consideration That in this Century Tertullian perswading to defer both the Baptism of Children and others who are of age doth thereby intimate that it was the custom of the Church at that time to Baptize the one as well as the other otherwise there was no reason why he should desire that they would defer the one as well as the other Concerning Tradition which Mr. Danvers saith is the principal ground that hath been urged for Infants-Baptism with an answer thereto Sect. 2. To make out this he quotes Austin who calls it an Apostolical Tradition to which I said in my Answer that anciently the greatest points of Faith were by the Fathers named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so they are called by the Apostle 2 Thes. 2. 15. which is all one with Divine Doctrines or Ordinances for so the word is rendered 1 Cor. 11. 2. And to make this more fully appear the Magdiburgs tell us that Bazil calls the manner of Baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost a Tradition by which he means the Doctrine of the Lord Christ. Magd. Cent. 4. c. 4. p. 235. Egregie Basilius hâc de re scribit lib. 3. contra Eunomium Baptismus noster est secundum Traditionem Domini in nomine Patris c. that is our Baptism is according to the Tradition of the Lord in the name of the Father c. Again Bazil in his Book de Spiritu sancto by Tradition means the Scripture as Hermannus Hamelmannus observes de Tradit Apost tacitis p. 355. Certum est quod Basilius per vocabulum Traditionis aliquando Scripturam intelligit it is certain that Bazil doth sometimes understand by the word Tradition the Scripture for so he speaks to Amphilochius in his 10th Chapter of the above-mentioned Book of the Holy-Spirit Hanc Traditionem quae me perduxit ad lucem ac Dei cognitionem largita est c. If Austin then means the same that Bazil doth by Tradition viz. the Scripture he says true when he tells us that Infants-Baptism were not to be believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition and although he intends the word otherwise in that famous speech of his in his 4th Book against the Donatists Chap. 24. which Mr. Danvers doth ill in curtailing namely That if any do inquire for a Divine Authority for the Baptizing Children let them know What the Universal Churh holds nor was instituted in Councils but always retained is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other than by Apostolical Authority to which this is added in the next words Tamen veraciter conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulis Baptismi Sacramentum ex circumcisione Carnis quam prior populus accepit that is Nevertheless we may conjecture how much the Sacrament of Baptism is available to Children by the Circumcision of the Flesh which the former people received His next instance is from Bellarmin that it is an Apostolical Tradition c. But Mr. Danvers is not ignorant that Bellarmin saith Satis aperte Collâ—gitur ex scripturis to which purpose we have him Tom. 3. lib. 1. c. 8. de Sacrament It is clearly gathered from Scripture A third passage Mr. Danvers brings from Dr. Field in his Book of the Church Chap 20. Where speaking of the several sences in which the word Tradition is taken he saith That Infants-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not delivered in the Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or that they should do so And is it fair dealing for Mr. Danvers to stop here when the following words would have cleared the point which are these yet is not this received by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it lib. 4. p. 375. and the more inexcusable is our Antagonist being formerly minded of this unfaithfulness in our Infant-Baptism Asserted c. And when I shewed to a Friend that hath a great respect for the Anabaptists how he had served Dr. Field the said person presently said certainly Mr. Danvers is either weak or wicked The last instance is from the Convocation at Oxford and he deals unfairly with them likewise by altering and disordering their words For he quotes them thus That without the Consentaneous judgment and practice of the universal Church they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof in the point of Infant-Baptism whereas they are expressed in another strain and less advantageous to Mr. Danvers's purpose being thus That the Consentient judgment and practice of the universal Church is the best interpreter of Scripture in things not clearly exprest and then they say that without it they should be at a loss in sundry points of Faith and manners believed and practiced when by Socinians and Anabaptists they are called upon for proofs instancing in the Trinity and Coequality of persons in the Godhead baptizing Infants â—â—e observation of the Lords day and even the Canon of the Scripture it self c. Mr. Danvers having as he thinks cleared his Position proceeds to draw a parallel between Papists and Protestants to shew that there is no great difference between them after the manner as I have represented the Protestant sentiments in the point To which I reply 1. That the Papists hold many things that are Orthodox and sound especially in Doctrinals but are very corrupt in Discipline and abominably unsound in the point of Tradition for they equal it with Scripture and the Council of Trent determined that Tradition was to be entertained pari pietatis affectu with the like affection as the Scripture c. The Protestants abhor this as may be seen at large in the afore-mentioned Author Hamelmannus in his Book of Traditions where disputing against Staphilus and Cassander and speaking particularly of Infants-Baptism p. 818. he saith non nobis satisfaeceret nisi peteretur probatio paedobaptismi ex Scripturis Tradition would not satisfie us unless we had Scripture-proof for it Now for his Parallel 1. Do the Papists saith he maintain that the Ecclesiastical Tradition of Infants-Baptism as it is gathered from the Scripture and appointed by the Church is of equal Authority with Scripture it self so saith he doth Mr. Wills assert for Protestant Doctrine That the Tradition of Infants-Baptism proved by Consequential Arguments from the Scripture ought to be esteemed as firm and good as the Scripture it self and to prove that I say so Mr. Danvers refers the Reader to p. 117. of my Book where there is nothing spoken of Tradition but only a position quoted from Mr. Baxter's Scripture-proof viz. That evident consequences or Arguments drawn by Reason from Scripture are as true proof as the very words of a Text. And is there any hurt in this can any man that is rational deny it doth not Dr. Owen positively assert it Nay doth not Mr. Danvers himself tell us We admit of plain consequences Reply p. 69. though he will not
esteemed Authentick quoting Erasmus for it and for this Mr. Danvers falls foul on me this being another of his great charges in his Preface that I abuse Erasmus who saith quite contrary to what he saith I father on him As 1. That the Translation of the Homilies on the Romans appeared to him to be Ruffinus's and not Jeroms 2. That the Preface to the Translation which represents it as Jerom's was a cheat of the Bookseller as Erasmus notes To this I answer 1st That Erasmus doth not say that the Homilies upon the Romans set forth as translated by Jerom were Ruffinus's Homilies and not Origen's 2. The Magdeburgs reckoning up the legitimate Works of Jerom in the story of his Life do mention that of translating Origen on the Romans to be one and that according to the Judgment of Erasmus Cent. 4. Cap. 10. p. 1218. Extant inter Origenis Opera Latinè facta quaedam quorum interpres fuit Hieronimus Erasmi judicio that is among the works of Origen some are translated into Latin by Jerom in the Judgment of Erasmus and then they nam which they are as follows As the Homilies upon Jeremy which have Jerom's Preface to them the Homilies upon Ezekiel the 39. Homilies upon Luke cum Praefatione Hieronymi with Jeroms Preface and ten Books of Origen's Comments upon the Romans there 's that which will clear me against all Mr. Danver's reproaches cum ejusdem praefatione with Jerom's Preface I appeal now to the Reader whether I had not good Authority for what I said That according to Erasmus's judgment Jerom translated Origen on the Romans You see from whence I had mine information The Magdeburgs affirm that both Translation and Preface too were Jerom's and Mr. Danvers knew it to be so for in my Answer I directed him to the Century and page in the Magdeburgensian History from whence I had it And therefore 't is a sorry trick of him to slur me as he hath done in this thing and make such an Exclamation against me What credit is to be given unto Mr. Wills let all men judg he might rather have said what credit is to be given to the Magdeburgs and their excellent History as Mr. D. calls it let all men judg for if I was deceived they deceived me 3. I have yet further to say and that is that I have another to speak on my behalf Dr. Hammond of no small note for his knowledg in Antiquity and perhaps not inferior to Erasmus who tells us in his Letters of Resolution p. 215. that though we have not Origen upon the Romans in Greek yet being translated by Jerom and so owned by him in his Epistle to Heraclius prefixt before the Commentary we have his Authority to secure us that the words about Infant-Baptism were Origens And let it be supposed that Jerom did not translate those on the Romans and that the Homilies themselves are spurious and none of Origens Yet those on Luke pass for current without controul and there the point of Infant-Baptism is as fully asserted as in the other place on the Romans Against this also Mr. Danvers hath borrowed a scrap from Mr. Tombes who finding nothing in Erasmus Censures hath yet by good hap hit upon a word in Erasmus Comment on Luke 1. 3. The words of Erasmus are For so he seems to think whosoever he was whose Commentaries are extant upon Luke under the title of Admantius which shews saith Mr. Tombes that Erasmus took them not to be Origens or at least doubted thereof It is very remarkable that Mr Tombes should spy out this passage much more that he should comment thus upon it For what Erasmus speaks of Origen upon Luke might as well be said of every Book nor can any man say posatively these are the Books written by Justin Martyr or Tertullian so that to interpret that passage of Erasmus for a doubt is but a meer Cavil But that he doubted not that Jerom translated Origen on Luke take his own clear word for it in his Censure Homil. In Lucam Dubium non est quin 39 Homilias in Lucam verterit Hieronimus quod ipse palam in praefatione profitetur There is no doubt to be made of it saith he that Jerom translated the 39 Homilies on Luke And if Jerom translated them as there is no doubt according to Erasmus then we need not doubt but he did it from the Original Copy of Origen Judg now Reader what Mr. D. hath got in this Business notwithstanding all the Clutter he hath kept with his boastings and defamings we see by what is said That we have Infants-Baptism owned as from the Apostles by Origen on Luke whatever becomes of that on the Romans and translated by Jerom of which Erasmus doth not in the least doubt so that the Fabrick stands yet upright never like to be demolisht by Mr. Danvers what-ever great exploits he hath done heretofore in the days of his Colonelship Our last Testimony is from Cyprian against whom also he hath something to say though methinks that of Vossius is enough to silence all Cavils viz. That the Testimony of Cyprian for Infants-Baptism both in his time and before is beyond all exception And Grotius speaks to the same purpose viz. That the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus maks the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infants-Baptism Against this he gives in three Exceptions in his Treatise of Baptism presented again in his Reply as First Infants-Baptism is not urged by Cyprian for an Apostolical Tradition nor upon any Authority of Scripture but upon his Own and Bishops Arguments though if he should have said it was an Apostolical Tradition his word he saith would have no more been taken than when he tells us Chrysm was so To which I replyed in my Answer That though Cyprian did not say it was Apostolical yet it follows not he did not own it as such yea to put it out of doubt the Magdeburgs tell us he did own it as Apostolical Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 6. p. 496. But what though the Magdiburgs tell us so saith he that 's no more than if Mr. Wills had said it Strange that such venerable persons as those famous Divines were that have written such an excellent History as Mr. Danvers else-where terms it should be of no more credit with him than my self whom he so much vilifieth But hath he not forgotten what he speaks just before That Cpyrian held Chrysin to be an Apostolical Tradition and is it not strange that he should not hold the same of Pedobaptism But whether he did or not is not material to the point which is now before us for we are inquiring de facto what was done in Cyprian's time as to the Baptizing Children not de jure upon what ground they did it or whether 't was esteemed Apostolical if the practice was owned 't is as much as we need to put by Mr. Danvers's Cavil and that it was so Mr. Tombes his great
leguntur yet they add in the very next line that Origen and Cyprian affirm that even in the Apostles days Infants were baptized since these Fathers lived in the next Century after the Apostles they may very well be thought to understand what the Apostles did In the 2d Century Mr. Danvers quotes from the Magdiburgs some of Justin Martyr's words in his Apology to Antoninus Pius where mention is made of Instruction and fasting and prayer before Baptism but withal conceals what in the same place the Magdiburgs tell us that this was the Method which was used in reference to Aliens upon their Conversion to Christianity for these are their words Cum qui ad fidem Christianam conversus esset sat instructus c. that is when any one was converted to the Christian Faith he was sufficiently instructed before Baptism In the 3d Century he doth egregiously prevaricate in telling us that the Magdiburgs say As to the Rites of Baptism they have no Testimony of alteration for hereby he doth suggest to the Reader that in this Age as well as in the former there was no Baptism owned but that of the Adult whereas 1. Those words as to the Rites of Baptism they have no Testimony of alteration are his own words and not the Magdiburgs who say only this viz. Baptizandi ritus in Ecclesiis Asianis observatos hoc seculo quia omnium ferme Doctorum Asiaticorum scriptis destituimur commemorare non possumus that is We cannot rehearse the Rites of Baptizing observed in the Asiatick-Churches because we want for the most part the Writings of the Asiatick Doctors 2. He silently passeth by what they do expresly say was in use in this Age namely that Adult persons of both sexes and also Infants were baptized Baptizabantur in utroque sexu Adulti simul et Infantes Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. 3. Further under this head he perverts the Sence of Mr. Baxter's words and carrys them quite off from the intent and scope of his Discourse as you may see in his Saints Rest Part 1. c. 8. sect 5. For what is there spoken from Origen and Cyprian of an express Covenanting before Baptism is meant of Adult Strangers nor is Mr. Baxter treating there of Baptism but something else And at this rate what Author can be secure from the Violence of his interpretations And if he had thought on it he might have urged for Adult Baptism that of the Magdiburgs Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. where having said as before That persons of both Sexes both Aged and Infants were baptized the words immediately following are these Adultorum autem aliquandiu antequam baptizabantur fides explorabatur i. e. But as touching the Adult they enquired after Faith and Repentance before they were baptized Thus much for the 3 first Centuries wherein as you see Mr. Danvers is sufficiently faulty and yet as if he were most innocent he doth in the preface to his Innocency and Truth most confidently address himself to the Reader and complements him in a high strain saying that at his Bar the matter is now brought betwixt me and him and all that he asks is only to do themselves and the Truth in question so much right as to afford the Common Justice of an open ear that having heard the Recrimination he means Crimination they will also attend to what is said for Vindication But the specious Title of a Book or Daring Preface will never blind an intelligent Reader who will judg of things not by a parcel of confident words but secundum allegata probata according as things are alledged and proved In the next place we come to the 4th Century concerning which Mr. Danvers saith I make a great Cry though I know no such Vociferation but only a just Censure made against him by reason of the Authorities of this Age which he hath so much abused For in his Treatise of Baptism in both Editions he thus speaks In this Age they the Magdiburgs tell us That it was the universal practice to Baptize the Adult upon Profession of Faith if he quotes it not to shew that it was the practice to Baptize only the Adult it is impertinent but his grand Assertion both in his Treatise of Baptism and in his Reply p. 4. That Adult Baptism was only practised in the 4th Century denotes in what sense we are to understand him Now for Mr. Danvers thus to father on the Magdiburgs what they never spake and also to pervert what they did speak renders him chargeable with Falshood and Prevarication for 1. They say no such thing that it was the Universal Practice to baptize only the Adult upon profession of Faith But of this in its proper place when we shall make good the Charge of Falshood against him in divers other things as well as this 2. They do indeed tell us That in the Churches of Asia the Baptized were for some time first instructed and were called Catechumens wherein then lies the prevarication Why 1. Because the Instances there given by the Magdiburgs were Aliens For they tell us of some Jews taking it from Athanasius that being newly converted to Christianity prostrated themselves at the feet of the Bishop and desired Baptism Narrat de Judeis Berythi Athanasius in lib. de passione Domini quod ad Episcopi ejus urbis genua advoluti Baptisma petierint quos ipse cum clericis suis suscipiens per dies multos in doctrina Christianae pietatis erudierit which Jews after they had been for many days instructed in the doctrine of Christian Piety the said Bishop with his Clarks baptized 2. Because a little before in the same Chapter the Magdiburgs have these words Baptizabantur autem aquâ publicè in Templis cujuscunq sexus aetatis et conditionis homines men of all ages sexes and conditions were baptized publickly in the Temples how could this be by dipping and lest it should be thought Children were not comprehended under those universal terms they say in the same chapter De Asianis Ecclesiis Nazianzenus loquens Infantes baptizandos esse ait c. Nazianzen speaking of the Churches of Asia saith That Children were to be baptized And note here by the way Reader That because in my Answer I have not gone on with the following words of Nazianzen si aliquid immineat periculi that is in case any thing of danger happen Mr. Danvers doth in his Preface exclaim against me for curtailing that Father but the judicious Reader may understand that he quarrels at me without a cause for my business was to prove that Infants Baptism was owned in that Century as to matter of fact and not to discourse the ground of it or to enquire in what cases it was done and therefore he might have spared his frivolous charge about that matter It is truely observed by one of the Anabaptists party That my Antagonist is so tenacious that he will stand in a thing although all the World gainsay
is so bold as to say that the Magdiburgs tell us it was the Universal Practice to Baptize the Adult upon profession of Faith Treatise of Baptism Edit 1. p. 64. when they say otherwise namely That persons of all ages were baptized in the Temples and cite Nazianzen for baptizing of Infants in the Churches of Asia to which also we have added the Testimonies of Hillary Ambrose Jerom Chrisostom Austin all of the 4th Century and for Infants Baptism lastly he brings the Canons of the 3 Councils of Carthage Laodicea and Neocaesaria which have not a word in them against Infants Baptism and what is decreed about Confession before Baptism relates to Strangers as I presume I have made it appear beyond all doubt in the two last of them if that of Neocaesaria ever had a being But I must proceed on and follow Mr. Danvers for he tells us he is not alone in his Opinion and therefore brings in divers Authorities to confirm it that only the Adult upon confession of Faith were the subjects of Baptism in the first times p. 14 15. He begins with Strabo that saith In the first times Baptism was wont to be given to them only that could know and understand what profit was to be gotten by it But it seems by the story that Strabo his first-times go no higher than Austins Days for he instanceth in his being baptized at Age when-as we have Testimony that Childrens Baptism was in use in the Church above a hundred years before Austin was born And Austin that lived about four hundred years nearer the primitive times than Strabo affirms that the Church always had it and always held it Besides the Testimony of Strabo is not to be valued being condemned by Vossius and others for a false Historian We have formerly in our answer given instances thereof and particularly we noted that gross mistake of his That Sureties called God-Fathers and God-Mothers were first invented in Austin's days when Tertullian speaks of them above a hundred years before Next follows Beatus Rhenanus Rupertus Boemus Dr. Hammond and Mr. Baxter the eldest of whom lived but in the 12th Cent. according to Mr. Danvers and had no other way of knowing what was don in the first times than we and therefore let them affirm what they please unless they can prove it by the records of those times it signifies no more than if Mr. Danvers told us so And the contrary to what he asserts is apparent from Antiquity But because Mr. Danvers shall not say I slight his Authorities I shall particularly examine them And as for B. Rhenanus who lived in 15. Cent. what Mr. Danvers makes him say is very impertinent to his purpose For his business is to prove that only the Adult were then baptized which his quotation affirms not and what then doth it signifie but to help to swell his Book But I shall make it appear that Mr. D. hath shamefully mistaken Rhenanus's sense and thereby exceedingly abused him For B. Rhenanus in his Annot. upon Tertullian's Corona militis on those words Aquam adituri saith thus p. 500. Baptizandi ritum ostendit qui in usu Veterum fuit de quo Consuetudo quaedam mutavit Nam tum Adulti regenerationis lavacro tingebantur quotidie externis e Paganismo ad nostram Religionem confluentibus Siquidem id temporis ubique reperire erat Ethnicos Christianis admixtos Postea statis temporibus nempe bis in anno celebrari baptismus caeptus ejus enim rei nullam hic facit mentionem alioqui non omissurus Qui mos antiquus etiam per tempora Caroli Magni et Ludovici Augusti servatus est Judicant hoc Leges ab illis sancitae quibus cavetur ne quemquam sacerdotes baptizent excepto mortis articulo praeterquam in Paschate Pentacoste That is He Tertullian shews the Rite of baptising that was in use among the Ancients from which a certain custom hath made a change For then for the most part the Adult were baptized strangers daily flocking from Paganism to our Religion because at that time Heathens were every-where to be found mixed among the Christians Afterwards Baptism began to be celebrated at stated times to wit twice in the year for of this thing the two stated times of Baptism He Tertullian makes no mention here otherwise had it been in use he would not have omitted the mention of it Which ancient custom to wit of celebrating Baptism at two stated times of the year was also observed in the days of Charles the Great and Ludovick the Emperor as appears by the Laws made by them whereby care is taken that the Priests Baptize none except those at the point of death but at Easter and Whitsontide By this it is apparent 1st that by the Adult he means only Heathens newly converted and 2. By the ancient custom Baptizing at the two stated times of Easter and Whisontide and not the baptizing those that were come to their full growth as Mr. D. saith And to assure him Infants are not hereby excluded Rhenanus presently adds Hoc sic accipiendum ut sciamus Infantes post Pascha natos ad baptismum Pentacostes reservatos et natos post Pentacostem ad Paschatem festum diem Bapismo offerri solitos excepta seu dixi necessitate una cum adultis Catechumenis qui de externis nationibus Danorum c. similium populorum Christianae Religioni initiabantur That is this is so to be understood that we may know that these Infants that were born after Easter were reserved to the Baptism of Whitsontide and those that were born after Whitsontide to the Easter following except in case of necessity c. And now I perswade my self Mr. D. for very shame will take no more notice of this Quotation unless it be to acknowledg his Inadvertency in producing it His next Author is Rupertus in his 4th Book of Divine Offices c. 18. Here Mr. D. is guilty of most notorious forgery For in his second edition p. 73. he hath the same quotation and there he tells us Rupertus saith that in former times the custom was that they administred not the Sacrament of Regeneration but only at the Feast of Easter and Pentecost And here in his Reply p. 15. he alters the words and makes him say that they administred but only to the Catechumens c. If Mr. D. must have the liberty thus to deal with Authors I confess there is no standing against him But I hope the Reader will hereby be satisfied that this signifies no more as to his purpose than the former but deservedly renders him unworthy of belief in his Quotation of Authors Boemus follows who lived in the 16 Cent. though M. D. brings him into the 12th 2. Ed. p. 73. And he tells us there that he saith That in times past the custom was to administer Baptism only to those that were instructed in the Faith and seven times in the week before Easter and
of them and that is to the third and what is spoken by me with respect to one of them he represents as spoken of all the better to Accommodate his Quibling Queries It is sad to see how much he doth Abuse those Confessions how he doth wire-draw them as if they were Homogeneal with Anaxagoras his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon Aristotle's Record how he draws quidlibet ex quolibet every thing out of any thing Never was any Confessions in the world so prostituted to a corrupt fancy for thus he begins 1. Do all the Pedobaptists believe that Baptism and preaching the Word are joyn'd together to instruct the baptized parties and that thereby they have union with Christ and partake of his benefits Observe how Mr. Danvers stumbles at the Threshold how he preverts the Article For look back upon the Article and you will find it doth not say that Baptism and Preaching are joyned together to instruct the Baptized party Baptism is not mentioned in the Article though it be included in the word Sacraments afterward the Article speaks thus That we are instructed by the Word and then that God hath ordained the Sacraments to be joyned with it as a means to unite us to him 2. Do they indeed saith he believe the Lord's Supper to belong in common with Baptism to all the Members of the Church why then do not Infants partake of one as well as the other since it belongs to them in Common if Members of the Church Why if Mr. Danvers would know the reason it is this Because though the Child has a right as a Member to all the Ordinances yet he is not in a capacity to enjoy his right thus That persons may have a right to Ordinances and yet in no capacity to enjoy them appears in such as are sick or those that lose their Reason that are Church-Members 3. Do Paedo-baptists indeed with the Waldenses believe that Water in Baptism is the usual sign representing to the subjects thereof the invisible vertues of God operating in them viz. The Renovation of the Spirit and Mortification of their Members and can it be truly said it is so to an Infant that is not capable to put forth any act of Faith Repentance or Mortification or discern the least sign in the Water Yes it may be said it is so to an Infant very well and that upon as good a ground as Circumcision shadowed forth Mortification of Sin Regeneration though the Israelitish Babes understood none of this But Mr. Danvers doth ill again in altering the Article as you may perceive by looking back for it is not as he represents it the Article runs thus We believe that in the Sacrament of Baptism Water is the visible and external sign which represents to us not representing to the Subjects for unless I mistake as it is so worded it serveth more to his purpose 4. We agree with the Waldenses in the 4th Article for we have told Mr. Danvers formerly that Baptism it self is a real though implicit profession of Faith and the express verbal Confession of the Parent is reputed by God to be the Childs and so it was under the Law when the Parents humbled themselves and confessed their sins and brought their little ones with them even they also are said to be humbled before the Lord. 5. The 5th Query is precarious taking that for granted which we utterly deny and that is that the baptizing Children is an Antichristian humane Invention 6. Do they believe saith Mr. Danvers that Antichrist grounds all Christianity and Religion in the baptizing of Children attributing Regeneration to the outward Work done contrary to the Holy-Spirit why then saith he do they baptize Children which as acknowledged is the Basis and Foundation of the false Church and contrary to the Spirit and for which there is nothing but the Doctrine of Popes and Antichristian Councils to warrant it Not to say any thing of these unworthy reflections let the Reader once more take notice how he hath also perverted this Article look back and you will see what a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes of it and Metamorphoseth the Article into another thing for do but observe 1. They do not say Antichrist grounds all Christianity in Baptizing Children but if they had spoken it it had not been against Infants-Baptism but against placing too much in it 2. They say Antichrist attributes Regeneration to the dead outward work of Baptizing Children and that Regeneration must be had thereby and herein they say he grounds all Christianity 3. It is extreamly scandalous and false for Mr. Danvers to say that there is nothing for Infants-Baptism but the decrees of Popes and Antichristian Councils when we have so fully proved the use of it some hundreds of years before the coming of the Pope in the sense that the word is commonly taken viz. for Oecumenical Bishop challenging to himself and usurping Authority over the whole Church have we not before told him of Cyprian and Nazianzen and Chrysostom c. and was there not a Canon for it in the Milevitan Council and that before the Pope came in or any of his Decrees So that now upon consideration of the premises I suppose the unprejudiced Reader may be confirmed that the Waldenses were for Infant-Baptism by those very Confessions which Mr. Danvers cites against it We shall now give you some account of some of their Confessions which speak them expresly for it There is an ancient Confession that we meet with in Dr. Ushers Succession of the Church c. 8. p. 242. made by the Waldenses about the year 1176. as he takes it from Jacobus Gretserus his proleg in Script Edit contra Waldenses c. 1. and Hovenden's Annal. fol. 329. the words are Nos Credimus unum Deum trinum unum patrem filium spiritum sanctum c. and in the body of the Confession there is this Article Credimus parvulos salvari per Baptismum we believe Children are saved by Baptism which though it speak Error according to the darkness of those times being about five hundred years since yet it proves they were for Infant-Baptism for Gretserus saith they were Waldenses that made this Confession and not as is falsly suggested that it was the Inquisitors Confession for it was made before the Inquisitors to purge themselves from the Arrian and Manichean Heresies of which they were accused Another Confession is that published by Balthazar Lydias which was presented to Uladislaus King of Hungary where after they have given an account of their Faith in other points they come to that of Baptism and having spoken of Adult Baptism they add professio ista nostra etiam in pueros extenditur our Profession concerning Baptism extends also to Children But against this Mr. Danvers objects That this Confession said to be made by the Waldenses in Bohemia to King Uladislaus were not Waldenses as they themselves acknowledg in the preamble And further tells us
are not to be credited having abused the World with such palpable falsehoods neither is Twisk another of them found to be a true Chronologer all which we shall suddenly make appear when we come to shew their aberrations 5. Yea some are of opinion that this Dutch Martyrologie wherein we have such a Collection of pretended Martyrs for Anabaptism is designedly calculated for the Meridian of Anabaptistery which whether it be probable I leave to the Reader to judge when he hath pondred the meaning of one passage which Mr. Danvers hath quoted in his Treatise of Baptism Edit 2. p. 232. viz. Sebastian Frank one of the Principal Authors frequently named in the Martyrologie saith that about the year 610 Childrens-Baptism was held in many places of little esteem by the learned endeavours of Adrianus and others and therefore the Popes set themselves to uphold it by the Braceren-Council That the vanity and falshood hereof may appear let it be considered 1. That there is nothing of Adrianus extant against Infants-Baptism in the Century-Writers but only the Magdeburgs say he was complained against by Gregory to John Bishop of Larissa That he turned away young Children from Baptism But we have shewn before that he was not against their Baptism but only remiss in looking after the same in his Diocess so that many Children died unbaptized which was then judged dangerous and from hence he was reported to have turned them away from Baptism 2. There is none else in this Age so much as suspected against the Baptism of Children mentioned by the Century-Writers and how grosly then is it said of Sebastian Frank that the practice thereof was of little esteem in this Century 3. How weakly and falsly is that said that the Popes set themselves to uphold Infant-Baptism in the Braceren Council in the 7th Century because it was of so little esteem when the Magdeburgs make mention of so many for it in this Century As Maxentius Gregory and Bishop of Larissa else Gregory would not have complained to him about Adrianus And besides particular persons they mention the Council of Matiscons 3 Canon for it Cent. 6. c. 9. p. 613. And by this we see what a false Historian Sebastian Frank is and Jacob Merning whom Mr. Danvers brings as avouching the same quoting the 204 pag. of the Dutch Martryology for it And as for Sebastian Frank Osiander Cent. 16 p. 121. tells us in plain terms he was a ringleader of the Anabaptists from whom his followers were called Frankists and they taught Omnia in sacris literis incerta dubia contradictoria esse that is all things in the Holy Scriptures are uncertain doubtful and contradictory which is a most horrid blaspheming of the Holy Scriptures but may be true when applyed to his own History Having thus found these Dutch Authors so tardy we shall leave them for the present and conclude with what we find related from our own Country-Man the famous Bishop Usher in his Succession of the Church Chap. 7. Sect. 23. p. 196. being a saying of Windelstinus Qui hodie dicuntur Protestantes Novi sunt Waldenses They who at this day are called Protestants are new Waldenses which is confirmed by another saying of Poplinerus who tells us That Albigensium Religionem parum admodum ab ea discrepasse quam hodie profitentur Protestantes c. the Religion of the Albigenses doth very little differ from that which the Protestants at this day profess as appears by the Fragments and Monuments of History written in their ancient Language and then he further saith that it appears by very ancient Manuscripts that their Articles of Faith are Doctrinae Protestantium usquequaque conformes Tout conformez a ceux des Protestans altogether agreeing with the Protestants Usher Succession chap. 10. Sect. 19. p. 308. Mr. Danvers's pretended witness born by the Donatists against Infants-Baptism Confuted Mr. Danvers is full of Complaints of the great injuries he hath received and amongst others this is one that I tell him he hath nothing in his Treatise of Baptism to prove that the Donatists were against Infants-Baptism but his ipse dixit whereas he saith he hath given us divers Authorities for it And the Reason of my saying so was because the Magdeburgs that do in a particular manner set before us what the Donatists held from point to point do not charge them with Antipedobaptism nor do any of the Church-Historians Eusebius Socrates Theodoret Sozomen or Evagrius mention it Neither do any of our modern Writers give any hint of it Further I told him in my answer that Danaeus who gives us the sum of their Tenents and of all Austin's Disputes with them in his Opusculum mentions not one word of their denying Infants-Baptism Neither doth Zanchy who treats of them and shews what they held in divers places of his Works nor Mr Fox in his Act. and Mon. nor Mr. Clark in his Martyrology where there 's a great story of them speak any thing of their being against Infants-Baptism no nor any other that ever I could hear of but only Mr. Danvers and therefore I said as I did And if our Antagonist had not been extremely tenacious of his Opinion this had been as is conceived enough to have taken him off from his mistaken conceit But all the thanks I have for endeavouring to rectifie him is still more and more Reproaches Mr. Wills saith he deals according to his wonted manner very disingenuously with me but wherein I pray 1. That I saith he having given so many Authorities and of such Antiquity to prove it he yet tells me as before To which I answer I must needs say the same still being not in the least convinced by Mr. Danvers's Reply For whereas he saith he hath given many Authorities and of great Antiquity to prove it most of them mentioned not only in the Treatise but Reply are but of yesterday viz. Seb. Frank Jac. Merning and Twisk if I mistake not three German Anabaptists Vicecomes Spanhemius Osiander Fuller and Bullinger As for the three first it is sufficient to say concerning them Istis Authoribus non stamus we own them not because they speak falsly in many things and that which none of the ancient Writers do affirm As for Instance Mr. Danvers tells us Seb. Frank and Twisk affirm that Donatus taught that no Infant should be baptized but only those that believed and desired it which is false and neither they nor Mr. Danvers can prove it out of Austin or any ancient Writer But suppose Donatus himself had been against Infant-Baptism yet Una Hirundo non facit Ver One Swallow doth not make a Spring It will not follow that the rest of the Donatists were so likewise no more than because Mr. Tombes the Head of the Anabaptists doth conform therefore all the Anabaptists of England do conform Again Jac. Merning saith that Cresconius opposed Austin in that point viz. of Infants-Baptism But in the whole dispute between Austin and