what ever they have to ſay, on that on the Levit. and the Romans) where Origen expreſſeth the ſame thing, concerning Infants Baptiſme, and Mr. Perkins himſelf lets this paſs without the Cenſure of being ſpurious, p. 132.

To which I anſwer, Firſt,1. No Original Copy of i…. then it is not denyed, but that Leviticus, wherein is the ſame thing aſſerted, is ſo ſpoiled by Ruffinus, that it may be juſtly cenſured, for Mr. Wills ſaith nothing to it, and if he did, it is all one, for Eraſmus is as poſitive for that, as for the other.

And as for that of Luke, Mr. Tombes Tombes.obſerves in his third Review, pag. That Eraſmus ſaith on Luke 1.3. Sic enim viſus eſt ſentire, quis is fuit, p. 88cujus extant in Lucam Commentarii Adamantii titulo: For ſo he ſeems to think whoſoever he was, whoſe Commentaries are extant upon Luke, under the title of Adamantius which ſhews (ſaith he) that Eraſmus took them not to be Origens, or at leaſt doubted thereof.

Voſſius.And Voſſius Diſputatio 14. Sect. 8. p. 181. ſaith thus (having cited Origens whole teſtimony out of Luke, &c.) Sed de Origene minus laborabimus, quia quae citabimus Graece non extant: But we care the leſs for Origens, becauſe the things we cited, are not extant in the Greek.

And Scultetus Scultetus.in his Medul. Pat. L. 6. c 2. Cum Graeca Originis Opera non extant hodie, & quibus Latina verſio corrigi poſſit, & emendari: That Origens works in Greek were not at preſent extant, by which the Latin v…rſion might be corrected, and amended.

And Eraſmus:Eraſmus. Atque utinam extarent Graeca Originis monument…, quo Ruffinicas artes poſſemus deprehen…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 t…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 p. 89ch. 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 Ʋſher 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 p. 90birth 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 proof… of Apoſtolical Tradition, it is neceſſary to bring ſuch only, p. 91that upon warrantable ground are poſitive in it: For this at the beſt can be urged, but as a conſ… 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 p. 92Apoſtolical, 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 Baptiſm…, 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 time told us, a manifeſt lye of them alſo, there had been, the like cauſe to have queſtioned his evidence: And as to Tertullians teſtimony, ſo much contemned by Mr. Wills, you ſhall hear more of it in the next Chapter, where my witneſſes are vindicated, againſt his Cavils.

Mr. Wills to the 2.To the ſecond Exception, as to the three Grounds I urge, why no ſuch Councel? He firſt anſwers with a ſcoff (And that is ſtrange for one that hath launcht out, as he hath done, into the vaſt Ocean of Antiquity) then gives the reaſon, why he judges there was ſuch a Councel, becauſe ſo many (in the Fourth, & fifth Century) of the Fathers, (ſome of whom he mentions from Doctor Hamona) had ſuch a venerable eſteem for it. But what then?

That is no Argument, it was a Decree of ſuch a Councel, becauſe ſo many had a good eſteem p. 93of it: For all the ſame Fathers, he mentions, eſteemed very well of Chryſme, and Exorciſme, &c. aſſerted by Cyprian; Doth it therefore follow they were appointed by him in Councel, and to be received therefore by them, and all others, without further diſpute. But that Cyprians Dictates were not ſo authentick among the Antients, may appear by their univerſally rejecting, his Doctrine of Rebaptiſation, though determined in an undoubted Councel, at Carthage in Affrica, under Gallus, mentioned in his Epiſtle to Jabajanus, and in all his Epiſtles, Magdeb. Century 3.Magdeb Cent. 3. p. 194. pag. 194. And that novel opinion of his, about ſprinkling alſo, in his Epiſtle to Magnus, L. 4. Ep. 7. which all of them declined for ſo many Ages.

As to the other three Arguments,Reply nothing to the third. againſt the Council, he ſaith nothing at all; Neither doth he ſay one word againſt thoſe childiſh, erroneous, and ridiculous grounds, the (ſuppoſed) learned Councel gives for that their opinion, which I urge in the third Reaſon: OnelyOnly he Cavils with me for the Argument I urge from Auſtins Confeſſion againſt this Councel, viz. that it had not been determined in any Councel, ſaying, that it is a pitiful miſtake, and miſunderſtanding of Auſtins words; who ſaith: Who had not its firſt inſtitution from ſome Counc…l. To which I ſay, the words are: Nec Conſiliis inſtitutum: Neither inſtituted, or decreed in Councels. There is no firſt: So that he did certainly, by theſ… words, conclude againſt any …nſtitution, or Determinaiton, in this, as well as any other Councel; and this to be ſure, p. 94if it be not in this ſuppoſed Councel, of Cyprian d… termined, and inſtituted, he finds it no where elſe (this being the firſt Councel, that ever is pretended to mention it, and excepting Origen he particularizeth, no authority higher. Auſtins words run thus: That which the Church (viz. in his time) held, and which had neither been inſtitute… ) in Cyprians, nor) in other Councel (ſo concluding againſt all Councels) and which was alwayes held (yet gives no higher account, to prove that univerſal Tenet then Origen) m…ſt therefore be an Apoſtolical Tradition. A notable convincing Argument no doubt, and ſo far from being next to a Demonſtration, as Mr. Wills fondly aſſerts, that it is next to nothing, and juſt as good, and authentick, as Auſtins aſſertion, that the giving the Sacrament to Children, was Apoſtolical, and neceſſary to Salvation.

And then in Mr. Philpots words he tells us, becauſe we deny this of Cyprian, to be good proof: That the verity of Antiquity is with them, and that the Anabaptiſts have nothing, but lyes for them, and their new imaginations, which feign that Baptiſme of Children is the Popes commandement.

To which I ſay that what ever Mr. Philpot (that worthy Martyr) might heretofore in ignorance affirm, and Mr. Wills may now, with ſo much prejudice, repeat and ſecond: Yet he muſt pardon, us if we ſay: That until as full a Command from Chriſt, be produced for Infants Baptiſme, as is from the Pope for the ſame, that the lye he talks of, will certainly reſt at their door, who with ſo much confidence aſſert, that it was Chriſts precept, p. 95and the Apoſtles practiſe, and yet are able to bring no more from Scripture, or Antiquity, to warrant it, whileſt all that full-mouthed, and undenyable evidence, from the Popes Canons, and Decrees, are manifeſted by us for the ſame.

But if it ſhould be granted Mr. Wills, that this of Cyprians Decree was authentick, and that there was then a Determination, to baptiſe all Children upon the Reaſons, and Grounds mentioned therein (viz. becauſe Gods grace was tendered to all. Secondly, Becauſe Children were more capable of it, then grown Men. Thirdly, Becauſe it was neceſſary to Salvation. Fourthly, Becauſe ſo avail able to waſh away Original ſin. Fifthly, Becauſe they do nothing, but pray when they cry, in the firſt birth. And Sixthly, Becauſe they would otherwiſe be loſt) what would it avail to prove, that their Infants Baptiſme that Mr. Wills pleads for, was an Apoſtolical Tradition, or practiſed in thoſe firſt times? For Mr. Wills renounceth this as erronous, and falſe, as we do his, who is neither for the baptizing of all Children, nor upon thoſe grounds aſſerted, which he reprobates, as Popiſh, and Ridiculous: And therefore Protogenes his ſchaeme for baptizing Children, to cure diſeaſes, might as well have been produced by Mr Wills as Cyprians model to ſave their Souls, and both like ſignificant to what Mr. Wills pleads for. It is true this ſuppoſed Decree of Cyprians was the true pattern, that thoſe firſt Popiſh Councels wrote after, and which the Papiſts have followed ever ſince, and who therefore do as much renounce Mr. Wills Infants Baptiſme, as he doth theirs, upon which ſcore it p. 96it was that the Latins counted the Baptiſme of the Greek Church a nullity, and did rebaptiſe thoſe again, as the Greeks did theirs. And therefore is Calvin, & Luther and thoſe that made the firſt change, from the old pattern, put by the Popiſh Writers amongſt thoſe, that poſitively denyed Infants Baptiſme, for they conclude that they had as good deny it, as ſo to alter the Ceremonial form, and change the ends thereof; So that if Mr. Wills ſeeks for Antiquity, for the Baptiſme of the Infants of Believers only, he cannot go higher then Luther or Zwinglius, as Mr. Tombes obſerves, and if for the Children only of Inchurched Parents, (which I conceive to be his judgement) he cannot extend it higher then the New England pattern, about forty, or fifty years ſince.

Thus it is manifeſt to you, firſt, that there is neither Precept, nor Example, in Scripture for Infants Baptiſme, as is ſo fully acknowledged. Secondly, That the Scriptures ſilence, or its not forbidding, cannot juſtify any thing in Gods worſhip, and that nothing but an expreſs Scr…pture that carries, thus ſaith the Lord Jeſus along with it, can free any from Superstition & falſe worſhip; which fully excludes Infants Baptiſme by their own Grants, Mr. Wills acknowledging (they cannot ſay), thus ſaith the Lord Jeſus, Baptize your Children. And thirdly, It is as fully manifeſted, that the pretended Antiquity, for the practiſe of Infants Baptiſme fails; none proving it higher by any approved Author, then the fourth, or fifth Century: And then no other Baptiſme, then hath been renounced by moſt Proteſtants, as corrupt, and erroneus; And that p. 97however the Papiſts, and thoſe that go their way, may prove Antiquity as high as the fourth, or fifth Century: Yet that Mr. Wills can go no higher for his, then New England, or at the furtheſt then Luther.