Rejoinder to Mr Wills on Infant Baptism, Chapter 1
GHAP. I. Wherein the Antiquity of Believers, and Novelty of Infants Baptiſm is further confirmed; and that the Baptiſm after Faith was the only Baptiſm that was owned in the firſt Centuries, to be Chriſts Ordinance and the Churches Practiſe, in full Anſwer to Mr. Wills his Vindiciae.
THE main queſtion diſcuſſed between Mr. Wills and me, has been, whether the Anabaptiſts (ſo called) or the Paedobaptiſts have moſt to plead from Antiquity for their Way; viz. Thoſe that only Baptize Men and Women after Profeſſion of Faith and Repentance, or thoſe that Baptize Infants that are capable of neither.
The former of which I firſt aſſerted in my Treatiſe, and ſince defended, in my Reply to Mr. Wills, Mr. Baxter, and others, viz. That the Anabaptiſts, notwithſtanding the great Cry to the contrary, have the Antiquity of their ſide for the firſt Centuries.
And which notwithſtanding all the noiſe and clamour after the full diſcuſſion of that point on both hands, is now clearly manifeſted (if not by their own grants confirmed) to us. The which you may receive in the following brief Account.
CENT. I.
1. Cent. gives Examples only for Ad…lt Baptiſm.FIrſt it is moſt manifeſt as is confeſt on all hands, that the Scripture Story for the firſt Century gives us an account of no other Baptiſm, but that after Faith and Repentance, viz. Produceth Inſtances, or gives us Examples only for adult Believers, and not Infants Baptiſm; As we have obſerved the Magdeburgs themſelves thoſe Paedobaptiſts have ſo fully own'd acknowledging, That they find Examples in the 2, 8, 10, 16, 19. of the Acts for the Baptizing of adult Believers, hut of Bap…izing of Infants they read of no Example De Infantibus Baptizatis Exempla quidem non leguntur: To which Mr. Wills ſubſcribes, acknowledging, That there are no particular Examples for Infants Baptiſm upon Record, p. 3. 53. vind. Mr. Whitſton confeſſing the ſame as generally owned by them.
As for the Allegation, That the Apoſtles Writings do not expreſly exclude In…ants, as Mr. Wills and Mr. Whitſton from the Magd. affirm is ſo weak and frivolous, that needs no Reply, which would eſtabliſh Baptizing of Bells, Chryſm, and what not of the Popiſh Inventions.
And that if not aſſerted in Scripture, is yet found in the Writings of Origen and Cyprian to have been the Apoſtles practiſe, is as utterly inſignificant; for as it has, and will further appear to you they have writ no ſuch thing; nor ſecondly if they had, would what they writ in the third Age, upon their ſingle Teſtimonies, prove ſuch a matter of fact in the firſt Age, when as 'tis confeſt the Scripture is wholly ſilent therein.
Therefore I hope it cannot be denyed, that for what appears in Scripture Story▪ our Enemies themſelves being Judges, that Antiquity for the firſt Century is wholly on our ſide; ſo that no mention need be made of the Epiſtles of Clement and Ignatius in Confirmation thereof.
CENT. II.
SEcondly, as to the Second Century 2. Cent. gives Examples only for Adult Baptiſm.we find upon the fulleſt diſcuſſion, it produceth as few Examples for Infants Baptiſm, as the firſt, and that only thoſe are mentioned to have been Baptized in this Age, that firſt made a profeſsion of Faith, and Repentance, as appears by that moſt remarkable account given us out of Juſtin Martyrs Apology, the moſt Authentick piece of Antiquity of this Age (not to mention what is ſaid from Dionyſius, and Clem…nt. Alexandrinus Treat. p. 49, 50. which is not gainſaid by our Antagoniſt, only Mr. Wills would inſinuate, that the Magd. did ſuppoſe, That the Order Juſtin Martyr lays down, reſpected the reception of Aliens to Baptiſm, which would not hurt us, becauſe all are Aliens till Converted, no mention being made of any that were otherwiſe received. But Juſtins own words are full for ſatisfaction in the point, as Treat p. 49. viz. I will declare unto you how we offer up our ſelves to God after we are renewed through Chriſt, &c. Which reſpected the Order and Method obſerved by the Saints and Believers in the Church at that day, and how all of them had their admiſsion therein.
So that for the firſt 200 Years we carry it, having Examples as is confeſt for the one, but none to be produced for the other: Whereby I ſhould be ſufficiently juſtified, (ſhould we proceed no farther) in that aſsertion Mr. Wills ſo complains of, p. 2. vind. By affirming, That Antiquity it ſelf is altogether for Believers, and not for Infants Baptiſm. For if it be manifeſt, that there be 200 Years for the one before the other, well may I ſay, That there is Antiqity for the one, and not for the other; for if Antiquity be writ upon Believers Baptiſm, Novelty then muſt needs be writ upon Infants Baptiſm. Nor but that I grant ſome that were called the Ancient Fathers of the 5th. Age, as Auſtin, Chryſoſtom, and others affirmed it; from whence Mr. Wills again and again upbraids me, and Mr. Whitſton alſo, That I do contradict my ſelf, in ſaying Antiquity was altogether for the one, and not for the other, they not conſidering, or willingly omit that I mean Primitive Antiquity; the Elder Brother was to carry away, as the dignity and preheminency, ſo the Inheritance from the Younger, much more the true born, from the baſe born Child.
CENT. III.
IN the 3d. Century we have as few Examples to be produced for Infants Baptiſm, No Example for any but Adult Baptiſm in the 3. Cen.as in the two former; but that they Baptized in this Age after the Profeſſion of Faith, we have an ample account from Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian, and ſeveral others, as Treat. p. 51, &c. And which our Antagoniſts are ſo far from oppoſing, that they abundantly confirm, viz. Mr. Baxter, in his Saints Reſt, p. 1. cap. 8. ſect. 5. telling us, That Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, who lived (ſaith he) in the 2d. and 3d. Centuries, do all of them affirm, That in the Primitive times none were Baptized without an expreſs Covenanting, wherein they renounced the World; Fleſh, and Devil, and engaged themſelves to Chriſt, and promiſed to obey him. And Mr. Wills alſo, 2. part. p. 6. of Infants Baptiſm, acknowledgeth, That the Magdeburgs do tell us, Thaet Tertullian in this age oppoſed himſelf to ſome that aſſerted Infants Baptiſm, affirming, That the Adult were only proper Subjects.
So that it is manifeſt by what appears upon Record from any Authentick Story, that Believers Baptiſm carries the Antiquity of the Third Century alſo; there being not as yet one Infant upon Record that was actually Baptized, as any Ordinance of Chriſt, nor any thing appearing from good Authority by any Scripture Argument, that they ought ſo to be: What is pretended from Origen and Cyprian you have fully replyed to afterwards, and the utter inſignificancy of any thing that is urged from them to this end, whilſt you have full mouthed Evidence, and undeniable Authority for the other.
CENT. IV.
AS to the 4th. Century it doth not yet appear when and where any Infant was Baptized, as an Ordinance of Chriſt;Adult Baptiſm the general practiſe of the 4th. Age. it is ſaid indeed that ſome Sick Children were Baptized for their Health in this Age, and that ſome Dying Children might be Baptized to ſave them, as ſome other Dying Perſons were; and that ſome Doctors in this Age enclined from Circumciſion to bring it into the Church; but as yet none did pretend it to be neceſſary, none to have been a Precept of the Goſpel, as Dr. Taylor Treat. p. 105. Whereas the Baptizing of Believers after the Profeſſion of Faith, was the general practiſe of the Age, and which appears from the Three Subſtantial Inſtances given by me in my Treatiſe, eſpecially in the Reply, viz. From 1. the Sayings of Fathers. 1ſt. From the Sayings of the Fathers.2. Decrees of Councils. 3. Children of Believers unbaptized till aged, p. 4, &c. 1. From the Sayings of the Fathers, and greateſt Men of this Century, both in(a)Athanaſius and Arnobius. Affrica, (b)Baſil, Nazianzen, Eph. Syrus, Epiphanius.Aſiae, and(c)Hillarii, Ambroſe, Jerom, Marius Victorinus. Europe, aſſerting the neceſſity of Confeſſion of Faith before Baptiſm, both from Chriſts Commiſsion, Apoſtles Practiſe, and ends of the Ordinance.
Which Mr. Wills little oppoſeth, only ſaith, That ſome of theſe Doctors were corrupt in other things, and ſo they were all, That ſome of them 3 or 4 aſſerted Infants Baptiſm; which I deny not, to ſave Dying Children; ſaith one of them, viz. Arnobius was ſpurious from Perkins; what then? the reſt are genuine; and that Arnobius on the Pſalms was ever Doubted is more than I heard before; but if he was, it ſignifies nothing; he alſo Doubts Baſils Proof, urged by me contra Eunomium, which he calls for, and which he'l find l. 2. p, 24. viz. Baptiſm is the Seal of Faith, but Faith is the confeſsion of the Diety; for Firſt he ought to believe, and after to be Sealed with Baptiſm. Doubts whether Athanaſius is rightly rendred, for which I give you my Authority▪ That what is urged for the neceſsity of Faith to precede Baptiſm, reſpected the Adult, very true: And that ſome were for the Baptiſm of Infants, who were not capable to make Confeſsion; very true alſo; Si aliquid periculi immineat, If any danger happned otherwiſe, the neceſſity thereof from any precept of Chriſt was not yet enjoyed.
2. As to the 3 Councils,2. Decrees of Council. (viz. the Carthaginian, Laodicean, and Neoceſarian) ſo poſitively decreeing, That Teaching, Confeſsion of Faith, and free choice, ought to precede Baptiſm. He ſaith, That theſe Decrees reſpected the Adult; very true; therefore not Infants. That the Council of Carthage and Laodicea Decreed alſo for Exorciſm, and giving the Euchariſt to dying Perſons, and Penance &c. What then, if they were corrupt in other things, were they not right here? Moſt of the Fathers were for theſe Corruptions alſo. And that as to the Neoceſarean Council he ſaith, He had as much cauſe to queſtion, whether there was any ſuch Council, as I had to queſtion Cyprians Council. But herein he will find himſelf much miſtaken, whilſt the Magdeburghs, Cent. 4 c. 9. p, 615. give the Biſhops Names who ſat in this Council, the time when it ſat, viz. Immediately after that of Anoyranus, which Helvicus makes to be about the 10 or 12 of Conſtantine. Together with the 14 Canons of which this is one expreſt at large, and which Dr. Taylor gives us in the Original Greek, Determining as he ſaith, that none ought to be Baptized without giving an account of their Faith, and deſiring the ſame, Whilſt Mr. VVills can neither produce from any Ancient and Authentick Authority, when, or where Cyprians Council ſat, or what they decreed or determined in that Council, but what is pretended from that Epiſtle, which for its corruption is ſo much queſtioned, whereof more hereafter.
The 3d. Inſtance, viz. from 10 of the moſt eminent Men of the Age, who were not Baptized till aged,3. From 10 of the moſt eminent men, not Baptized till aged. though the Children of Chriſtian Parents, viz. Bazel, Gregory, Nazianzen, Ambroſe, Chryſoſtom, Jerom, Auſtin, Nectarius, Conſtantine, Valentinian, and Theodoſius. Concerning whom, excepting: Two of them, viz. Conſtantine and Auſtin. he tells me he will not contend with me, but for them he doubts whether their Parents were Chriſtian, yet denies not but that Dr. Taylor and Mr. Baxter may have been of my mind, whilſt ſome others wirh himſelf have denyed it, which will be of great force with any conſidering perſons; for if they had judged it an Ordinance of Chriſt, ſo many of the Chief of the Age would not ſo have neglected it.
In the next place Mr. VVills quarrels with ſome of my modern Authors, who ſpeak the ſame thing, viz. That in theſe fi…ſt times none were Baptized without prefeſsion of Faith, viz. Strabo Rhevanus Rupertus Boemus Dr. Hammond, Mr. Baxter, eſpecially queſtions Rhenanus and Rupertus for Forgery; the firſt I grant you is not proper to prove only ſuch were Baptized, that tearm only being not in it as in all the reſt, but is no Forgery. As for Rupertus, 'tis no Forgery; the Treat. ſaith, They adminiſtred Baptiſm only to the Children of the Church at Eaſter; the Reply ſaith only the Cathechumens, which as I take it is one and the ſame, as it reſpects the Children of the Church, who it ſeems were not Baptized till aged.
But concerning Mr. B. and my abuſing him, reſpecting his witneſs, that Adult Baptiſm was the only neceſſary Baptiſm in theſe times, take his own words ſo lately given us in his More Proofs, p. 279. viz. Yet again I will confeſs, That the words of Tertullian and Nazianzen ſhew, Mr. B's full grant againſt the Antiquity of Infants Baptiſm.that it was long before all were agreed of the very time, or of the neceſſity of Baptizing Infants before any uſe of reaſon, in caſe they were like to live to Maturity, for I am perſwaded, that the Apoſtles and firſt Miniſters were ſo taken up with the Converting of Infidels, Jews and Gentiles, that the caſe of Infant Baptiſm was ſo poſt-poned, and taken up as an Appendix to the Baptiſm of the Adult, as that it was thought leſs needful to give it a particular expreſs mention in the Records and Hiſtory of the Church.
Thus Mr. Baxters own Pen has given himſelf the lye, and juſt rebuke for all his vain jangle about the point of Antiquity for Infants Baptiſm, which now he is thus forc'd to confeſs the…e is no expreſs mention in the Records and Hiſtory of the Church for, and ſo alſo at once ſpoil'd all Mr. Wills daubery, and ſilly Wranglings about this Point.
Therefore I hope it will not now be denyed us that the Anabaptiſts have the Antiquity on their ſide, not only for the firſt 200, but for the firſt 400 years, there being nothing in the Records of Church Hiſtory, as is manifeſt, and confeſt to us alſo, to prove any Infant was Baptized, as a Church Ordinance, or that they ought in point of neceſſity ſo to be; and therefore there is no cauſe to queſtion the truth of Dr. Taylors, and Dr. Barlows poſitive aſſertions in concurrence herewith, and in confirmation hereof remark'd to us: And it is worthy of conſideration, that Dr. Barlow, in his Apologetical Lr. printed by Mr. Wills, doth not gainſay the Reaſon and Truth of what he formerly affirmed, but the indiſcretion of writing, and unfaithfulneſs of printing the ſame.
CENT. V.
THe Fifth Century, as we have at large proved Treat. p. 105, &c. brings in the neceſſity of Infants Baptiſm 5. Cent. Brings in and impoſeth the neceſſity of Infants Baptiſm.to regenerate, take away ſin, and to ſave the Soul of the Infant, and that without which there was no Salvation to be had for them, grounded upon John 3.5. as determined in the Milevitan, and afterwards in the Carthaginian Councils, by Pope Innocentius, afterwards confirmed by Pope Zozimus, and afterwards by Pope Boniface, &c. Never determined ſaith Dr. Taylor, till the Canon made in the Milevitan Council, ſo ſaith Strabo, Luther, Grotius, Treat. p. 107. which afterwards by degrees came generally to be received both Eaſt and Weſt. Yet withall this is moſt remarkable in the enjoyning thereof, that the appointing of Goſſips to confeſs Faith, and profeſs repentance in the name and ſtead of the Child before Baptiſm, Goſſips confirm the neceſſity of profeſſion before Baptiſm.and the practiſe thereof ever ſince to this our day, was a great Confirmation that the truth of the principle was owned, that Chriſt enjoyned in the Commiſſion, requiring Faith ſhould precede, and a Witneſs of the ancient practiſe of perſonal profeſſion in the former Centuries. This Invention being found out purpoſely to anſwer the Commiſſion: And therefore ſaith Lud. Vives l. 1. c. 27. That none were Baptized of old but thoſe of age, who did not only underſtand what the Water meant, but deſired the ſame; the perfect Image whereof (ſaith he) we have yet in our Infants Baptiſm; for it is ask'd of the Infant, wilt thou be Baptized? for whom the Sureties anſwer, I will. And ſo ſaith Strabo Treat. p. 63. and Boemus p. 73. And upon this account both Auſtin, Chryſoſtom, and the Doctors and Learned Men produced by me downwards through the Papacy to our day, ſpoke ſo much (from Chriſts Commiſſion, and primitive Saints practiſe) for the neceſſity of Faith and Repentance before Baptiſm, only by their Sureties. And therefore did I ſo loudly call upon Mr. Wills to prove Goſſips to be an appointment of Chriſt, or elſe to allow me all thoſe Paedobaptiſts for proper Witneſſes for Believers, and againſt Infant Baptiſm, and to free me from the many Forgeries he loaded me with for the ſame. But inſtead of doing himſelf and me right therein, he only returns thus to me, p. 45. vind. Mr. Danvers brings Teſtimony for Adult Baptiſm foom Paedobaptiſts, and It ſeems aſtrange deſign to all that I have ſpoken with about the ſame, that he ſhould offer to bring, Chryſoſtom, Auſtin, &c. againſt Infant Baptiſm, ſo making the Fathers to contradict themſelves, and for which I rebuke him.
Mr. Wills declines anſwering the material point about Goſſips.But he takes much pains to vindicate himſelf, in which undertaking I find him ſo full of Meanders, and tedious Circumlocutions, that I judge it not worth the while to follow him.
By which his declining to anſwer ſo material a thing, we muſt take it for granted he cannot, and therefore muſt ſtill apply all thoſe Authorities from Paedobaptiſts, even from Auſtin to Mr. Baxter, in full Confirmation of the practiſe of the Anabaptiſts, in their Baptizing only after profeſſion, and in point blank contradiction to their own practiſe of Baptizing Infants, who are ſo uncapable either to anſwer the Commiſſion, primitive Saints practiſe, or the Spiritual ends of that great Ordinance, and ſo our whole Witneſs ſtands good, as not anſwered or owned by themſelves. As to what he ſaith reſpecting thoſe ſeveral falſhoods returned upon him; and the abſurdities made out againſt him about Tradition, from p. 51. to 83. I only deſire the Reader to examine the ſhortneſs and inſufficiency of his Anſwers by the Reply, from p. 29 to 79. it being not worth while to trouble them with his ſilly wranglings animated by partiality, as Mr. B. phraſes it. And it muſt be remembred to him that as to thoſe Stories about John a Leyden, for which he reflected ſo much obliquy upon the way of Anabaptiſtry; which was returned upon him, and his great error and ignorance in Story evinced with his malicious ſlanders and falſe reports he therein publiſhed, not only againſt the Holland, but Engliſh Anabaptiſts diſcovered to him: Concerning all which he makes no return, and whoſe ſilence therein muſt be taken for his guilt, and bound upon him at leaſt till he vindicate himſelf, or own his folly and injuſtice. As alſo in his ſaying nothing to the Arguments for dipping, againſt ſprinkling or pouring, (about which he has made ſuch a flouriſh heretofore) is becauſe if he be not wholly convinced, yet that he is ſubſtantially ſilenced, and can ſay nothing thereto.
And laſtly, as to what he has ſaid againſt our Poſitive Witneſſes againſt Infants Baptiſm, we muſt refer him to what is ſaid to Mr. Baxter, after whoſe Copy he writes, and he having ſo fully granted us Tertullian, and Mr. Baxter having granted as before, that the Beringarians, Wickliffians, and Waldenſes were againſt Baptizing Infants for Salvation, Manichees were expreſly againſt it, who were no other than Waldenſes. The whole of the Book ſtands yet firm and untouch'd, and moſt of it confirmed and eſtabliſhed by their own Pens.