Christianismus redivivus Christndom both un-christ'ned and new-christ'ned, or, that good old way of dipping and in-churching of men and women after faith and repentance professed, commonly (but not properly) called Anabaptism, vindicated ... : in five or six several systems containing a general answer ... : not onely a publick disputation for infant baptism managed by many ministers before thousands of people against this author ... : but also Mr. Baxters Scripture proofs are proved Scriptureless ... / by Samuel Fisher ...

Baptist

How reasonless is it to put questions to infants through their parents ears, and then very gravely suppose them answering again through their parents mouthes? yea as reasonless as to suppose that all people should see through none but the blind priests eyes; nor yet to stand reasoning how reasonless a thing it is to signi∣fie things to sucklings while they understand them not, and that too by such a va∣nishing visible sign, that when they can understand, they neither see, nor never shall, and such like Trumpioall transactions, to which there are as few grains of reason concurring, as there are inches in an Apes tail, even your selves, howe∣ver it happens that you so contradict your selves (yet that is no news with you) as to sound it out here how Reason fights on your sides for infant baptism, are e∣ven in this very cause found falling out with, and fighting down right against rea∣son hand smooth but some four or five pages below this, why else is there such a reasonles reply made to seven or eight several objections, which by your own confe∣ssion p. 16. reason makes against infant baptism, but ile spare you till I come thither.

3^ly That the practise and authority of the Church of God you so much boast of from the beginning and the Fathers thereof, which you complain and grumble much p. 1.11.12. that twas set aside, and might not be admitted into your assistance at the Disputation, is so utterly against your infant baptism, that even this alone were it of any esteem with you, had bin enough to have silenced all your disputes for it, and laid the itch, and quencht the heat of your hearts after that meer novelty, is most manifest, if by the Church of God, and the Fathers ther∣of you mean what I do, viz. the Church of God in the primitive, which were the best and purest times of the Gospel, whose practise in this particular is set out in the word, but specially in the Acts of the Apostles, the fathers of which Church and of the Church in after ages too were the Apostles themselves, viz. Father Peter, Father Paul, Father Barnabas, Father Iames, Father Iohn, and the rest whose authority from Christ was great indeed, and adequate with the Scri∣ptures then written, and the foundation for all the Churches to build on, and such was not the authority of the Churches then, much less since which are to be sub∣jected to their word in Scripture, this Church, and these fathers never knew such a baptism as yours, nor is there the least tittle of talk concerning any such mat∣ter to be found among them.

Or if by the Church and Fathers of it, whose authority and practise you build on, you mean those of the ages next to the Apostles.

Then first I marvel, why you should put your selves upon the triall by succeed∣ing ages, and decline the first and purest age of the Gospel of all, specially since theres as clear history, and more infallible testimony given in the word, of what was done by the Church, and the first fathers the Apostles, then ever was in any age inferiour to it whatsoever, and more specially yet since its being in after ages

is no palpable argument of its being in the first age, for the mystery of iniquity was at work from the very Apostles, tis now, Ergo it was then is not so good a wherefore to our why as we look for, besides tis ingenuously confest by your own writers viz. Mr. Blake in answer to Mr. Blackwood p. 58. that faith can hang on the humane testimony of the succeeding fathers, in whose daies infant bap∣tism was, no further then de facto viz. that it was onely, and not de jure that it ought to be, and Mr. Marshal p. 5. of his sermon, that the practise of the thing in their dayes proves not the truth of it at all.

Secondly, neither doth the second Century help you so much as to a proof de facto. For

First, as much as you would seem to be verst among the fathers (in which ma∣ny Priests are better read then in the Scriptures, and some to seem to be better read there then they are, will quote the fathers when they have not read them, but by snaches, and pickt a few fine phrases out of them, to make their sermons the more sententious, yea and sometimes for those very sentences, for which they might more truly quote the Apostles, that primitively pend them, witnesse one of your tribe whom I heard with my own ears say of Heb. 2.16. he took not on him the nature of Angels, thus viz. for as Saint Barnard saith, when as he might as well have said, as the spirit, or as the Scripture saith, He took not on him &c. if yet he knew that twas in the Scripture) as much I say as you are versed in the fathers, you are desired by Mr. Blackwood (a man better read in those fathers then either you or I) yea you and Mr. Marshall also, who quotes Iustin Martyr, are desired by him in his storming of Antichrist p. 25.26.27. to prove if you can out of any place of Iustins genuine works, who is the antientest father extant next the Apostles, whose works are accounted on, that there is so much as the name of infant baptism, much more the thing; yea he tells you ye may as soon find a Dolphin in the woods, as any such thing: save onely that tis once mentioned in a spurious book falsely called his, out of which book Mr. Marshalls quotati∣on is, neither doth Mr. Blake gainsay this, nor yet Mr. Marshall in their replies, nay they rather seem to grant that its to be doubted it was so, which makes me as well as Mr. Blackwood, not a little wonder that Mr. Marshall should quote it with so much confidence, I mean so as to assert it thereupon as a matter manifest, that the Church (counting from the time of Iustin Martyr viz. 150) hath bin possest of the priviledg of infant baptism for the space of 1500 years and upwards, for had he not doubted but that the words, he cites were without question the words of Iustin himself, he had not had sin, but now he hath no cloak, sith he demonstrates to all men Dubitatum per magis dubium, and tells the world to make them believe that Iustin disputes the condition of children that dye baptized and unbaptized, when yet its not believed, but much doubted by himself, whe∣ther Iustin did any such thing yea or no: as to the words Mr. Marshal p. 4. of his sermon cites out of Irenaeus who lived toward the end of the second Century, which Englisht are thus viz. Christ came by himself to save all, all I say, who are born again unto God, infants and little ones &c. its not likely that in this sentence that father by the word [born again] meant baptism (as Mr. Blake and Mr. Marshal contend) for by that sence they father such absurdity upon that their father, as children that pretend to honour their father, may be ashamed of, whilst they make him say, Christ came to save all infants that are baptized, when as neither all infants, that are baptized are actually saved, quâ bapti∣zed, nor are any unbaptized infants damned, quâ not baptized, but both alike saved as both alike they either dye before they have bard themselves by actu∣al sin, and derserved exemption, or living to years believe and obey Christ, and both alike damned as living to years they both alike obey not his Gospel, but however let Mr. Blake and Mr. Marshal squeeze what they can from the quotati∣on, it must yet remain as doubtful whether the speech of Irenaeus (if it were his

own) were at all of infants baptism, as it doth whether the speech fathered on Iu∣stin (though it be of infants baptism) were at all his own: and so what dubious e∣vidence the second century affords, so much as de facto, that infant baptism was then in being, all men may see, whilst you can say no more then perhaps it was so, and a fool may say as much as perhaps it was not, which is a proportiona∣ble answer to that argument, for tis commonly said in the Schooles (saies Mr. Marshal) that forte ita, solvitur per forte non.

Secondly, but what if your testimony de facto concerning the practise of infant baptism in the second century were as clear, as tis cloudy, yet what green headed antiquity is this in comparison of that we plead from viz. the Apostles them∣selves? when you are stormed out of all your strong holds then you send us still to ages above us, and cry out your practise is of 1500 years standing, but sith you can∣not say as we can of ours, tis above 1600 years old (nor is yours now likely to live to it) as good you had said but 15 for our way onely being found in the first century, and yours not at all before the second, we are a people so much elder then you upstarts, that your antiquity is but novelty with us, whoregardlesse of what by mans wisdome was foisted in in after ages, can aver with as much con∣fidence as you can that now it is that from the beginning it was not so, nor yet in end shall be: I much marvel why Mr. Marshall contents himself to preach po∣sitively no otherwise then thus, p. 3. viz. this priviledge of baptizing infants the Christian Church hath bin in possession of for the space of 1500 years and upwards: he might as easily have said 1600, had his ground been as good for that as for the other, and yet his ground for the other is so infirm, and sinking un∣der him, that I believe he must fall down as low as the third century, before he find sure footing for his proof of no more then the bare practise of infant baptism.

As for the Ius of it its nere the nearer, if he could prove the matter of fact to be in the second, though that still is the main question betwen us, sith tis confest by Mr. Marshall that he uses not the Testimony and judgements of the Antients to witnesse to the truth of it, but onely to prove a then practise of infant baptism, and the question de jure whether infants ought to be baptized, no one of the fathers, nor yet the joint consent of many (saith Mr. Blake p. 58. of his to Mr. Blackwood) is a competent Iudge, therefore if any of you, who stand so much upon that young antiquity of it, and plead the authority of the Church and fathers shall argue thus, tis 1500 years old, therefore it is 1600 you live below that candor ingenuity, and discretion that I find in Mr. Marshal and Mr. Blake, who both deny your con∣sequence, and in this case close with us in the very truth.

Thirdly, as for the third century, tis somewhat more then probable that such a superstition as infant baptism was comming in at least, or else tis like there would not have been such pro and con as was about it, for, true, Or••gen (if the Testimonies fathered on him be his own (which he who well weighs what evidence is put in to the contrary by Mr. Blakwood p. 34 of his Rioynder to Mr. Blake, where he saith, that the original of Origen is ••ost, that the Translator confesses he added many things of his own, that Erasmus saies one cannot be sure whether one read Ruffinus or Origen, that the learned put his commentary on the Romans among his counterfeit works, as much sophisticated by Ruffinus, and also what is said by Mr. Tombs too (notwithstanding all that Mr. Marshall brings p. 15.16.17.18. of his to Mr. Tombes, whereby to salve it, will find small ground to believe) Origen I say, a man of many errors, stiles it a tradition received from the Apostles, which if you will believe implicitly you may, but else you need not, for tis no more then a bare scripturelesse assertion, Cyprian also, and a Councel of 66 bishops, almost contemporary to Origen, are supposed to be of some such mind, but upon such silly grounds, as you that now plead infants baptism, are ashamed of, witnesse Mr. Blake p. 40 who denies them not to be erroneous as Mr. Blakwood calls them, and therefore you may as well be ashamed of their opinion and expression of it al∣so,

it being (for all their reasons) as scriptureless as that of Origen, who brings no∣thing to prove what he said.