Rejoinder to Mr Wills on Infant Baptism, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Some Objections about Origen and Cyprian, and others, anſwered.
Obj. 1 MR. Wills tells me, p. 4. That I ſilently paſs by what the Magdeburgs do expreſly ſay was in uſe in the 3d. age. viz. That adult Perſons of both Sexes, and alſo Infants were Baptized, Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 124.
Anſw. That I have nor paſt it by will eaſily be underſtood, when it is conſidered what I have ſaid to the Authorities they give for the ſame in the ſaid place, Cent. 3. p. 124. viz. Origens Hom. on Leviticus, and Cyprians Epiſt. to Fidus, neither of which proving, as I ſuppoſe, ſufficient Authority upon the tryal to make good the ſame. The Words of the Magdeburgs are theſe, Baptizabantur autem in utro que ſexu adulti ſimul & infantes, That adult Perſons of both Sexes and Infants were Baptized. Nam de Infantibus Baptizandis Origines Homil 8. in leviticum, Eccleſiam ait traditionem accepiſſe ab Apoſtolis: Et Cyprianus l. 3. Ep. 8. For concerning the Baptizing of Children, Origens 8 Homily on Leviticus ſaith, That the Church received it as a Tradition from the Apopoſtles, and Cyprians 8 Epiſtle in his 3d. Book to Fidus. Contra quod tamen etiam Tertullian cenſuit in lib. de Bapt. Notwithſtanding Tertullian thought otherwiſe in his Book of Baptiſm, (mind that.)
The Arguments brought from Origen and Cyprian have been examined at large in my Treat. p. 124. to 151. and further in the Reply p. 84. to 97. where I prove that of Origens to be Spurious, 1. Origens Teſtimony examined.and not only that upon Levit. and Rom. which Mr. Wills cannot now deny, [whereby the Magdeburgs proof is out of doors] but what he ſaith alſo upon Luke, with my grounds urged for the ſame from Voſſius, Scultetus, Eraſmus, Dr. Owen. (1) Becauſe the Original is not extant. (2) Becauſe what is therein pretended from Origen, viz. That Children muſt be Baptized to take away Orignal ſin, (ſo contrary to his own judgment) he being the head of the Arrians. Therefore how fair this is for Mr. Wills to boaſt of this Antiquity, and yet decline Anſwering to their Arguments, I leave all Men to judge. Who is pleaſed without any one word of Anſwer to that which is ſo poſitively ſaid to enervate what is pretended for Luke, yet in a ſcurilous and pedantick way to ſay p. 93 Vind. We ſee by what is ſaid, That we have Infants Baptiſm owned, as from the Apoſtles, by Origen on Luke, what ev…r becomes on the Romans, and tranſlated by …, &c. So that the Fabreck ſtands yet uprig…, never like to be demoliſh'd by Mr. Danvers, …hat ever great Exploits he hath done heretofore in the days of his Collonelſhip.
Concerning which proof from Origen, you have Dr. Taylor in his liberty of Prophecy, p. 237. Thus,D. Taylors full witneſs againſt Origens Teſtimony. viz. None of the reformed Churches can pretend this Argument for this opinion: Becauſe they who reject Tradition, when it is againſt them, muſt not pretend it in the leaſt for them; but if the Topick be allowed to be good, yet how will it be verified? For ſo far as can yet appear, it relies wholly upon the Teſtimony of Origen, for from him Auſtin had it, a Perſon whom all other Ages have condemned of Errors, and whoſe works have been judged ſo ſpurious. &c.
And that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church, That Infants ought not to be Baptized, is cleer, faith he, in the Canon of the Council of Neoceſaria, determining, that none ought to be Baptized without giving an account of their Faith, and deſiring the ſame. And agreeable hereto witneſſing the rhe Doctor, ſpoke fully his own ſence herein, take that parallel paſſage writ in one of his laſt pieces, in his Diſſwaſive againſt Popery, writ 1667. viz. That there is a Tradition to Baptize Ynfants relies but upon Two Witneſses, Origen and Auſtin, and the latter having received it from the former, it relies wholly 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 ſpeak againſt, which he would not have done, if it bad been a Tradition Apoſtolical, and that it was not ſo, it is but too certain, if there be any Truth in the woriss of Lud. Vives, ſaying, that anciently none were Baptized but Perſons of riper Ages.
2. Cyprians Teſtimony furtheo examined.Then as to Cyprians Ep. to Fidus, (which is ſo much lean'd upon, the other proving but a broken Reed) ſuppoſing there was ſuch a Council; (which yet no Author can tell us when, and where held, and what therein determined) and that this Epiſtle was genuine, (againſt which I have much to ſay, Stephens, Daylle, Eraſmus, and others proving how much his Works as well as Origens have been abuſed, and things fathered upon him that were never his) yet the erronious grounds upon which Infants Bahtiſm is aſſerted therein, takes away the Credit and Authority of the ſaid Council, determining as one well ſaith Childrens Baptiſm, by ſuch Childiſh Reaſons.
But the matter of Fact ſay they is clear, which witneſſed, that the Church had then ſuch a practiſe, and which all our three Adverſaries much inſiſt upon,
As to matter of Fact in Antiquity, (if this ſhould be granted, of which I ſee not much cauſe, for at beſt it was but advice, and that upon erroneous grounds too, no Preſident as yet apparing in the Caſe) it would ſignifie little to create a practiſe from it. For that Children were Baptized for health, and Church Walls were alſo ſolemnly Baptized for dedication, and after that Bells &c. cannot be denyed, ſhall we therefore be warranted to do the like from thoſe Preſidents? But in as much as here was no Example, or matter of Fact, nor any advice but upon corrupt and erroneous grounds, this can ſignifie nothing; the grounds of the advice being rejected by the Paedobaptiſts, therefore the advice it ſelf as to matter of Fact is rejected be them alſo; all that can be gathered from it, if true, is only that ſuch a Cuſtom was creeping in. We know giving the Sacrament to Infants is ſuppoſed to be very ancient, and continued very long in uſe 600 years, ſaith Maldonat on Jo. 6. and that amongſt the Greeks as well as Latins, aſſiſted by Auſtin, Innocent, & others, (if not by Cyprian alſo) & that it was Apoſtolical, or founded upon the Scriptures, but is not that rejected?
But holy Cyprian, ſaith Mr. Baxter, tells us, as p. 276. More Proofs, was an eminent worthy, a great Father and Pillar of the Church, and ought not to be ſlighted. Yet by his leave Father Cyprian was not Father Paul, nor any Apoſtle to us, nor doth he give us any warranty from the Word of God, and Chrlſts Precept to ground ſuch a practiſe upon, but the contrary, and that which Paedobaptiſts now a days reject, as very erroneous. And if he tells us, we ſhould do any thing as Apoſtolical without a word, we muſt give as little credit to him, as when he tells us, Chryſm is ſo, (which the Magd. tell us he doth, Cent. 3. p. 82. out of Cyprian, l. 1. Ep. 12. though Mr. Wills denies the ſame) or as when he tells us of the neceſſity of Exorciſms, the Authority of Peters Chair, Alms to take away ſin, that the Adminiſtrator gives the Spirit in the act of Baptiſm, of Rebaptization, by undoubted Councils confirmed, Perfuſion of the Clinici, Diluting of Wine, or mingling Water with it in the Sacrament &c.
I have been the larger upon theſe Two, Origen and Cyprian, becauſe my Three Antagoniſts, and others, do lay ſo much ſtreſs upon them, to prove their Antiquity from, but how little they ſignifie you now ſee.
Thus we have ended the point of Antiquity; and which we ſhall conclude with an Appeal to the LearnedAn Appeal to the Learned. of all perſwaſions, Whether there is not good cauſe to write Antiquity upon Believers, and Novelty upon Infants Baptiſm; Nothing more appearing for it for the Four firſt Centuries, than has yet been brought forth by our oppoſites, And ſo much for the Antiquity of Believers Baptiſm.