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
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
5. p. 239. Hieronimus quoque lib. 3tio Dialogorum adversus Pelagianos Critobulo sic scribit Jerom also having spoken of Ambrose just before in his 3d Book of Dialogues against the Pelagians writes thus to Critob Tell me I pray and resolve the question why are Infants baptized Attic. That their sins may be done away in Baptism Critob But what sin have they commited is any one loosed that is not bound Attic. Dost thou ask me the question The Evangelical Trumpet or Dr. of the Gentiles that Vessel that shineth throughout all the world will answer thee Death reigned from Adam unto Moses even over them that have not sinned after the manner of Adams transgression which is the figure of him to come But all men are guilty either in respect of themselves or Adam Qui parvulus est parentis in Baptismo vinculo solvitur he that is a Child is freed in Baptism from the Bond of his Parent that is Original Sin or guilt contracted from them 2. His second Medium or Argument to prove that Adult Baptism was only practised in the 4th Century is the Positive Decrees of the 3 eminent Councils of this Age viz the Garthaginian Laodicean and Neocesarean which he saith do positively decree that Teaching Confession Faith and Free-choice ought to preceed Baptism We omit speaking to these Councils for the present intending to do it in a more convenient place 3d Argument that Adult Baptism was the only approved Baptism of this Age is his Ten remarkable Instances in this Century that were not baptized though the Children of Christian Parents till they were able to make profession of Faith viz Constantine Basil Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Chrysostom Jerom Austin Nectarius Valentinian and Theodosius Here Mr. Danvers and others of his party as I hear triumphs over me because in my Answer I speak not to every one of these and besides I am upbraided by him for excepting only against 4 of the Ten Testimonies of the Fathers viz Athanasius Bazil Ambrose and Nazianzen who as I told him in my answer were for Infants Baptism To which he Replys 1. That if but four of the Ten be excepted against then he hath six more stands good besides the former viz. 15 not excepted against as perverted But really I have endeavoured to understand his Account but cannot and therefore either he is very confused or I am very dull 2. The four that I lay claim to viz. Athanasius Bazil Ambrose Nazianzen he will not grant me being as he saith full in their Testimonies for Adult Baptism He begins with Bazil's saying That Faith must preceed Baptism To this I have already reply'd that notwithstanding this he might be as much for Infants-Baptism as Ambrose who spake the same words and moreover I shall now give you some Reasons from whence we may conclude That Bazil was for Infants-Baptism 1. Because two of the most eminent Greek Fathers his contemporaries were for it viz. as Nazianz. appears in his Oration in Sanctum lavacrum Madg. Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 417. likewise Chrysostom in his Homilies ad Neophytos besides those eminent Latin Fathers as Ambrose Jerom and others that were such zealous Assertors of Infants-Baptism who lived in the same Age with Bazil 2. Because in all the three Tomes of Bazil there is not one word to be found against Infants-Baptism though he be very large in his discourses about Baptism and certainly he would have said something against it had he deem'd it an errour for as much as it was practised not only in the Age wherein he lived but in the Churches of Asia where he was Bishop Nazianzen speaking of the Churches of Asia saith Infants were to be baptized Mag. Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 461. Because Nazianzen his most intimate friend and fellow-student was for Infants-Baptism The Magdiburgs say there was so great an endearedness between these two Fathers that they had as it were but one Soul Nazianzen is called animae Bazilii dimidium the half of Bazils Soul if in them both say the Magdiburgs there was not Una prorsus atque eadem anima They further tell us that from the time of their first acquaintance there was such a Conjunctio animorum et Studiorum such a conjunction of spirits and studies that they continued in most entire friendship ever after Cent. 4. C. 10. p. 939 940. 4. We do not find that in any of their Epistolary Entercourses any thing that may argue them to be of different judgments in this point hence I suppose it may be rationally concluded that as Nazianzen was for Baptism after preparation and confession and condemns those that enter upon it rashly Magd. Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 417. And yet in the fore-going page tells us the Churches of Asia owned Infants-Baptism in case of danger and declares his own judgment absolutely for it without respect to danger Orat. quarta ad Baptismum as you shall hear more anon so might also Bazil be notwithstanding he hath any-where said Faith should preceed or go before Baptism 5. T is no wonder we read not of Bazils insisting upon Infants-Baptism for such was the Errour and superstition of those times wherein he preached ascribing such Virtue to Baptism to do away the guilt of Sin that they would delay the taking up that Ordinance till they thought they should dye that so they might depart with pure Souls so that as far as I can find Bazil had much ado to perswade his Hearers to be baptized and spends abundance of his pains in quickening them to take up Baptism without longer delay as appears in his Exhortation to Baptism where he doth most sharply inveigh against procrastinating the same If Mr. D. would but weigh these things without prejudice I doubt not but 't would abate much of his Confidence that Bazil is on his side Nor will he allow me Athanasius but concerning him we shall speak in another place Then for Ambrose he saith that he is full also That the Baptized should not only make profession but desire the same But then as conscious of prevarication he adds that if any of them should contrary hereto say they would contradict themselves and the practice of the Age But this is meer shuffling Since the practice of the Age as to profession had respect to Pagans as we have often told him and in this sence we are to understand Ambrose and whereas in my Infants-Baptism Asserted I prove Ambrose was for us from those words of his lib. 2. de Abraham C. 12. being these Because every Age is obnoxious to Sin therefore every Age is fit for the Sacrament to this he replys that this is no proof that he was for Infants Baptism First because Circumcision is hereby meant Secondly if Baptism then those of every Age that are fit for that Sacrament must not be supposed viz. those that are capable to confess Faith and desire Baptism otherwise not only Children but all good and bad being obnoxious to Sin
Pentecost Catechised Suppose this to be a right Translation it makes no more against the baptizing of Infants than the other of Rhenanus for it clearly appears that by in times past Boemus intended then when Persons were appointed to be baptized at Easter and Pentecost at which very time Rhenanus tells us Infants were baptized And it is most certain that baptizing of Infants was before then because Cyprian Origen Tertullian do all mention it who lived before that custom was brought into the Church Dr. Hammond is the next and I need not search to see whether he is rightly quoted for he makes the Dr. say nothing but what all the Paedobaptists acknowledg viz. That all men were instructed in the fundamentals of Faith anciently before they were baptized But how doth this prove that only the Adult were then the subjects of Baptism I wonder Mr. D. is not ashamed to quote Authors at this rate His last is Mr Baxter And he tells us that Tertullian Origen and Cyprian do all of them affirm that in the primitive times none were baptized without an express Covenanting But this falls out very unluckily for Mr. D. For those three Fathers being every one of them for Infants-Baptism could intend no other than Heathens converted to Christianity which all acknowledg And it is plain Mr. Baxter so intended it because he hath written largely to prove that none are to be baptized but such and the Children of such And after this manner doth Mr. D. prove his Assertions But I am confident it will prevail with none that have not given themselves over to an implicite Faith His next Testimonies for it beginning with particular persons are from Duch Authors we shall speak with them in due time and make it appear how grosly they erre in their relations of divers things as particularly about Cresconius but of this when we come to examine his pretended Witnesses Then we have Faustus Regiensis named who said that personal and actual desire was requisit in every one that was to be baptized which that it was meant of Adult Pagans needs no other proof than this that he was a Pelagian and they were for the Baptism of Children by the confession of Mr. Tombes and I presume Mr. D. will not persist in denying it Concerning Alban that suffered for opposing Infants Baptism in the 6th Century I cannot give credit to the Dutch Martyrology which it seems affirms it because there is nothing to be found in the Century-Writers nor any Martyr of that name noted but only St. Alban the first as Mr. Fox tells us that ever suffered Martyrdom in this Island but that was under Dioclesian and not for opposing Infants-Baptism but refusing to offer Sacrifice unto Devils I cannot find the Swermers under the 6th Century in the Magdiburgensian History as suffering under Justinus or Justinianus for being Anabaptists Nor in Sympsons History of the Church nor in any other Authors as I have met with And certainly if indeed they had convinced the Imperial Council to leave off Childrens Baptism as Mr. D. mentions it twice in the compass of twelve lines all Historians would have taken notice of so remarkable a story which yet I can find mentioned by none As for Peter Bishop of Apamen and Zoaras the Monk we told him formerly that the Magd. told us they were for Rebaptization but that did not prove them against Infants-Baptism Their words are these Cent. 6. c. 5. De Anabaptis Anabaptismum defendisse Petrum Apameae Syriae Episcopum et Zoaram Monachum Cyrum scribit Nicephorus But saith Mr. D. in his Reply p. 106. The late Century-Writers calling them Anabaptists in a modern sense that is for those that deny Infants-baptism we have no reason to doubt it But how doth M. D. prove this because they say Nicephorus writes they defended Anabaptism that is Re-baptizing Risum teneatis amici But let Mr. D. take them and make the best of them he can I shall not envy him such Patrons For the Magdeburgs tells us in the same place out of Niecphorus that they owned but one Nature in Christ and were guilty of most wicked Obscenities Another which Mr. Danvers quotes is Adrianus Bishop of Corinth I granted in my Answer that this Man was against Infants-Baptism where-as since I have understood from a Learned Divine well-read in Church-History that Adrianus was falsly accused to have turned away Children from Baptism for that was the Charge when-as in truth his fault was only his remisness not taking care in his Diocess for the timely Baptizing of them whence it happened that many died unbaptized which was judged dangerous Nor should I have granted Hincmarus to be of Mr. Danvers party who is brought in next to Adrianus for refusing Infants-Baptism I was told of the Mistake though led into it by what I found in the Magdiburgs who represent him as accused by his enemies for denying Childrens Baptism by the afore-mentioned learned person And having since met with Sympsons History of the Church I find this following Account of Hincmarus under Century 9. and in pag. 566. Edit 3 That in the Council of Acciniacum in France Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes accused his own nephew Hincmarus Bishop of Laudum a man disobedient to his Metropolitan and a man who for private injuries had excommunicated all the Presbyters of his Church debarring them from saying Mass baptizing Infants absolving the Penitents and burying the Dead and was condemned of Petulancy and deprived of his Office Judg Reader by this whether this man be to be lookt upon under the notion of an Anabaptist by the character yet given But to go on with what Sympson saith afterwards he was restored to his Office by Pope John the ninth and that because he made his Appeal from his Metropolitan and the Synod of his own Country to be judged by the Chair of Rome A pure Anabaptist indeed There are three other of Mr. Danvers's Witnesses yet behind and had there been but one more it would have made a compleat Jury but those three speak nothing at all of Infants so I let them pass The Dutch-Martyrology Mr. Danvers's Common-place Book name also Smaragdus But he hath the Wit now to leave him out though he is in his Treatise of Baptism Edit 1. under Cent. 10. But I minded him in my answer with those words of Smaragdus That little Children are to be baptized grounding it upon Mat. 19. 15. Suffer little Children to come unto me c. Thus Reader thou hast heard what Mr. Danvers's Witnesses can say and what exceptions I have made against them they all stand at thy Bar and I hope thou wilt give righteous judgment and dost by this time see that my Antagonist hath no need to complain that I allow him but two Witnesses viz. Hincmarus and Adrianus having been too liberal in that 2. In the next place he produceth another Parcel that he saith denyed Infants-Baptism but as the Donatists Waldenses But how false
this is we shall hereafter shew And as for those of Germany we are contented he shall have them some of which he may be ashamed to own As for what he saith of the Churches of Helvetia Flanders Bohemia Hungaria Poland France and Silvania as I take it those of them who were really Anabaptists are of no higher Antiquity than Luthers days and for his pretending to the Ancient Britains I shall reckon with him for that in its proper place so for the Lollards they are of the same stamp with the Waldenses whose Confessions will confute Mr. Danvers For the Wickliffians the Council of Constance that accused Wicklif for other things and condemned him never charged him with denying Infants-Baptism and Walden that writ against him shews from his own works that he was for it Lastly since Henry the Eight's time there hath been of this sect here in England But what dangerous Errors some of them held in that Kings Reign and in Queen Elizabeths we have shewn in our Infants-Baptism Asserted part 2. p. 90 91. To which Mr. Danvers saith nothing in his Reply And really I wonder he should not publiquely disown Munzer John of Leiden Phifer Knipperdoling with their Comragues I hope he reckons not those Synagogues of Sathan into the number of the Churches of Christ though 't is to be feared since he is so much their Advocate But concerning the Anabaptists of this Age here in England I have sufficiently published to the world that I believe many amongst them are persons truly fearing God 3. Mr. Danvers brings Testimony for Adult-Baptism from Paedobaptists and it seems a strange design to all that I have spoken with about the same that he should offer to bring Chrysostom Austin c. against Infants-Baptism so making the Fathers to contradict themselves and for which I rebuke him in my Answer But he takes much pains to vindicate himself in which undertaking I find him so full of Meanders and tedious Circumlocutions that I judg it not worth while to follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 step by step And there is no great reason I should take notice of it Since he confesseth 1. The sayings of those Men Pedobaptists are expresly for his Opinion though it may be O sad is it but a may be not intended so and therefore saith he I have done them no injury 2. He saith he quotes them not to prove Believers-Baptism was the only Baptism of those Centuries Why then did he quote them why to shew how they contradicted themselves and likewise his dexterity how well he can beat them with their own weapons O Prodigious self-conceitedness What doth he think he can see having washt his Eyes so profoundly the folly of contradiction in the sayings of such a numerous company of Fathers and Learned Godly Divines And yet he is so blind as not to see in how many things he contradicts himself I shall give you a Catalogue of some of them before we part Mr. Danvers might have forborn his wrangling and attended to the distinction which we gave in our Answer of Ecclesia colligenda and collecta which serves very well for the reconciling the Fathers and modern Divines to themselves For when they speak of Teaching Confession and Examination requisite before Baptism they intend it of the way that is to be taken in the first planting of a Church when Pagans are brought into the Faith of Christ and when they speak of the Right of Infants it is in a Church already gathered of which Infants being a part they must not be denied Baptism But this Mr. D. likes not and therefore hath invented a way to reconcile the seeming difficulty as he calls it and what is that why all the sayings of the later Doctors and learned men why not of the ancient ones too wherein confession and profession is required are to be understood not saith he as Mr. Wills would have it to intend onely Adult Persons and Pagans but Infants also because they hold Infants to repent and believe by their Sureties Which he conceives he hath sufficiently proved by the Instance which he gives from the Catechism of the Church of England just before mentioned which after his usual manner he doth pervert For it being said in the Catechism that Faith and Repentance is required in persons to be baptized the Question is Why then are Infants baptized when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them To which Mr. Danvers makes the Catechism give this answer They do perform them by their Sureties as if that was all the answer they gave whereas indeed the answer in the Catechism runs thus They perform them by their Sureties who promise and vow them both in their names which when they come to age themselves are bound to perform And as if the Bishops foresaw that such as Mr. Danvers would cavil at the word perform in the last Edition of the Common-Prayer Book they have left it out and only say Because they promise them by their Sureties which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform So that it appears the sense of the answer in the Catechism is to be understood according to what we find mentioned by the Magdiburgs Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 422. Neque enim hoc ille ait ego pro puero abrenunciationes facio aut fidei Sacramenta profiteor sed ita puer renunciat et profitetur id est spondeo puerum inducturum cum ad Sacram intelligentia venerit sedulis adhortationibus meis ut abrenunciet contrariis omnino profiteaturque c. which in English is to this effect the Sponsor doth not say I do renounce the Devils works c. and profess Faith for the Child but promises when the Child comes to understanding he will exhort him to renounce the Devil and World c. But Mr. Danvers conceives that the sayings of the Doctors and learned men when they speak of profession before Baptism is not by them intended of Adult persons and Pagans but of Infants also Otherwise it would be saith he to make two Baptisms and necessitate two Commissions one for the Adult and the other for Infants To this I answer there is no such need of two Baptisms for the Baptism of Adult persons and Infants is one and the same as to the matter both being baptized with Water and so also as to form In the name of the Father c. Nor doth it necessitate two commissions one will serve the turn very well and comprehend both Parent and Child and to make this clear I will give the Judgment of some of our modern Doctors and learned men as to the sense of the Commission for Baptizing differing toto caelo from Mr. Danvers's fancy Perkins upon Mat. 28. 29. Go teach all nations baptizing them In these words saith he the Baptism of Infants is prescribed and the Apostles by vertue of this Commission baptized whole families as knowing in Gods former Administration to
Tutor had never the face to deny but confesseth plainly That it was a truth that Cyprian assured Fidus that by the unanimous consent of sixty-six Bishops gathered together in a Council Baptism was to be administred to Infants as well as grown men Tombes Examen page 11. And since Cyprian flourished in 250 according to Perkins and Usher placeth him in 240 what is become of Mr. Danvers proposition That Believers Baptism was the only true Baptism for near 300 years after Christ page 3. of his Reply Mr. Tombes himself doth lend us his helping hand to pluck down this rotten fabrick I am not willing to let any thing pass that may blind the weaker sort of Readers and therefore shall go on with him If Cyprian saith he should have said Infants-Baptism had been an Apostolical Tradition his word would have been no sooner taken than when he tells us Chrysm was so This crambe we had in effect long since by Mr. Tombes in his Exercitation There were many other things saith he went under the name of a Tradition which were but meer humane Inventions What then Ergo Infant-Baptism which went under the name of a Tradition is also human Invention Shall I shew saith Mr. Marshal the natural face of this Argument in a glass such and such men who went under the name of honest men were knaves Ergo all that go under the name of honest men are knaves 'T is true saith he many things in those days went under the name of Apostolical Tradition which were but humane Inventions and 't is as true as before is fully shewn that many points of faith went in the same ages under the name of Tradition But to proceed His second Exception is because it is questionable whether there were ever such a Council This is to lay the Ax to the root of the tree But to this I answer 1. The Magdiburgs do not question it but own it as authentick as any of the rest of the Councils Cent. 3. C. 9. p. 203. 2. Mr. Tombes was so wise as never to question it in all the contest he had with Mr. Marshall and others that ever I observed But why should we question it Why because saith he there is no place mentioned where that Council was kept What if I say 't was at Carthage no doubt Mr. Danvers would then give me the lye and yet Dr. Featly calls it the Council of Carthage and well he might because Cyprian was Bishop of that place And for his further satisfaction that he might not cavil against the being of this Council I reckon up in my Infants-Baptism divers of the Ancients that make mention of it with high Esteem as Nazianzen Crysostom Greek Fathers Ambrose Austin Jerom of the Latines So that I conceive Mr. Danvers is very perverse to question it And as much weakness follows in that he saith It was no Argument it was a Decree of such a Council because so many had a good esteem of it for the same Fathers esteemed very well of Chrysm c. But when I speak of an esteem of it my meaning is That they did not judg it a fictitious Council but a real one which is obvious I wonder Mr. Danvers should not apprehend it But since he is not a man of that Sagacity as I thought him but runs on upon a falle scent I shall leave him A second Reason of his doubt is because the grounds brought by Cyprian for Infant-Baptism are weak and because I gave no answer thereto in my Infant-Baptism Mr. D. taxeth me and it is one of the Charges in his Preface to the Reply That I am notoriously partial in my Answers all the Book through replying to what I judg weak and leaving other unanswered Whenas I profess I let many things pass because of their weakness and have even wearied my self out with making answers to his Impertinencies I could have given him the same answer which Mr. Marshall did to Mr. Tombes near 30 years since when he objected the weakness of Cyprian's grounds viz. If what Cyprian spake was weighed in the Ballance of his judgment it would not be found light and even Mr. Tombes himself confesseth that Jerom and Austin relyed upon that Epistle for the proving of Baptizing Infants which acknowledgment saith Mr. Marshall strengthens my opinion of the worth of Cyprians grounds for two such eminent men would not have relyed on that which had no weight in it But what are the weak grounds which Mr. Danvers mentions 1. Because he and his Council held that Baptism was simply necessary to Salvation But is not this more than Mr. Danvers can prove I do not find the Magdiburgs mention it although Mr. Tombes saith Tossanus notes it for Cyprian's Error That Infants should be baptized ne pereant lest they perish 2. That it washeth away original sin so as it is never to be imputed This is the judgment of many learned Protestant Divines especially the famous Dr. Davenant in his Epistle speaks positively Omnes Infantes baptizati ab originalis peccati reatu absolvuntur Others are not so general but conceive it to be a truth with respect to Elect Infants and they judg they have good reason to conclude that since they must be discharged from the guilt of Original sin or cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven God doth apply the Blood of his Son to them in the use of that Ordinance of Baptism 3. Because the Grace of God is to be tendred to all therefore all Children should be Baptized I see no such weakness in this for though it be laid down in such general terms that Grace is to be tendred to all and none hindred from coming to Christ yet as Mr. Marshal observes what he saith ought to be understood of the Church because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified and 't was concerning such that Fidus stood in need to be informed as to the time of Baptizing and the Magdeburgs conjecture that Fidus Episcopus ad Cyprianum scripserat he had written to Cyprian about it 4. Because Children have lesser sins than others This is harsh but you must know this is Mr. Danvers's dress The Magdeburgs express it otherwise thus Si quid hominem impedire a baptismo potius adultos peccata sua arcere deberent quam Infantes qui nihil peccaverunt nisi quod ex peccato Originis vitia trahant which is to this effect Grown Persons should rather keep off from Baptism by reason of their Sins than Infants which have contracted no guilt but that which is Original I hope there is no great hurt in this 5. Because in their first birth they do nothing but pray crying and weeping Well said Mr. Danvers the words are these Because in their first beginning or birth crying and weeping they can do nothing but call for Mercy which what ever ignorant people may think of it is a high strain of Rhetorick in Cyprian importing only that Children are objects of