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
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-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-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 are
to be esteemed fit subjects for Baptism Neither will this Evasion serve Mr. Danvers turn to put by this our Testimony and I wonder he should labour thus to darken Truth and delude the Reader for 't is true those words before-mentioned were spoken of Circumcision but he knows it was by way of introduction to the Baptism of Infants and therefore that he may not impose upon the Reader I will give the whole Sentence of Ambrose from the Magdiburgs Cent. 4. C. 5. p. 240. The Law commands the Males to be circumcised when newly born and as soon as they begin to cry because as Circumcision was from Infancy so was the disease Sin no time ought to be void of a Remedy because no time is void of Sin Neither the old man that is a Proselyte nor the new-born Infant is excepted then comes in those words Because every age is subject to Sin every age is fit for the Sacrament and the very next words are these eadem ratione Baptismum asserit Pervulorum lib. 10. Epistolarum Epistola 84. that is by the same reason he asserts Infants-Baptism in the eighty fourth of his 10th Book of Epistles Whether now Mr. Danvers hath not weakly opposed and dealt sophistically with this Quotation of Ambrose and whether it be not a pitiful shift in him to say the being fit for the Sacrament of which Ambrose speaks must be supposed to be meant of those only who are capable to confess Faith is submitted to the judgment of the impartial Reader As for what he objects that if every age be fit for the Sacrament in regard every age is obnoxious to sin then Infidels are fit subjects of Baptism I answer that the foregoing words of Ambrose viz. Neither the Old man that is a profelyte nor the New-born Infant is excepted shew that he speaks of those who are within the Church The last man that we bring for Infants-Baptism and excepted against by Mr. Danvers is Nazianzen and 't is observable that he confesseth what we urge from him hath most in it It seems then I was mistaken for I thought what we bring from Chrysostom and Ambrose had altogether as much in it as what is re-urg'd from Nazianzen The words quoted from this Father are out of his 40 oration viz. Hast thou a Child let it be early consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from its Infancy To which he replyes that I impose a fallacy upon the Reader for translating the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants thereby concluding him absolutely for Infants-Baptism and that because saith he the word signifies a State of Childhood as 2 Tim. 3. 15. And therefore Nazianzen must be understood by his early consecration to mean not in the Cradle but as he explains himself so soon as they are able to understand Mysteries except in case of death and when I pray according to Nazianzen were they capacitated for the understanding Mysteries the Magdiburgs inform us from his 3d Oration it was about the age of three years Extra periculum triennium aut eo plus minusve expectandum esse censet Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 416. that is if there be no danger of Death his judgment was they should stay till they are about 3 years old or something less and so be baptized nevertheless say they in some other place of that Oration Nazianzen declares omni aetati Baptisma convenire That Baptism is fit for every age comporting herein with Ambrose as before But whether I or Mr. Danvers do impose a fallacy let the Reader judg by what follows 1. Nazianzen was for baptizing Children in case of danger though as young as the Children of the Jews that were circumcised the 8th day as appears by the reason which he gives for their Baptism viz. It is better to be Sanctified by which he means baptized without knowledg than to die without it for saith he it happened to the circumcised Babes of Israel upon which Vossius hath this note in his Thesis of Baptism Non igitur Nazianzenus c. Nazianzen was not against Infants-Baptism and his judgment will be taken as soon as most mens 2. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be taken for a state of Childhood yet in that place of Nazianzen we mention it is not to be taken so largely that is Children of some understanding as Mr. Danvers doth suggest because of the instance of Circumcision given by the Father 3. Nazianzen being a Greek-Father intends the word according to its proper signification and as it is generally taken in the New-Testament as well as in prophane Authors and that is a state of Infancy for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Infant saith Mr. Leigh Crit. Sac. and is properly spoken de partu recens edito of a Child newly born quoting Beza on Luke 18. 15. who saith the word properly is taken for Infantes teneri nimirum adhuc ab uberibus pendentes parvuli i. e. Sucking Babes such as are carried in arms The same word is given to Christ when the Wise-men found him in swadling-clouts Luke 2. 12. And we have it again for a new-born Babe 1. Pet. 2. 2. As new-borne Babes desire the sincere Milk of the word c. But Mr. Danvers hath not done with Nazianzen yet and therefore frames an Objection for us and answers it himself thus It is not manifest that in case of death he would have an Infant baptized To which he answers It is true but that was not quà Infant but as a dying person We see by this acute distinction that our Antagonist is not only a Critick but that he hath some Logick too in which he saith he owneth little skill but that little I suppose is in that part which they call Sophistry or the abuse of Logick But that the weakness of this distinction may appear consider 1. That it is true Nazianzen would not have an Infant baptized quà Infant 2. It is untrue that Nazianzen would have an Infant baptized quà a dying person for if they were to be baptized under either of these Considerations then had he been for the baptizing all Infants and dying persons promiscuously 3. But Nazianzens judgment was to have them baptized because they were the Children of Christians in iminent danger of death They were such as were capacitated for that Ordinance on the account of God's Covenant else why doth he speak of circumcising Children in the very place which is now under debate Melius est enim nondum rationis compotes sanctificari quam non Signatos et initiatos vitâ excedere Nazianz. Orat. 40. It is better saith he they should be consecrated without their knowledg than to die without the Seal and not be initiated idque nobis designat octavum diem circumcisio illa itaque fuit figurale signaculum ac propter irrationales introducta For so it happened to the circumcised Babes of Israel But let the account be what it will upon which Nazianzen would have Children
Mercy 6. Because the Soul that is not baptized is lost This is to the same purpose with the first but the Magdeburgs have it not nor Dr. Taylor who translates the Epistle to Fidus out of the Greek at the end of his Consideration of the practice of the Church of Baptizing Infants Therefore Mr. Danvers must find it elsewhere or else he split the first Reason into two cujus est darâ— ejus est disponere There are two other things which he brings as reasons why he questions this Council which are very frivolous as That Tertullian Cyprian's Master was against Infants-Baptism which is not so absolutely for he was for it in danger of Death and the other is That many things were fathered on Cyprian which were none of his If I should let but this one pass Mr. Danvers would cry out against me for partiality But why should he fancy that this of Infants-Baptism was one of those things fathered upon Cyprian when the Council is owned by the Magdeburgs the Fathers Greek and Latine and even by Mr. Tombes himself as before His third Reason I have spoken to already being co-incident with the latter part of his first One thing I had almost forgotten and that is whereas in my Infant-Baptism Asserted I tell Mr. Danvers that his pretended Witness Tertullian was as corrupt as Cyprian and that the Magdeburgs inform us that he was the first inventor of Chrysm and that Cyprian belike took it up from him he retorts in his Reply thus That if Tertullian was the first inventor of Chrysm which Cyprian calls an Apostolical Tradition what credit then saith he is to be given to his Testimony that dare to avouch so fearful a Lye A rude speech altogether unfit to be uttered against so glorious a Martyr as Cyprian was but any thing is good enough to be spoken in contempt of those who are for Infant-Baptism But I assure the Reader that as there is no good Manners so neither is there truth in that passage of Mr. D's for I cannot find that Cyprian held Chrysm an Apostolical Tradition it being not reckon'd amongst his Naevi which after the Magdeburg's account are six and the last is Sumpsit Ceremonias ex Traditionibus Montani a Tertulliano consecrationem unctionem post Baptismum That is he took up the Ceremonies viz. Consecration and Unction that is Chrism from Tertullian out of the Traditions of Montanus Here 's nothing of Apostolical Tradition And Hamelmannus shews what Traditions Cyprian held that he took up the Ceremonies of Consecration and Unction from Tertullian but not a word of calling it an Apostolical Tradition There is nothing in this Section more but only that Mr. Danvers doth endeavour to vindicate himself from a mistake about Austin's words which I charged upon him but it is so intricate and dark that I do not very well understand him Also there is some disparagement cast by him upon that blessed Martyr of Jesus Christ Mr. Philpot and a fling against the New-England way of baptizing the Children only of In-Churched Parents with some other Reflections which I let pass as futilous having no mind to spend time in such small matters CHAP. III. Wherein Mr. Danvers endeavours to vindicate his Witnesses against my Exceptions and the same examined and found insufficient 1. HE begins with particular persons but first minds me with my penuriousness in my Preface to Infants-Baptism where I allow him from the first Century to the end of the twelfth only two Persons against Infant-Baptism viz. Adrianus and Hincmarus But what will he think of me now for I have denied him those two also as before and have shewed the ground of the mistake why they have been looked upon under the notion of Antipedobaptists The first witness mentioned is Tertullian who saith Mr. Danvers opposeth it in six Arguments We shall inquire into them by and by Mr. Danvers saith true that I acknowledg Tertullian hath divers passages seemingly against Infants-Baptism but according to his humor he is catching me up before I am down for he calls upon the Reader to take notice that his witness is owned by me And is it not a very great owning indeed to say he hath divers passages that seem to be against it But in the 38 page of my Infant Baptism I give a Reason why it 's more than probable that Tertullian was for Infant-Baptism in the 41 page That he was no more against their baptizing than of grown persons baptizing and in the 43 page we shewed that the Reason why he would have Infants-Baptism delayed was not because he judged it unlawful but inexpedient for he was for it rather than the Child should dye unbaptized And now I tell Mr. Danvers further that as for those seeming passages against Infant-Baptism they are spoken in reference to the Children of Pagans not Believers according to the judgment of Estius and other Learned Men for as Mr. Marshal observes Tertullian in that Book of his de Baptismo c. 18. speaks of the Baptism of such as were not born of Christian Parents and therefore desires the Baptism of such Infants should be deferred till they come to years and be able to make confession of their sins and profession of Faith their Parents being Infidels and their Sponsors mortal And that this is the meaning of the place seemed evident to him because in the 39 chap. of his Book de Anima Tertullian acknowledgeth that the Children of Believers had a priviledg tam ex Seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina a prerogative by their birth besides that of their Education And by this time me thinks Mr. Danvers should be sick of his Witness Tertullian as Mr. Marshal said to Mr. Tombes in the same case As touching the Reasons which Tertullian urgeth for the delay of the Baptism of Infants and which Mr. Danvers undertakes to Vindicate as proper and good against those who would make those words Suffer little children to come unto me to be a coming to Baptism I shall only remind him with two or three things 1. With what we have from the Magdiburgs Cent. 3. c. 4. p. 83. Sentit Tertullianus in libro de Baptismo mira opinione pueros non tam cito baptizandos osse atque ad illud Matthaei 19. Nolite parvulos prohibere c. Tertullian say they is of a strange opinion to disswade the Baptizing of Children by such Reasons as he gives in his paraphrase upon the 19 of Matthew 2. None that ever I heard of have brought this Text of coming to Christ as a full and direct proof for baptizing of Children or have urged that the coming there was a coming to Christ for Baptism who never Baptized any nevertheless it proves two points which lay a good foundation for Infants-Baptism 1. That the Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as grown persons 2. That Infancy is no Bar or exclusion of any from coming to Christ and receiving a
mouths that are upon the point of dying But notwithstanding Mr. D's confidence it is very clear that that 85 Canon was not intended by the Council to exclude Infants from Baptism because Augustin who was as Mr. D. tells us 2d Ed. p. 108 a great Patron and Defender of infants-Infants-Baptism subscribed all the Decrees of this Council So that only the Adult are herein intended Next for that of Laodicea The 2d Canon is for Penance according to the quality of the Sin The 26th owneth Exorcism the 48th for Anointing with Oyle after Baptism the 59th contains the Canon of Scripture and rejects the Revelation and what then will become of Mr. Danver's Theopolis or discourse made upon some part of it which is in print But what doth this Council say against Infant-Baptism why that the Baptized should rehearse the Articles of the Creed 2 Ed. p. 59 but do they say that none must be Baptized but such and why may not this intend only the Adult as well as that above let Mr. Danvers render a satisfactory reason against it if he can Synodus Neocaesariensis Lastly the Neocaesarean Council upon which Mr. Danvers lays so much Stress determines in the 6th Canon that a Woman with Child might be baptized Because the Baptism reached not her Womb for in the Confession made in Baptism each ones free choice is shewed hence Mr. Danvers from Mr. Tombes concludes against Infants-Baptism To this I answered in my Infants-Baptism Asserted c. That the Canon respected Pagans as Mr. Marshal notes from Balsamon the Glossator who saith Such Women as went with Child and come from the Infidels And what is this to the Question which is about Children born in the Church of Believing Parents and Balsamon himself upon this Canon saith with respect to these they may be said to answer by such as undertake for them But Mr. Danvers out of self-Opinion that he is still right in his Baptismal notions and that no Gloss can be good that thwarts with him rejects it and tells us we do miss the Case But what thinks he of Dr. Hammon he may be thought to hit the case as likely as Mr. Danvers The said Dr. speaking of this Cannon brought against the Baptizing the Children of Christians saith Is it far enough from it for as for the words of the latter part of the Canon Each ones will or resolution which is professed or signified in the Confession or Profession for so he words it in his translation of the Greek it imports no more than that the Confession or Profession of a Woman that being with Child is baptized doth only belong to her self not to the Child and consequently that her Baptism belongs only to her self so as the Child cannot be said to be baptized because the Parent is And all saith he that can be concluded from hence is that the Child of such a Parent that was baptized when that was in her Womb must when it is born have a Baptism for it self and the Baptism of the Parent not be thought to belong to it And this as he observes in opposition to the Conceit of the Jewish Rabbies who say si gravida fiat proselyta adeoque lavacro suscipiatur proli ejus Baptismo opus non est that is if a Woman great with Child become a proselyte and be baptized her Child needs not Baptism But if this will not satisfie Mr. Danvers I must tell him that the Magdiburgs do question If I understand them aright whether that Council ever made this Canon Canon Concilii Neocaesariensis si unquam fuit permittit c. And certainly those Excellent Historians as Mr. Danvers calls them would never have put such an If to it if they had wanted ground for so doing And Mr. D. cannot be ignorant how usual it hath been to have Canons foisted in by others that were never thought one by the Councils themselves Nay I think I have more reason to deny the very Being of this Council than Mr. Danvers hath that of Cyprians 66 Bishops For neither Eusebius nor Socrates nor Theodoret nor Sozomen nor Evagrius those ancient Ecclesiastical Historians make any mention of it that I can find nor our modern Collector of the Councils Sympson but however suppose there was such a Council and that they made such a Canon just as Mr. Danvers words it There is nothing positive against Infant-Baptism which certainly there would have been had their Judgments been against it And Mr. Danvers only gathers it by Consequence because they say that Confession and free-choice was necessary to Baptism But this is not sufficient For Our Saviour tells us That he that Believes not shall be damned which is as much against the Salvation of Infants as these words of the Council against their Baptism And yet Mr. D. will not deny but that some Infants are saved And why may not the other expression be as well taken in a limited sense But suppose not Mr. D. must remember that he tells us in his second Ed. p. 65 That Austin saith That none without due Examination both as to Doctrine and Conversation ought to be admitted to Baptism And yet Austin was for the Baptizing of Infants And why may not this Council be supposed to be as inconsiderate Certainly they were corrupt eonugh in Mr. D's Judgment to take up such an Antichristian error as he is pleased to call it For the 1st Canon is against Ministers Marriage The 2d is for Penance The 3d. against often Marriages and Penance for the same c. Thus far we have tried Mr. Danvers his strength and let the Reader Judg upon the whole whether he hath any ground to conclude himself free from Prevarication both in Councils as well as Fathers For after all this Clutter and great noise of Councils and Fathers he hath not produced so much as one man that denyed and condemned the practice of Infants-Baptism nor one Canon that ever was discharged against it Thirdly in regard I except only against four of those eminent Men before-mentioned as not baptized till Aged though born of Christian Parents as Mr. Danvers will have it and they are Constantine Nazianzen Chrysostom and Austine he therfore triumphs and saith he hath six other unperverted Authorities unexcepted against who were not baptized till they could make confession of Faith which he conceives is a substantial argument that Believers Baptism was the Baptism generally owned in this Age. To this I answer 1 That for to say Believers Baptism was generally owned in this Age comes short of his former Assertion that it was the only Baptism owned 2. And that it was generally owned because of those six mens not being baptized till aged is a non-sequitur and the quite contrary may be much more rationally argued for if upon his inquisition through Asia Africa and Europe that is all the world where Christianity was professed he can find but six persons born of Christian Parents remaining unbaptized till they were
sealed with Baptism Faith must needs preceed And I do in my Answer censure him for stopping there when he should have proceeded with what follows which is this What then say you of Infants which neither know good nor evil may we Baptize them yea for so we are taught by the Circumcision of Children Now how doth Mr. Danvers clear himself of this Why by telling us there are no such words to be found in Bazil and I do freely confess my mistake of a name and fathering upon Bazil the words of Nazianzen but withal I must tell Mr. Danvers that he in his Treatise of Baptism 1 edit Cent. 4. pag. 66. 2 edit p. 56. fathers upon Nazianzen that which he never spake viz. That the Baptized used in the first place to confess their sins and to renounce the Devil and all his works before many witnesses and that none were Baptized of old but they that did so confess their sins and for which he quotes no place where we may find it in that Father which put me and another to some trouble in perusing all that Nazianzen hath writ upon the subject of Baptism so that I can confidently affirm those words that none were Baptized of old but they that did confess their sins are coin'd by Mr. Danvers and none of Nazianzen's And I am apt to think he cannot find in Nazianzen that the Baptized renounced the Devil and all his works before many witnesses because the Magd. have no such quotation out of him as I can find but they tell us indeed Ephrim said so By which it appears to me that Mr. D. is as guilty in making an Authority of his own as I am For he saith pag 47. of his Reply it is true the words I find to be exactly the words of Gregory Nazianzen And then withal let me mind him that Nazianzen's Authority for Infants-Baptism in the 4th Century is altogether as good as Bazil's being of as great repute in in the Church as he and what pregnant grounds we have to believe that Bazil was for Infant-Baptism likewise you have heard before To conclude this although it be not possible for any unprejudiced man to conceive otherwise of my naming Bazil instead of Nazianzen than that it was an innocent mistake yet doth Mr. Danvers according to his accustomed charity declare his fear that I did knowingly impose upon the Reader and that it was not lapsus calami but mentis not a sin of ignorance or a meer mistake but a wilful mistake But in these his uncharitable surmises he is very injurious to me but most of all unto himself who is more guilty in this very particular A sixth Falshood he is censured for is for bringing in the Waldenses as witnesses against Infants-Baptism c. But as for this he tells us he will examine it in his 3d Chapter whereto he refers the Reader and so do I to my Reply to him under that head where is sufficiently discovered his falshood and weakness The seventh Charge is for dealing craftily with Mr. Baxter and traducing his sayings quoting divers of his Arguments to Mr. Blake as though he had been only for Believers Baptism when in the same place he so fully explains himself that as for Infants Right to Baptism he takes that for granted upon the account of their Parents and that the dispute is wholly managed with respect to Adult not Infants-Baptism Now as to this Mr. Danvers hath nothing to say but that Mr. Baxter contradicts himself as before he hath said of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and all our Learned and Godly Divines according to the Verdict of his modest intellect The eight and last I charge him with is that of delusion which he endeavours to fasten upon the Reader in reference to Dr. Taylor by improving that Argument which he hath in his Liberty of Prophesie as though he were against Infants-Baptism when the Dr. himself saith his design in that piece was only to draw up a Schem of the Anabaptists Arguments and to represent their fallacious reasonings and declares that he conceives them to be in an Error and that he was for Infants-Baptism To this Mr. Danvers replyes in way of vindication that what-ever the Drs. judgment or end was in writing yet God's Wisdom and Power in it the more appears if an Enemy to bring forth such convincing Arguments from his own mouth to witness to his despised truth To all which this may suffice for Answer 1. God is Infinite and unsearchable in his Wisdom and Power and hath made even Satan himself to bear witness to the Divinity of Christ but whether Mr. Danvers's Opinion be a truth Sub judice lis est is the thing in controversie 2. As touching his Argments how convincing they are we do not deem Mr. Danvers a Competent judg 3. The Dr. himself who hath so much discust the point and examined what can be said pro and con is more likely to give a right Judgment and to penetrate into the strength of the Arguments on both sides and he hath declared himself fully for Infants-Baptism and given us his Arguments for the same in a Book entituled The Consideration of the Church in Baptizing the Infants of Believers the which he published since his liberty of Prophesy But notwithstanding all this Mr. Danvers takes much pains to make the World believe that the Dr. in his liberty of Prophesy spake his own judgment as well as theirs And in his Preface to his Treatise of Baptism Edit 1. says Surely Dr. Taylor had the reputation of a person of more Integrity Conscience and Honesty than so egregiously to prevaricate in the things of God But what prevarication is it in him when he gives us to understand he doth but personate an Anabaptist and tells us he will draw a scheme of what they can say for their Opinion which he looks upon as erroneous and in the same place positively declares himself for Infants-Baptism And whereas Dr. Hammond hath answered that Collection of Antipaedobaptistical Arguments put forth by Dr. Taylor Mr. Danvers tells us Dr. Hammond hath rather confirmed than answered them But I hope not all of them for that had been a strange way of answering indeed There is one of his mediums to prove Infants-Baptism by which Mr. Danvers saith I much glory in and which he is pleased to except against the rest it seems are not worthy of his notice and that is the Drs. Argument taken from the use of Baptism amongst the Jews as a kind of Initiation of which Mr. Ainsworth gives divers Testimonies upon the 17. Gen. and saith he the Institutions of Christ who came first Messias to that People was born of that Nation lived regularly under their Law and observed their customs were by him drawn from their former practices in the Old Testament and so were lightly changed and accommodated to his own purposes And after that he had instanced in divers things he pitcheth upon the
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
Cresconius I can find nothing like it And Vicecomes is as false as them for he tells us Luther Calvin Beza c. were all of them against infants-Infants-Baptism and that Fulgentius a learned Donatist did deny if Mr. Danvers mistakes him not infants-Infants-Baptism and asserts only that which was after Faith Whereas Fulgentius himself de fide ad Petrum cap. 30. expresly tells us that Baptism is sufficient to take away Original Sin from Infants and Mr. Danvers hath so branded Spanhemius in his Reply as a very partial and unfaithful Writer one guilty of lying fictions and Chimeras that 't is strange to me he should produce him And what do Osiander Fuller and Bullinger say why that the Donatists and our modern Anabaptists were all one But do they say in all things I have already told Mr. Danvers that they were one in regard of their concurrence in very many things and drew the Paralel between them And we say Denominatio sumitur a majori And indeed the rigid Anabaptist does Symbolize with the Donvtists in nothing more than in confining the Church of Christ to their Party so no true Church out of Mr. Danvers's Party And if we will not renounce Infants-Baptism and be dipt after their way he bids defiance to all overtures of Union and Communion for he saith in his Preface to his Treatise of Baptism that whilst such a Foundation of Antichrist is held fast all Exhortations to Union viz. in Church-fellowship and Communion will signifie little His other Authorities I confess are more significant to wit Austin Tho. Walden Eckbertus and Emerieus and therefore I shall a little examine his Quotations out of them 1 He tells us Reply 134 that Austin against the Donatists Tom. 7. l. 3 4. c. 23. doth with much zeal and fury manage the Argument for Infants-baptism against them bitterly cursing them that oppose it But I cannot find that Austin takes the least notice of Infant-baptism throughout the whole 3d Book wherein yet if Mr. D. may be believed he manages that Argument with much Zeal and Fury Nor in the 4th Book till he comes to the 23d Chap. And there as Mr. Baxter hath already informed him he is so far from controverting Infants-baptism with the Donatists that he makes use of it as a medium in his arguing against them 2. He tells us that Austin in his Epistle to Marcellus it should be Marcellinus Tom. 7. c. 6. p. 724. opposed himself against them the Donatists for denying Infants-baptism A great mistake for all he saith of Marcellinus there as touthing Infant-baptism is this viz. Octavum Errorem fuisse de Infantibus qui priusquam renascantur in Christo praeveniuntur occiduo Scriptum esse raptus est ne malitia illius intellectum mutaret Sap. 4. That is His eight Error was concerning Infants that dye before they were Baptized that they were taken away lest malice should change corrupt their Understanding quoting the 4. Wisdom in the Apochrypha for it And let the Reader judg whether this is to deny Infant-Baptism 3. He tells us that Austin and Walden do both affirm that Vincentius Victor a Donatist denied Baptism to little ones Austin in his third Book de Anima c. 14. And Walden in his Book de Sacrament Tit. 5. c. 33. fol. 118. As for Austin there is not the least Syllable to be found of any such matter in that 14 Chap. Nay so far is Austin from charging Vin. Victor with denying Infant-baptism that in the preceding Chapter he tells you his Opinion was that only those Infants that dyed Baptized went immediately to Heaven and as for others they continued in Paradise till the last Resurrection and were not till then admitted to the happiness of Heaven Haec verba tua sunt saith Austin to Vincentius ubi te confiteris consentire dicenti quibusdam non baptizatis sic temporarie collatum esse Paradisum ut supersit illis in resurrectione praemium regni caelorum contra sententiam principalem qua constitutum est non intraturum in illud regnum qui non renatus fuerit ex aqua Spiritu sancto Quam sententiam principalem timens violare Pelagius nec illos sine baptismo in regnum caelorum credidit intraturos quos non credidit reos Tu autem originalis peccati reos parvulos confiteris tamen eos sine lavacro regenerationis absolvis in paradisum mittis postea etiam regnum caelorum intrare permittis And Walden in the place Mr. D. quotes saith the same directly Vincentius dixit eos scil Infantes trahere originale peceatum sine baptismo tamen duci posse in regnum caelorum in resurrectione finali As for Eckbertus the Monk and Emericus I can find no such matter in the Magdeb. that they likned the Waldenses in the 12 Cent. to the Donatists And yet I deny not but it might be so because as Perin saith the Popish Priests did reproach them with the odious name of Cathari because they prest after Purity by which name the Donatists were heretofore called because they held a sinless state of Perfection attainable in this Life And this may serve as a sufficient answer also to Mr. D's last Argument to prove the Donatists against Infant-baptism because they and the Novatians were the same in Principle with the Waldenses It being only a foul Aspersion cast upon them by their malicious Adversaries Posterior aetas saith Danaeus ad praegravandam bonam Evangelii causam homines vere evangelicos infami Catharorum nomine calumniata est Thus Reader it is left to thy judgment as Mr. Danvers speaks whether he hath sufficiently justified his sixfold Testimony that the Donatists did deny Infants-Baptism I hope whatever Mr. Danvers may say to the contrary I have sufficiently invalidated all that he hath brougat for that end and that thou wilt acquit me from the charge of disingenuity in condemning his Witnesses without cause So we are come to his last Witnesses the Ancient Britains which may well be called his because no Man ever before him affirmed they were against Infants-Baptism Of the Witness pretended to be born against Infants-Baptism by the Ancient Britains MR. Danvers is singular in his Opinion for never did any Anabaptist that I have read of hit upon this Topick to prove the Antiquity of their way no not Mr. Tombes whose invention is admirable for Arguments in that part of his Anti-paedobaptism which I have lying by me which consists of above 260 pages in Quarto being part of the 1500 which Mr. Danvers says in his Preface was never yet replyed to And 't is no wonder that no body hath undertaken it for as the Author of the History of the Popes Nephews speaks the Jesuits are Politick in writing large Volumns on purpose to discourage the Protestants from answering them Mr. Danvers gives four Arguments that the Ancient Britains that inhabited Wales when Austin the Monk was sent by Pope Gregory into this Island to preach the Gospel