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
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
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
Practise of the Church in Baptizing Infants of Believiâ—g Parents And withall that though h mselâ— had not anâ—wered those Arguments in his Libertâ— of Prâ—pâ—eâ—y which some thought stood in need of an wering Yet D ctoâ— Hamond hâ—d effectually done the same in his Letter of Resolution to six Qâ—eryes pag. 35 36 c. To which I reply Answ That as to those Arguments of Dâ—ctor Taylers I have already in the Prâ—face of both my Books said to this purpose That what ever was his ju gement or end in writing those things yet it was meet to remark them to the World that the Wisdom and Power of God might more appear if an Eâ—emy to bring â—orth such convincing Aâ—guments and Reaâ—ons from his own mouth to witness to his dispised reproached truth Yet truly Reasons why the pâ—ea for Anabaptists was Dr. Taylers own sence 1. Reason for what as yet appears to the contrary the Doctor seems to have spoken therein his own as well as ur apprehension in the greatest part of those Arguments and that for these following Demonstrations First Because the Doctor having spoken to all the usual Arguments brought by the Protestaâ—ts for Infants Baptisme and answered them distinctly doth in the conclusion speaking his own words say these two things very considerable First that through the weakness of the Paedobaptists Arguments which are nâ—t good in thâ—mselves those other Argâ—ments in plea for the Aâ—abaptists are good in â—pposing them and so they are accidentally strenght ed in their errour as he calls it by the weâ—â—ness and coâ—fiâ—ence of weak oppâ—sition And it is to be observed thâ—t those Arguments which he so reproves as weak and with so much Demonstration hath Baffled are these that fâ—llow summed up bre slâ— in his own words Paedobaptiâ—â—s Argumeâ—tâ— by 〈◊〉 â—aylâ—r Liberty of Prophecy p. 228 First tâ—e Aâ—gumeâ—ts pleaded from the instâ—â—â—tioâ— of the Type viz. Circumcisiâ—n Gen. 17. Secondly From the action of Christ calling little Children to come to him to bless them Matth. 19.14 Thirdly From the Title Infants have to Heaven Fourthly From the Gospel Instruction and Precept Joh. 3 5. Fifthly From the energy of the promise Acts 2.38 39. Sixthly From the Reasonableness of the thing 1 Cor. 7. Seventhly From the infinite necessity on the Childrens part Eightly From the Apostolical practice who having Commission to teach all Nations baptizing them did Baptize whole Housholds Infants being part of Nations and Housholds Tenthly From the universal practise of the Church and Gossips to answer for them to supply incapacity made good by Tradition The Answer he gives hereto These are the Arguments that he answers distinctly which first in the Anabaptists plea he saith pretend fairly and signify nothing some of these Alligaeions being false some impertinent and all the rest insufficient And all which agreeable hereto in his own words after he had replyed to every one of them he was pleased to pronounce weak and insuffiicient and which had therefore given so much strength and confirmation to the Anabaptists way 2. Reason And Secondly concludes all with these words That there is much more truth then evidence oâ— their side and giving no better or other Argument to aemonstrate that truth was with them Now I appeal to all Men of understanding whether any but a Person that disponded the goodness of his Cause and designed wholy to give it up could say that the evidence demonstration or proof was on his Adversaries side all his own pleas brought forth being removed and taken away himself being Judge But 't is said Objection That though he mentioned no other Arguments then yet he afterwards did in that which Mr. Wills calls his Excellent piece for Infants Baptisme Wills p. 36. It is true Answer about six years after he had writen his Liberty of Prophecy that being writ 1647. he did Anno 1653. being much laid at by many of his Friends and having given such general offence to his whole party thereby take himself concerned to say something Being a 3. Reason to perswade the World he was of an other mind though when he had said it it amounts to just nothing to any considering Person and which may appear to you from these Reasons following First Because he undertakes not to answer 1. D. Tayler Answers none of those Arguments or invalidate one of those Arguments whereby he had on the Anabaptists behalf overthrown all those weak Arguments before mentioned and that though some judged they stood in need of answering and that he had thoughts to have done it yet he forbore it upon some considerations which Master Wills repeates from him p. 36. Secondly 2. Repeats only some of the old Baffled Arguments Because what he saith in that Treatise which Mr. Wills so boasts off is not any new thing but some of the very same Arguments he had before juâ—ged so weak and insuffiicient and had so substantially answered and baffled As first that from Circumcisioâ— Secondly From Children right to the Kingdom of Heaven Thirdly To adopt them into the Coverant Fourthly From Apostolical tradition Only adds two or three more savoring more grosly of Popery viz. from the use and necessity of Baptisme to pardon thiir sin Regenerate and save them 3. Because in othâ—r Books he confirmed the truth of them And Thirdly it also appears that he spoke his own mind and sense therein because in those two Books he wrote so many years after viz. in his Diâ—wasive against Popery second part and in his Rule of Conscience he hath spoken so much agreeable hereto as before hath been observed to you viz. That there was no Apostolâ—cal Tradition for Infants Baptiâ—me That it was nâ—t practised fill the third nor judged necessary till the fourth Century That there was no Scriptural proof for Infants Bâ—ptisme That the Children of Christian Parents were not Bâ—ptisme till they came to understanding for the first Ages And that dipping and not sprinkling was the usage of Christ and his Apostles and constant Doctrine and practâ—â—e of the the Ancients for maâ—y hundred years And which I conceive are substantial Arguments to prove the Doctor sâ—oâ—e his owns as well as our judgement therein and which I must stand by till I see better Reason to the contrary Oâ—jection But 't is said one Reason Doctor Tayler gives why he did not answer those Arguâ—ents was because his worthy Frâ—end Doctor Hamond had in charity and humility descended to answer that Collectiâ—n Answer It is true indeed Doctor Hamond in that piece called his Letter of Râ—solutoin to six Queries bound up now in his first volume in Folio p. 481 doth therein pretend to reply thereto as being as he confesseth the most diligent Collection that he ever met with wherein the Arguments of the Adversaries are so inforced that he knew not where to furnish himself with so exact a scheame But how far he hath performed that Task and answered those Arguments
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
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 early 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 are 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 the 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 bâ—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 Magus 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 years 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 Iâ—enaeus Testimony signifies you have heard and therefore that neither Irenaeus or any other but Origens 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 't is 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 shâ—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 and 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 tâ—e charge â—herein Mr. Wills â—ppears to be grâ—sly â—â—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 Oâ—igens works in these words At qui lâ—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 〈◊〉 â—ct 〈◊〉 cheat Hic Lâ—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 Soriâ—es suo se produnt indicio Herein the Booksellers hâ—ve been very impudent both in the Preface and conclusion 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 Homâ—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 iâ— 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 cujus 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 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
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 of 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 Onely 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 Councâ—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 thesâ— words conclude against any â—nstitution or Determinaiton in this as well as any other Councel and this to be sure if it be not in this supposed Councel of Cyprian dâ—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 instituteâ— 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 mâ—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 and 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 it 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 it s not forbidding cannot justify any thing in Gods worship and that nothing but an express Scrâ—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