to the purpose do not only tell us this Story but give us Reason for it or say nothing and that they failing as he concludes they do there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pedobaptismi a fearful tumbling down of the whole Fabrick of Infants-Baptism Repl. p. 79. And to help after he presents us with a pretended saying of Dr. Barlow but he doth not point to any Book or page where we shall find it The words which Mr. Danvers saith the Doctor speaks are these viz. I Believe and know that there is neither precept nor practice in Scripture for Pedobaptism nor any just evidence for it for above two hundred years after Christ. Reader thou must understand that Mr. Danvers hath made mention of this Reverend and Learned Mans name above twenty times in his Treatise of Baptism Edit 1 2. and in his Reply as if he had spoken much in derogation of the Antiquity of Infants-Baptism For in the 1st Edition of his Treatise of Baptism p. 74. we have him thus Dr. B. late Doctor of the Chair a person of great Learning and Eminency hath these words in a Letter I have seen in print I do believe and know there is neither Precept nor Example in Scripture c. as before And for as much as I questioned the Truth of this that is that the Doctor was of this Opinion and being desirous to know his Judgment and whether he owned any such printed Letter I did therefore write to him and received this following Letter from him viz. Dr. Barlow's Letter SIR I Understand by your Letter and the Books you mention which I have since read that some late Writers have made use of my name giving me the Title of Dr. of the Chair in Oxon and cite as they say a printed Letter of mine wherein I declare my Judgment against Infant-Baptism You desire to know of me who should best know my own Opinion whether or how far those things are true which they say and cite in my name And therefore out of that respect which is due and I owe to Truth and you and that I may undeceive others and give you that satisfaction which you so civilly desire I shall crave leave to tell you and all whom it may concern these few things 1st That 't is a great mistake to call me Doctor of the Chair in Oxon when it cannot be unknown to any who know that University that a very Reverend and far more worthy Person possesseth and with great Learning and general Approbation of all performs the Duties of that great place 2dly That never any thing of mine was printed by any knowledg or Permission of mine against the received Doctrine or Practice of Paedo-Baptism as it is warranted and approved by the Church of England 3dly That about twenty years ago Mr. Tombes writ to a then Reverend since a Right-Reverend person of the University desiring himê° to examine and give him the true meaning of certain places in Tertullian and some of the Ancient Fathers which were usually produced for Infant-Baptism That Reverend Person whom I was bound for many Reasons to obey commanded me who had more time though less ability to examine those Quotations and return an Answer to Mr. Tombes which I did in a Letter then sent him and as Mr. Baxter truly sayes this is that secret Letter which they are pleased to cite 4. I acknowledg that such words as are cited by Mr. Danvers and such others spoke and Writ then with more Confidence than Judgment or Discretion are in that Letter which had been secret still if some had not betrayed that trust which was reposed in them 5. Lastly It is to be considered that that Letter was writ about twenty years ago when I talk't more and understood less and yet what-ever Doubts or Objections I had then against Infant-Baptism I never thought them so considerable as to warrant any Division or Schismatical disturbance of the Peace of my Mother the Church of England And therefore I did then and since and when I have a just call God willing ever shall Baptize Infants according to that Form and those Rites which our Church has prescribed in her Sacred Office for Infant-Baptism In short Mr. Baxter's candid and charitable Answer for me That 't is not likely that I who have subscribed the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England will be against Infant-Baptism I shall endeavour to make good I have with Assent and Consent Subscribed our Liturgie and Articles and God willing never shall practise or print or say any thing in contempt of or contradiction to the Doctrine or those innocent Ceremonies contained in them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T. B. Oxon Apr. 13. 1675. Our 3d testimony is Origen who in divers places of his Works as in his Homilies upon Rom. 6. saith The Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism to little Children the same we have again in his Homilies and Luke 14. To this Mr. Danvers Objects 1. That of Dr. Taylor That Origen is but one single Testimony 2. That his Writings are notoriously corrupt and particularly in the point of Baptism 3. Many of his works and particularly those that treat of Baptism fell into ill hands In answer to the first Let Dr. Taylor in his later Discourse of the consideration of the Church in Baptizing the Children of Believers answer Dr. Taylor in his former Book of the Liberty of Prophesy where he saith that Origen is but one single Testimony In his later Discourse put out since he cites Justin and Irenaeus saying positively That the Tradition of Baptizing Infants passed through Irenaeus his hands So then he by this acknowledgeth that we have more than the single Testimony of Origen and if he hath put forth any thing else since in contradiction to it I may say his words are not much to be credited for we know not where to find him 2. Origen's Writings saith he are corrupt who denies it in some things So are Tertullian's so are all the Fathers To which Mr. Danvers vauntingly replyes Let both Origen and Tertullian go together only I shall thereby have the better bargain for Mr. Wills in parting with Origen parts with all but I have many more to witness for me besides To which I only say I wish I could see them or if it were possible to speak with them face to face as I lately did with Dr. Barlow 't is very like I should have the same account of their Judgments as I had of his And let Mr. Danvers know that one word of solid Reason hath more weight in it and is more taking with the judicious than all his Thrasonical Boasts and calumniating reflections 3. His Works fell into ill hands which is true of some yet not all of those that treat of Baptism for I tell him in Infant-Baptism Asserted p. 135. that Origen's Homilies on the Romans and Luke are translated by Jerom and to be
parallel betwixt what their Confessions say and what as he words it I make them to say and so leaves it to the Reader to judg how fairly I have dealt therein and truly 't is my desire also that the Reader compare us with the Confessions and see which of us hath dealt most fairly or foully with them There are five Confessions of the Waldenses besides some passages out of a Treatise to which Mr. Danvers hath recourse for information touching their Faith and Practice about Baptism There are two things to be observed in US in reference to these Confessions 1. What Mr. Danvers picks out of them for his purpose as he conceives 2. Whether I have offered any Violation by mangling the Confessions or leaving out any thing that is material against Infants-baptism which I desire the Reader the more diligently to note because this is another of his great charges against me in his Preface 1. The first Confession that is quoted by Mr. Danvers in his Treatise of Baptism bears date 1220 of which this is the 13 Article viz. They say we acknowledg no other Sacraments but Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. I have not left out a word of this and I told him in my answer that to bring this Article was rather a witness of his own weakness than against Infants-Baptism and therefore upon second thoughts this is cashier'd for we have it not in the Reply The next is the 28 Article of another Confession That God doth not only instruct us by his Word but has also ordained certain Sacraments to be joyn'd with it as a means to unite unto and to make us partakers of his benefits and that there be only two In my Answer I left out the begining of this Article that is that God instructs us by his Word which I am sure containeth nothing in it against Infants-Baptism and also the latter part of the Article which runs thus belonging in Common to all the Members of the Church under the New-Testament viz Baptism and the Lords Supper Another ancient Confession of Faith hath this Artic. 7. We do believe that in the Sacrament of Baptism Water is the visible and external sign which represents unto us that which by the invisible vertue of God operating is within us the Renovation of the Spirit and mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ by which also we are receiv'd into the holy Congregation of the people of God there professing and declaring openly our Faith and Amendment of Life Here was left out a Parenthesis viz by the invisible vertue of God operating and the last Clause by which also we are received into the Congregation c. And with respect to this Article I have this saying in my Answer namely that there is a Harmony between all the Protestant Churches in the World and the Waldenses in this Article The next is out of Vigniers History where the words are thus They expresly declare to receive the Canon of the Old and New Testament and to reject all Doctrines which have not their foundations in it or are in any thing contrary to it therefore all the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome they condemn and abominate saying she is a den of thieves and the Apocalyptical Harlot This Confession Mr. Danvers hath left out in his Reply and I know not the reason unless it be beeause I have every word of it exactly and it would have hurt his Parallel if it had been set down In their Ancient Confession Artic. 11. We esteem for an Abomination and Antichristian all Humane inventions as a trouble prejudice to the liberty of the Spirit And in their Ancient Catechism thus When humane Traditions are observed for Gods Ordinances then is he worshipped in vain and which is done when Grace is attributed to the external Ceremonies and persons enjoyned to partake of Sacraments without faith and Truth I have also set down every word of this and made this Paraphrase on it in my Answer This is a good Testimony against humane Traditions but doth not in the least touch Infants-baptism as also against the Popish error that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato from the work done for that 's the meaning of attributing Grace to the external Ceremony here mentioned In their Ancient Treatise concerning Antichrist they say that he attributes the regeneration of the Holy-Spirit unto the dead outward work of Baptizing Children into that Faith that Faith was omitted and teaching that thereby Regeneration must be had the words are Baptism and Regeneration must be had I left out Baptism because it seems to make it nonsense as it is there placed Also the conclusion of the Sentence was pretermitted which is grounding therein all his Christianity which is against the Holy-Spirit Upon this Article I have thus Paraphrased in my Answer Here at last by good hap we have the word Children named but not a jot serving Mr. Danvers his design for they do not hereby except against Childrens-Baptism but only against the corrupt ends that Antichrist hath in it for whether it be in Children or grown Persons it is an Antichristian or Popish Tenent to ascribe Regeneration to the dead outward work of Baptism and this is that before mentioned that Baptism confers Grace ex opere operato And because the Waldenses did deny that it did thus conser Grace the Papists did accuse them that they denied Gratiam Baptismi And for refusing to have their Children Baptized with the superstitious Rites of Salt Oyl Spittle c. they charg'd them with denying Insant-Baptism This is the Judgment of Bishop Usher in his Succession of the Church where he treats of the Waldenses and their Faith at large If I had been mistaken in my Paraphrases upon the above-mentioned Confessions Mr. Danvers should have rectified me and forborn the out-cry which he makes in his Preface for abusing the Consessions of the Waldenses and some that look no further into a Book than the Preface will suppose me to be guilty of a notorious Crime But as to this also I freely submit my self to the Judgment of the Reader and refer it to his consideration whether Innocency and Truth be not by him rather abused than vindicated He chargeth me deeply of unfaithfulness in misrepresenting their Confessions in many material and considerable parts but I perswade my self an impartial eye cannot discern it but 't is easily observed how unfaithful he is at the same time in misrepresenting my words and fathering that on me which is not mine but his own Invention on purpose forsooth that he might have a substratum for his following Queries for he makes me to say that there was a Harmony betwixt all the Protestant Churches in the World in those Articles and the Waldenses because all that are for Infants-Baptism believe the same Had I said those words in reference to every Article it had been truth whereas I do only speak it with Respect to one
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
it for though the Baptism of Infants in this 4th Century be so frequently attested by the Magdiburgs yet he will not receed from his former Position but hath invented a threefold evidence as he calls it to prove that Adult Baptism was only practised in this Age. 1. From the sayings of the Fathers and great men of this Century both in Africa Asia and Europe 2. From the Positive Decrees of the three eminent Councils of this Age. 3. From the pregnant Instances of the most eminent men that were not Baptized till aged though the Children of Christian Parents in this Century 1. He begins with the sayings of the African Doctors Athanasius and Arnobius two of the most eminent of this Age who saith he do positively affirm That Teaching Faith and Desire should according to Christs Commission preceed Baptism whereby it appears that no other than Adult Baptism was practised in the Churches of Africa To this I answer That having searched after the Doctrine of Athanasius in the 4th Century of the Magdiburgs I find not any thing of him mentioned about Baptism but only one saying contra Arrianos sermone tertio viz. That the Son is not therefore commemorated in Baptism as if the Father was not sufficient but because the Son is the Word of God and the proper Wisdom and Brightness of the Father with a passage or two more concerning Christ's Divinity Nor is there any word concerning Baptism to be found in Athanasius his life Cent. 4. C. 10. from pag 1027 to 1053 for so far it reacheth But suppose this Father hath something of that import elsewhere according as Mr. Danvers reports of him in his Treatise of Baptism namely that our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize for first of all he said Teach and then Baptize that true faith might come by teaching and Baptism be perfected by faith Will this think you do the business will this prove that he owned no other Baptism but that of Believers in opposition to that of Infants No such matter For as hath been shewn in our answer the Commission it self for Baptism doth not exclude Infants that priviledge as appears by the consideration of the condition of the persons to whom Christ sent his Apostles who were Aliens and of such ought we to interpret the sayings of Athanasius because of the instance before-mentioned from him viz the Jews at Berythrum who being proselyted to the Faith of Christ craved Baptism of the Bishop and they were made Catechumens and instructed fasted 3 days baptized by the Bishop But Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindication examining a book called a Well-grounded Treatise c. takes notice of this very passage mentioned by Mr. D. from whom I suppose he therefore had it And page 219 220. Mr. Cobbet demonstrates that Athanasius's words are wrested to another sense than the scope of his Discourse tended and some words left out which served to declare his meaning and other words so palpably mistranslated that the Reader is grosly abused thereby as well as the Author The next is Arnobius upon the 146 Psal. It is very strange to me that when Mr. Danvers had rejected Origen upon the Romans as spurious though Perkins only tells us it was not faithfully translated by Ruffinus he should quote Arnobius upon the Psalms for his own opinion which is altogether spurious being as Perkins saith of a far more modern forge It seems it is lawful for Mr. Danvers to quote spurious Authors though not for the Pedobaptists But I hope the judicious Reader will hereby be satisfied that this testimony doth not prove his Assertion That no other than the Adult-Baptism was practised in the Churches of Africa in the 4th Age. He also adds a saying of Optatus Milevit out of the Magdiburgs Cent 4. p. 237. Namely that none deny but that every man by nature though born of Christian Parents is unclean and that without the Spirit he is not cleansed and that there is a necessity of the Spirit 's cleansing before Baptism so that the house must be trimmed and fitted for the Lord that he may enter in and dwell in it But this Authority signifies as little as the other for suppose this passage rightly translated as it is not yet the quotation is very insignificant to prove that for which he brings it viz. that no other than Adult-Baptism was practised in the Churches of Africa in the 4th Cent. for Optatus presently adds Hoc exorcismus operatur Exorcism doth this which Mr. D. knows an Infant as capable of as the Adult and which was equally practised on both and therefore he did discreetly to leave it out but how honestly is left to the Reader to judg and to his own Conscience But indeed the whole sentence is miserably mistranslated as all Scholars may see by the Latin which runs thus Neminem fugit quod omnis homo qui nascitur quamvis de parentibus Christianis nascatur sine spiritu mundi esse non possit quem necesse sit ante salutare lavacrum ab homine excludi separari Hoc exorcismus operatur per quem spiritus immundus depellitur in loca deserta fugatur Fit domus vacua in pectore credentis fit domus munda intrat Deus habitat Apostolo dicente Vos estis Templum Dei et in Vobis Deus habitat Another by this true translation viz. Every one knows that every man that is born though of Christian Parents cannot be without the Spirit of the world the unclean spirit he means which ought to be cast out and separated from a man before Baptism This Exorcism doth by which the unclean spirit is driven away and flys into desert places The house is made empty in the breast of a Believer the house is made clean God enters and inhabits there according to the Apostle Ye are the Temple of God and in you he dwells And is it not strange that Mr. Danvers who in his Preface charges me with the notorious abuse of Authors in curtilations and mistranslations should be thus notoriously guilty of both himself Qui alterum accusat moechum seipsum intueri oportet 2. Thus having travelled through Africa we shall now set footing in Asia where Mr. Danvers would have us believe That it was the Faith and practice of the Churches to baptize the Adult in opposition to that of Infants And this he saith appears by the like sayings of Bazil Gregory Nazianzen Ephrim Syrus Epiphanius Reader thou must know that Mr. Danvers cuts out work for me that I am not concerned to take notice of for my Business was to answer his first Treatise of Baptism and these two last men are not therein mentioned but brought in since as Auxiliary forces nevertheless I shall not wave them 1. For Bazil the passage which Mr. Danvers quotes from him and inserts in both his Tratises of Baptism is this viz. Must the faithful be Sealed with Baptism Faith must needs preceed and goe
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
reason to reject the one as the other A strange Assertion For though Infants-Baptism be in his account unlawful yet the Preaching of the Gospel one would think should be lawful and more reason there is to Preach the Gospel than to Baptize either the Adult or Infants But what makes Mr. Danvers judg otherwise as to these Britains It is because he conceives by Preaching here must be understood Authoritatively by being ordained by them and not as a company of Lay-men or Mechanicks It seems than this Gentle-man is for Mechanicks Preaching but that which is remarkable is to see how much he hath overshot himself in the heat of Disputation For the Britains to whom Austin addrest his Speech were not Lay-men or Mechanicks but seven Bishops and an Arch-Bishop as Mr. Fox informs us Act. Mon. 1. Book p. 107. Although 't is true they admitted not Romes Supremacy over them which was the main quarrel as Mr. Fox tells us out of Cluniacensi who gives this Reason why they would not comply with Austin because they would not admit of the Bishop of Romes Supremacy over them Ex Pet. Cluniacensi ad Bernardum Reader thou must know that Mr. Danvers gave five other Reasons in his Treatise of Baptism to confirm his former Position and because I said in my Answer they were trifles he tells me in his Reply that that is an excellent way of Answering next to Bellarmin thou lyest But I must tell Mr. Danvers I did not only say they were trifles but proved them such And because he doth so cunningly insinuate the contrary I shall now repeat my Answer to his Reasons adding a little and submit it to judgment 1. His first Argument that the Britains were against Infant-Baptism was Because they kept themselves both in Discipline and Doctrine expresly to the Scripture Before I speak to this know that he hath altered his note for his first Argument in both his Treatises of Baptism was this Because the Britains received the Christian Faith Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick Churches who had no such thing as Baptizing Children Now this being more than he can tell and a Negative Argument as to matter of Fact is not valid as I told him in my Answer and besides I minded him with that of the Magdeburgs who expresly tell us that Infants-Baptism was in use in the Asiatick Churches Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 124. He is so ingenious as to wave that Argument But to the 1st as it is here in the Reply which is because they kept themselves in Discipline and Doctrine expresly to the Word This he thinks will effectually do the business that is casheer Infants-Baptism from them To this I answer 1. To say they kept themselves expresly in Discipline and Doctrine to the Word is more than Mr. Danvers can prove and it is more than Jeffery Monmouth speaks from whom he hath his intelligence This therefore that they keep to the express Word is his own Dictate 2. It is not true what he saith nor can I apprehend how Mr. Danvers should believe himself for no Anabaptist believes Episcopal Government to be so expresly set down in the Word and Mr. Fox tells us as before that no less than seven Bishops and an Arch-Bishop came out of Wales at Austin's Summons who were also so proud that wanting some ceremonious Observance at their first coming to Austin they took such offence that in disdain and great displeasure they went away And observe Reader the sense of Mr. Fox upon this their carriage I profess saith he I cannot see but both Austin and them were to be blamed who so much neglected their Spiritual Duties in revenging their Temporal injuries that they denied to joyn their helping hand to turn the Idolatrous Saxons to the way of Life and Salvation in which respect all private respects ought to give place and be forgotten and for which cause he conceived the stroke of God's Punishment did light upon them afterward The business of Infants-Baptism never entered into this good-mans mind as if they refused to comply with Austin on that account nor is it like that ever the Britains thought of it 2. His next Argument is Because they were zealous Impugners of Tradition But by the story we find no such Zeal unless it was against Austin for not honouring them and besides this Argument of Mr. Danvers is altogether precarious for we have shewed before that though Austin held Infants-Baptism a Tradition yet withal it was in his opinion grounded on Circumcision and the Papists as Bellarmine affirm the warrantableness of it may be collected from Scripture But to make short work with it I deny that they were such Impugners of Tradition if the Discpline of Arch-Bishops and the observation of Easter be Traditions as Mr. Danvers judgeth them to be for as the difference between Austin and them was not about the Subject of Baptism but the Ceremony so they differed not about keeping Easter but only as to the circumstance of time when it was to be kept That the Britains and Picts kept Easter though not at the same time as the Romish Church did see Mr. Fox Act. Mon. page 111. where mention is made of a Synod in which the controversie about keeping Easter was debated before King Oswie Alfrid's Father and 't is said Coleman then Bishop of Northumberland followed not the custom of Rome nor of the Saxons but the Picts and Britains in celebrating Easter from the 14th day of the first month till the 28th of the same against whom Wilfrid replied The Easter we keep we have seen at Rome the same is used in Italy and France and finally all the World over save only by these here present with their accomplices the Picts and Britains 3. Reason is Because Constantine the son of Christian Parents was not Baptized till aged so in his Treatise of Baptism but in his Reply 't is not baptized in this Island But we have shewn Constantius his Father was no Christian at Constantine's Birth and in all likelyhood lived and dyed a Pagan though he had much respect for Christians and even Constantine himself was a Pagan for sometime after he was Emperor 4. Another of his Reasons is Because the custom of the Britains was to baptize after Confession of Faith being in Union and Communion therein with the French Christians And I told him this was a good Argument to prove they were for Infants-Baptism because the French Christians afterward called Waldenses were for it and had used it so many hundred years witness the Confession at Angrogne Nor will Mr. Danvers his Old Salvo serve his turn which is That the ancient Waldenses were against Infants-baptism though he cannot but grant the more modern were for it For we have met with something of late that must needs convince him and that is that Infants-baptism was practised in the Country where the Waldenses do inhabit near twelve hundred years since For the Famous French Historian John de Serres in his History of France translated into English tells us p. 12. That Anno Christi 500 Clovis the great King of France then an Heathen desired to marry Clotilde Daughter of Chilperic Brother of Gondebault King of the Burgundians whose Seat was then at Arles in Provence Gondebault denyed Clovis because of the difference of Religion Clovis to remove this promised her liberty of Conscience so the marriage was concluded And saith the Author although Clovis were a Pagan yet he was no enemy to the Christians sitting himself to the humour of the Gauloys who generally followed the Christian Religion He suffered his Wife likewise to baptize her Children So it 's plain the Burgundians from whence the Waldenses sprang were for baptizing Infants and belike it was also at that time the universal practice of the Gauls 5. The last of Mr. Danvers's Arguments that the Britains were against Infants-baptism is because Austin himself was so raw and ignorant in the Rite that when he came into Britain and the question was here put to him I know not by whom how long a Child that was in danger of Death might stay unbaptized he was fain to send to Rome for Solution This is so raw an Argument indeed to prove the Britains were against Infants-Baptism that instead of an Answer it deserves to be laught at For at this very day wherein Infants-Baptism is so generally practised some take a liberty to delay longer than others who are for the speedy administration thereof And if this Argument doth import any thing it is that Austin himself was not so well studied as he ought to have been as to the time when Children should be baptized What in the last place he speaks of Hilary that none were baptized in the Western Churches but the Adult is confronted in the beginning where we have shewn that he hath no such saying in lib. de Trinitate the Book referr'd to and how he himself was for Infants-Baptism from his 2d Epistle to Austin As for his other witnesses Munzer and John of Leyden with the rest of that Faction though he doth pertinaciously persist against the clearest evidences in palliating or rather denying the horrid crimes laid to their charge and withal very disingenuously reflects dishonour upon those of the Reformation I shall not be at so much expence of time and Paper as to expose his gross aberrations herein but quietly permit him to injoy the comfort and honour of such witnesses FINIS Preface to the Reply Synodus 4tae Carthaginensis Cent. 4. cap. 9. pag. 873. Laodicens Concilium Cent. 4. cap. 9. p. 833. Common-Prayer Book last Edit Dipt by washing is nonsense * Dr. Richard Allestree the worthy Provost of Eaton-Colledg †In his Book entit More proofs of Infants Church-membership pag. 343. * In his Treatise of Baptism London 1674. pag. 65 66. †Anno. 1656. * Pag. 343. of his Book before cited ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜