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
leguntur yet they add in the very next line that Origen and Cyprian affirm that even in the Apostles days Infants were baptized since these Fathers lived in the next Century after the Apostles they may very well be thought to understand what the Apostles did In the 2d Century Mr. Danvers quotes from the Magdiburgs some of Justin Martyr's words in his Apology to Antoninus Pius where mention is made of Instruction and fasting and prayer before Baptism but withal conceals what in the same place the Magdiburgs tell us that this was the Method which was used in reference to Aliens upon their Conversion to Christianity for these are their words Cum qui ad fidem Christianam conversus esset sat instructus c. that is when any one was converted to the Christian Faith he was sufficiently instructed before Baptism In the 3d Century he doth egregiously prevaricate in telling us that the Magdiburgs say As to the Rites of Baptism they have no Testimony of alteration for hereby he doth suggest to the Reader that in this Age as well as in the former there was no Baptism owned but that of the Adult whereas 1. Those words as to the Rites of Baptism they have no Testimony of alteration are his own words and not the Magdiburgs who say only this viz. Baptizandi ritus in Ecclesiis Asianis observatos hoc seculo quia omnium ferme Doctorum Asiaticorum scriptis destituimur commemorare non possumus that is We cannot rehearse the Rites of Baptizing observed in the Asiatick-Churches because we want for the most part the Writings of the Asiatick Doctors 2. He silently passeth by what they do expresly say was in use in this Age namely that Adult persons of both sexes and also Infants were baptized Baptizabantur in utroque sexu Adulti simul et Infantes Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. 3. Further under this head he perverts the Sence of Mr. Baxter's words and carrys them quite off from the intent and scope of his Discourse as you may see in his Saints Rest Part 1. c. 8. sect 5. For what is there spoken from Origen and Cyprian of an express Covenanting before Baptism is meant of Adult Strangers nor is Mr. Baxter treating there of Baptism but something else And at this rate what Author can be secure from the Violence of his interpretations And if he had thought on it he might have urged for Adult Baptism that of the Magdiburgs Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. where having said as before That persons of both Sexes both Aged and Infants were baptized the words immediately following are these Adultorum autem aliquandiu antequam baptizabantur fides explorabatur i. e. But as touching the Adult they enquired after Faith and Repentance before they were baptized Thus much for the 3 first Centuries wherein as you see Mr. Danvers is sufficiently faulty and yet as if he were most innocent he doth in the preface to his Innocency and Truth most confidently address himself to the Reader and complements him in a high strain saying that at his Bar the matter is now brought betwixt me and him and all that he asks is only to do themselves and the Truth in question so much right as to afford the Common Justice of an open ear that having heard the Recrimination he means Crimination they will also attend to what is said for Vindication But the specious Title of a Book or Daring Preface will never blind an intelligent Reader who will judg of things not by a parcel of confident words but secundum allegata probata according as things are alledged and proved In the next place we come to the 4th Century concerning which Mr. Danvers saith I make a great Cry though I know no such Vociferation but only a just Censure made against him by reason of the Authorities of this Age which he hath so much abused For in his Treatise of Baptism in both Editions he thus speaks In this Age they the Magdiburgs tell us That it was the universal practice to Baptize the Adult upon Profession of Faith if he quotes it not to shew that it was the practice to Baptize only the Adult it is impertinent but his grand Assertion both in his Treatise of Baptism and in his Reply p. 4. That Adult Baptism was only practised in the 4th Century denotes in what sense we are to understand him Now for Mr. Danvers thus to father on the Magdiburgs what they never spake and also to pervert what they did speak renders him chargeable with Falshood and Prevarication for 1. They say no such thing that it was the Universal Practice to baptize only the Adult upon profession of Faith But of this in its proper place when we shall make good the Charge of Falshood against him in divers other things as well as this 2. They do indeed tell us That in the Churches of Asia the Baptized were for some time first instructed and were called Catechumens wherein then lies the prevarication Why 1. Because the Instances there given by the Magdiburgs were Aliens For they tell us of some Jews taking it from Athanasius that being newly converted to Christianity prostrated themselves at the feet of the Bishop and desired Baptism Narrat de Judeis Berythi Athanasius in lib. de passione Domini quod ad Episcopi ejus urbis genua advoluti Baptisma petierint quos ipse cum clericis suis suscipiens per dies multos in doctrina Christianae pietatis erudierit which Jews after they had been for many days instructed in the doctrine of Christian Piety the said Bishop with his Clarks baptized 2. Because a little before in the same Chapter the Magdiburgs have these words Baptizabantur autem aquâ publicè in Templis cujuscunq sexus aetatis et conditionis homines men of all ages sexes and conditions were baptized publickly in the Temples how could this be by dipping and lest it should be thought Children were not comprehended under those universal terms they say in the same chapter De Asianis Ecclesiis Nazianzenus loquens Infantes baptizandos esse ait c. Nazianzen speaking of the Churches of Asia saith That Children were to be baptized And note here by the way Reader That because in my Answer I have not gone on with the following words of Nazianzen si aliquid immineat periculi that is in case any thing of danger happen Mr. Danvers doth in his Preface exclaim against me for curtailing that Father but the judicious Reader may understand that he quarrels at me without a cause for my business was to prove that Infants Baptism was owned in that Century as to matter of fact and not to discourse the ground of it or to enquire in what cases it was done and therefore he might have spared his frivolous charge about that matter It is truely observed by one of the Anabaptists party That my Antagonist is so tenacious that he will stand in a thing although all the World gainsay
baptized it is not material since he owned their Baptism in some case which is sufficient if we had no more to overthrow Mr. Danvers's Position That the Baptism of Adult persons was the only Baptism owned in this Age and it is excentrical to the question to talk of the Consideration on which they were baptized But to give Mr. D'anvers full measure pressed down and running over we shall acquaint him with some other place of Nazianzen where he is for the Baptizing Children absolutely without respect to dying state and that is in his 4th Oration p. 648. Edit Lutetiae Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. It belongeth to all degrees of Ages to all Kinds and Manners of Life Wherefore it should be carried through all Art thou a young-Man Then 't is of use against the turbulent motions of the soul So he speaks of its conveniency for old Age. Then he comes to Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Hast thou an Infant let him be sanctified baptized from his Infancy let him be dedicated to the Spirit lest wickedness should take occasion c. And then he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Art thou afraid of the Seal Mr. D'anvers will not have Baptism to be a Seal because of the tenderness of his nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou art a pusillanimous Mother and of a weak Faith As for that jeer with which he concludes that we may as well bring Protogenes for an Authority that pretended to Baptize Children in this Age to cure Diseases as Gregory Nazianzen to save their Souls I shall retort what I find in his Friend Haggar in his Book called The foundation of the Font discover'd pag. 94. Where he thus speaks I can boldly say with a good conscience in the presence of God to his Glory I have known many weak and sickly before that have recovered health and strength afterwards that is after being dipt and some immediately in a few days yea and that when they have been so ill that all Doctors have given them over A good encouragement to proselyte credulous souls to their way and to augment their Churches apace for if Dipping prove usually so medicinal and succesful even in desperate cases it will undoubtedly impair if not render altogether useless the Practice of Physick But whether this story of Haggar be not as fabulous as that of Protogenes I leave to the Reader to judge 2. Mr. Danvers in the next place comes to the Decrees of the three Councils to prove that it was the universal practice of this Age to Baptize upon the profession of Faith To which I gave this Answer 1st That we have ten-times three for Infants-Baptism and if we must go by number of Councils we shall carry it 2. I told him that the 3 Councils which he mentions for Adult Baptism had respect only to Pagans To which he gives this answer It is granted I think as I have made it ready to his hand he may quote the Canons of thirty Councils for Infants-Baptism in the following Ages and a stout Argument no doubt for it But what are such Decrees saith he to this 4th Century which are for Believers-Baptism on profession and free choice and 't is impossible to produce one for Infants-Baptism till after this Century To this I reply 1st Mr. Danvers boasts too much in saying he made the 30 Councils ready to my hand for Infants-Baptism and he is too vain-glorious to confess who made them ready to his hand but without disparagement to his reading I think verily 't was Baronius or Vossius or some other 2dly He confesseth that we have 30 Councils for Infants-Baptism what then is become of his stout Assertion in his Treatise of Baptism Chapt. 7. p. 56. That not only Scripture but Antiquity it self which saith he hath been so much boasted of is altogether for Believers and not for Infants-Baptism 3dly Let it be further noted that we can produce 30 for it and he not one against it but he tells us 't is impossible for us to produce one for Infants-Baptism till after the 4th Century But 4thly Mr. Danvers hath forgotten himself for we have an African Council about an Age before his three Councils consisting of 66 Bishops where Cyprian was present that flourished in the year 250 who determined that Children might ought to be baptized before the eight day Cent. 3. Cap. 9. p. 205. Synodus Africana de infantibus baptizandis and to which Synod Jerom refers for the Antiquity of Infants-baptism mentioning Cyprians Epistle to Fidus as the Magdiburgs have it Cent. 4. c. 5. p. 239. nor is that to be slighted which Austin speaks concerning this Synod Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans c. Cyprian was not devising any new Decree but followed the most sure Faith of the Church Aug. Epist. 28. ad Hieronimum But if Infant-Baptism was owned in the 4th Century why is it not mentioned in any of those three Eminent Councils which were then held the Carthaginian the Laodicean and Neocesarean They speak not a word of it but positively decree that Teaching Confession Faith and free choice ought to preceed Baptism I answer That as it is certain that almost all the Canons of those Councils are taken up about Discipline and have hardly any thing of Doctrine in them so it is to be observed that Councils do not mention all things controverted in one Age but rather are concerned in resolving the doubts which troubled the Church when such Councils were convened since therefore there is no Canon in those three Councils before-specified for Infants-Baptism it may well be thought the reason was because in those dayes none did scruple it which we may the rather believe because it was in practice before those Councils and in the same Century also as is before fully shewn But since Mr. Danvers glories so much in these Councils and prefers them before all those many ones that follow after it will not be amiss to examin what they are that he stands so much upon for certainly if we must give them the preheminence it must be upon account of their purity whereas truly we shall find if they are not altogether as corrupt as those that follow yet certainly in some things as gross for Error and Superstition as the Popish Councils themselves The 4th Council of Carthage which is that Mr. Danvers intends and it is the 85th Article Those who are to be baptized must give in their Names and Abstain for a long time from Wine and flesh and after often examination may receive Baptism The 7 and 90 Canons owneth Exorcism or conjuring out the Devil Though if Mr. Danvers is to be believed Exorcism was added to the former filthy customs in the 9 Cent. as he tells us in his 2d Ed. p. 11 7. The 74 75 76 Canons are for Penance Also the 76 Canon is for pouring in the Eucharist into mens
is so bold as to say that the Magdiburgs tell us it was the Universal Practice to Baptize the Adult upon profession of Faith Treatise of Baptism Edit 1. p. 64. when they say otherwise namely That persons of all ages were baptized in the Temples and cite Nazianzen for baptizing of Infants in the Churches of Asia to which also we have added the Testimonies of Hillary Ambrose Jerom Chrisostom Austin all of the 4th Century and for Infants Baptism lastly he brings the Canons of the 3 Councils of Carthage Laodicea and Neocaesaria which have not a word in them against Infants Baptism and what is decreed about Confession before Baptism relates to Strangers as I presume I have made it appear beyond all doubt in the two last of them if that of Neocaesaria ever had a being But I must proceed on and follow Mr. Danvers for he tells us he is not alone in his Opinion and therefore brings in divers Authorities to confirm it that only the Adult upon confession of Faith were the subjects of Baptism in the first times p. 14 15. He begins with Strabo that saith In the first times Baptism was wont to be given to them only that could know and understand what profit was to be gotten by it But it seems by the story that Strabo his first-times go no higher than Austins Days for he instanceth in his being baptized at Age when-as we have Testimony that Childrens Baptism was in use in the Church above a hundred years before Austin was born And Austin that lived about four hundred years nearer the primitive times than Strabo affirms that the Church always had it and always held it Besides the Testimony of Strabo is not to be valued being condemned by Vossius and others for a false Historian We have formerly in our answer given instances thereof and particularly we noted that gross mistake of his That Sureties called God-Fathers and God-Mothers were first invented in Austin's days when Tertullian speaks of them above a hundred years before Next follows Beatus Rhenanus Rupertus Boemus Dr. Hammond and Mr. Baxter the eldest of whom lived but in the 12th Cent. according to Mr. Danvers and had no other way of knowing what was don in the first times than we and therefore let them affirm what they please unless they can prove it by the records of those times it signifies no more than if Mr. Danvers told us so And the contrary to what he asserts is apparent from Antiquity But because Mr. Danvers shall not say I slight his Authorities I shall particularly examine them And as for B. Rhenanus who lived in 15. Cent. what Mr. Danvers makes him say is very impertinent to his purpose For his business is to prove that only the Adult were then baptized which his quotation affirms not and what then doth it signifie but to help to swell his Book But I shall make it appear that Mr. D. hath shamefully mistaken Rhenanus's sense and thereby exceedingly abused him For B. Rhenanus in his Annot. upon Tertullian's Corona militis on those words Aquam adituri saith thus p. 500. Baptizandi ritum ostendit qui in usu Veterum fuit de quo Consuetudo quaedam mutavit Nam tum Adulti regenerationis lavacro tingebantur quotidie externis e Paganismo ad nostram Religionem confluentibus Siquidem id temporis ubique reperire erat Ethnicos Christianis admixtos Postea statis temporibus nempe bis in anno celebrari baptismus caeptus ejus enim rei nullam hic facit mentionem alioqui non omissurus Qui mos antiquus etiam per tempora Caroli Magni et Ludovici Augusti servatus est Judicant hoc Leges ab illis sancitae quibus cavetur ne quemquam sacerdotes baptizent excepto mortis articulo praeterquam in Paschate Pentacoste That is He Tertullian shews the Rite of baptising that was in use among the Ancients from which a certain custom hath made a change For then for the most part the Adult were baptized strangers daily flocking from Paganism to our Religion because at that time Heathens were every-where to be found mixed among the Christians Afterwards Baptism began to be celebrated at stated times to wit twice in the year for of this thing the two stated times of Baptism He Tertullian makes no mention here otherwise had it been in use he would not have omitted the mention of it Which ancient custom to wit of celebrating Baptism at two stated times of the year was also observed in the days of Charles the Great and Ludovick the Emperor as appears by the Laws made by them whereby care is taken that the Priests Baptize none except those at the point of death but at Easter and Whitsontide By this it is apparent 1st that by the Adult he means only Heathens newly converted and 2. By the ancient custom Baptizing at the two stated times of Easter and Whisontide and not the baptizing those that were come to their full growth as Mr. D. saith And to assure him Infants are not hereby excluded Rhenanus presently adds Hoc sic accipiendum ut sciamus Infantes post Pascha natos ad baptismum Pentacostes reservatos et natos post Pentacostem ad Paschatem festum diem Bapismo offerri solitos excepta seu dixi necessitate una cum adultis Catechumenis qui de externis nationibus Danorum c. similium populorum Christianae Religioni initiabantur That is this is so to be understood that we may know that these Infants that were born after Easter were reserved to the Baptism of Whitsontide and those that were born after Whitsontide to the Easter following except in case of necessity c. And now I perswade my self Mr. D. for very shame will take no more notice of this Quotation unless it be to acknowledg his Inadvertency in producing it His next Author is Rupertus in his 4th Book of Divine Offices c. 18. Here Mr. D. is guilty of most notorious forgery For in his second edition p. 73. he hath the same quotation and there he tells us Rupertus saith that in former times the custom was that they administred not the Sacrament of Regeneration but only at the Feast of Easter and Pentecost And here in his Reply p. 15. he alters the words and makes him say that they administred but only to the Catechumens c. If Mr. D. must have the liberty thus to deal with Authors I confess there is no standing against him But I hope the Reader will hereby be satisfied that this signifies no more as to his purpose than the former but deservedly renders him unworthy of belief in his Quotation of Authors Boemus follows who lived in the 16 Cent. though M. D. brings him into the 12th 2. Ed. p. 73. And he tells us there that he saith That in times past the custom was to administer Baptism only to those that were instructed in the Faith and seven times in the week before Easter and
of his Reply I do him manifest injury How so Why because he tells us he saith only this viz. many were the corruptions about Baptism that were creeping in some whereof he confesseth he mentions and amongst the rest Altering the form from dipping to sprinkling Where then is the manifest injury I know not unless it be because I say he changed and altered and being it seems pincht with this charge he calls me unfaithful man and though as above he confesseth that he said among other corruptions that was one the altering the Form from dipping to sprinkling yet he denies it again presently with a severe increpation and wonders that I am not ashamed to assert that he saith the custom of dipping the whole body was changed into sprinkling in the third Century I suppose Reader thou hast seldom met with the like ridiculous contradiction in any Author I assure thee some have set their wits on work to find out the injury I have done him and cannot hit upon it unless it be because I have asserted that he saith the custom of dipping the whole body when he only names dipping I thought indeed when ever people are dipt it had been the whole body and I borrowed the form of expression from himself p. 57 58. of his first Edition So that he is the Man that hath cause to be ashamed and is found very unfaithful in speaking thus forward and backward at his pleasure yea that which is manifestly false and then denying it in the same breath so adding one Falshood to another which is a sorry way of Vindication But he would say something if he knew what to clear himself but 't is very confused and impertinent as that he did not quote p. 125 126. for that but for the superstitious Rites and did thereby only intend c. with more such stuff which I let pass and think it necessary to give the Reader an account of the whole that he hath upon this matter in his Treatise of Baptism 1 Edit p. 113. 2 Edit p. 101 102. and so he will be the better able to judg whether I have wronged him or he me Thus he speaks there verbatim Many were the corruptions about Baptism that in this Age were creeping in as the confining Baptism ordinarily to be performed by a Bishop quoting Magd. Cent. 3. p. 123. limiting the time to Easter and Whitsontide p. 129. altering the Form from dipping to sprinkling there 's that for which I accuse him and the place from Rivers and Fountains to Baptisterions with divers superstitious Rites as p. 125 126. The 4th Falshood I charge him with is for Fathering several things upon the Magdeburgs respecting the 4th Century when not a word of it is to be found in them as 1. That they tell us it was the universal practice to baptize the Adult upon profession of faith and how he clears himself of this let the Reader observe all the Reply that he makes to it is That he doth not say that the Magdeburgs do say in so many words that it was the universal practice of this age to baptize the Adult upon profession of Faith as he saith I would insinuate But for this let Mr. Danvers's own Book decide the business I confess I wonder he should deny it when there are a thousand witnesses to prove it for so many Books were the first impression as they say For my part I have exprest the very syllabical words without altering one tittle as the Reader may see if he please to look on Mr. Danvers's Treatise of Baptism Edit 1. p. 64. under Century the 4th these are his words In this age they tell us that it was the universal practice to baptize the Adult upon profession of Faith and for which they give us several Authorities out of the Learned Fathers and Councils at that time some whereof you have as followeth If Mr. Danvers can excuse himself no better than he hath done in this it had been more for his credit to have been silent And whereas he excepts against the two instances I bring from the Magdeburgs that Baptizing of Children was owned in the Eastern-Churches The 1st was Nazianzen Mr. Danvers puts this off easily telling us he hath answered that already and refers the Reader thereto and so do I to the reply I make him where is manifested the Vanity of his distinction That Nazianzen was not for baptizing Children quà Children but as dying persons The other Instance given by me from the Magdeburgs is that of Athanasius Question to Antiochus which they bring for Infant-Baptism used in the African Churches the words are Quod et in Africanis ecclesiis receptum fuisse Athanasius testatur Quest. 124. 1 Athanasius doth witness in his 124. Question that it was received in the African Churches And for quoting this Mr. Danvers is in a pet and saith I produce a spurious piece is the Magdeburgensian History such why then doth he call it an excellent History And further addeth that I was not ignorant of this but went on purpose to abuse the world This is very harsh but I will not be moved but only tell him he does very ill thus to load me with undeserved Calumnies for 1. I took up the Quotation from the Magdeburgs Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 419. where they produce it for a Testimony for Infants-Baptism in the African-Churches 2. They give not the least hint in that place of its being spurious but introduce it with other Testimonies that are Authentick without the least Censure 3. I never understood that it was reputed spurious as Mr. Danvers presumptuously saith I did for I never read the life of Athanasius till after I received this severe correction who also saith I did out of meer design fall in with the wicked cheat This is more of Mr. Danvers's Charity and Sobriety and another of his great charges in the preface saying That I abused the Reader with a supposititious Testimony of Athanasius c. But is this so great a Crime in me as to deserve such severe Reprehensions Certainly not from Mr. D. who is equally guilty with me in this particular for in his 1. Ed. p. 66. p. 2. Ed. p 56. he quotes Arnobius upon the Psalms for his opinion which Perkins tells us is spurious Now if I should have told Mr. D. that he was not ignorant of this but went on purpose to abuse the World and that he did of meer design fall in with the wicked Cheat and abused his Reader with the supposititious Testimony of Arnobius how would he have liked it I believe he would have called me the most disingenuous Person in the World when yet I took mine out of the Magdeburgs his excellent History where I think his is not to be found though his expressions would induce us to believe he had it from them A fifth thing charged upon him is the curtailing and leaving out part of a Sentence quoted by Bazil vix Must the Faithful be
Lords-Supper instituted and taken from their post-caenium and cup of Blessing solemnly used by them at the close of a Festival and from thence passeth on to that of Baptism or Washing a known Rite solemnly used among the Jews as a form of Initiation into the Covenant of God and so into the Congregation And shews out of the Talmud that the way of entering into Covenant was by Circumcision and Baptism and then comes to improve the Argument thus That as the natural Jews were thus entered so were the Proselytes and as the Proselytes of age so also were their Infant-Children From which it appears that the Jewish Ceremony of Baptizing was accommodated by Christ to the right of our Initiation of the profession of Christ whereof saith the Dr. we have as little reason to doubt as that a Picture was taken from that Face which it resembles to the life and from whence we have as he conceives no obscure ground for our practice of Baptizing not only those who make profession of Faith but also their Children with them In answer to which Mr. Danvers refers us to the Animadversions of Sir Norton Knatchbul where we have such censured that fetch the foundation of Truth from the Rabbies and no doubt deservedly But as for Infant-Baptism the foundation thereof is laid in the Covenant of God's Grace that takes in the Child as confederate with the Parent and consequently the Child must not be denied that Seal which under the Gospel-administration is Baptism But that Baptism was a way of Initiating the proselytes of age with their little ones we have it several ways attested See Godwin of the Jewish Antiquities c. 3. p. 10. quoting Moses Kotsen Moses Aegyptius Drusius de trib sec. p. 102. who saith That to the making of Males Proselytes were required Circumcision and Purification by Water and for the Females only Purification by Water From whence Mr. Godwin concludes thus hence we may observe that a kind of Initiation by water was long in use among the Jews having before found it to be as high as Davids time though as he saith it was not Sacramental till Christ his Institution yea therefore it may seem to have been used by them because they expected it at the coming of the Messias as appeareth by their coming to John questioning not so much his Baptism as his Authority by what Authority he Baptized Joh. 1. 15. But what need more be said to this when Mr. Tombs himself to whom I hope Mr. Danvers will subscribe acknowledgeth Examen p. 89. That it is well known Baptism was in use among the Jews in the initiating Proselytes for many years together with Circumcision CHAP. II. Wherein Mr. Danvers pretends to shew that Infants-Baptism hath neither Foundation in Scripture nor Antiquity with an answer thereto § 1. THe Arguments used in his Treatise of Baptism we have again in this his Reply thus That if Infants-Baptism had been any Appointment or Ordinance of Jesus Christ there would have been some Precept or Example but the Scripture is wholly silent as to either c. To which I gave this answer in my Infants-Baptism asserted c. First A thing may be said to be commanded in scripture two ways 1. Expresly or litterally and syllabically that is totidem verbis in so many words Thus we acknowledg Infants-Baptism is not commanded it is no-where said Go Baptize Infants if it had there would have been no controversie 2. A thing may be Commanded in Scripture implicitly and by good Consequence and what is thus commanded is as valid and obliging as if it were in so many letters and syllables and thus we affirm Infants-Baptism is commanded There are in Scripture clear grounds and principles from whence by just and warrantable consequences it may be deduced that Beleivers children ought to be baptized for if they belong to the Covenant and are holy if they are members of the visible Church c. then they have right to Baptism with more to this purpose Infants-Baptism Asserted pars 1. p. 36. To which Mr. Danvers says nothing in his reply but plays the sophister mangles my discourse picks up words scattered in my Book about a hundred pages each from other and spoken upon different accounts and withal foisteth in some of his own with them and then falls a-skirmishing with the man of Clouts which he hath made To give you some instances of his disingenuity herein 1. He represents this to be my argument for Infants-Baptism viz. That as there is no scripture expresly commanding so neither is there any scripture excluding Infants from Baptism nor any Scripture that saith there was no Infants baptized and then refers the Reader to p. 36. 38 101 131 132 where note what a Compass he fetcheth to glean up words and then patcheth them togetther for an Argument and after all this the words are not to be found in those pages but are more his than mine I have told you before what is asserted by us namely That Infants-Baptism is implicitly though not expresly commanded in Scripture pag. 36 and pag. 38 I speak thus To say Infants-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ because we have no Examples in Scripture of any that were Baptized is a pittiful Argument for we have no Examples of most of the Apostles that they were Baptized and shall we say therefore they were not Baptized Pag 101. Which is another of my places that Mr. Danvers turns the Reader to I shew that the want of an express Command makes not against the lawfulness of it and that the Anabaptists want an express Command or Example there being neither to be found in the Book of God to plunge Men head and ears under Water as they use to do Nor have they any Precept or Example to Baptize people with their cloaths on And in p. 131. and 132 the last of my pages he refers to I thus express my self that there is nothing in Christs Commission that is against Childrens Baptism for the Teaching that is therein required excludes not the Children of Believers if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be restrained to Teaching as appears by the consideration of the conditions of the Persons to whom Christ sent his Apostles to Baptize who were Aliens and though Believing goes before Baptism in Mark it doth not exclude Infants because the same condition that is required there to preceed Baptism is required to precede Salvation so that if the Sense be that Infants must not be Baptized because they cannot believe it will as directly follow they must not be saved because they cannot believe The way of answering one answers both by the same distinction the Salvation of Infants may be maintained their Baptism may Thus Reader I have given thee the whole which Mr. Danvers improves into an Argument against me as before but how justly I shall leave to thy consideration And I must crave leave to say that this Argument Infant-Baptism is lawful because no-where forbidden in Scripture
nor nowhere told where it was not done is a Brat of his own begetting which he would fain lay at my door Next follow some passages quoted from Divines that are Pedobaptists as first from Dr. Owen in his Book called Innocency and Truth Vindicated by which name Mr. Danvers hath baptized his Book though little of either is found in it who lays down this position That no part of Gods worship either in the old or new-Testament was lawful but what had some express warrant from his word for the same in opposition to what Dr. Parker asserts that what is not forbidden may be Lawful To this I answer that I humbly conceive that his position of express warrant is to be understood with some limitation for I have learned from Mr. Gerâ—â— and some other Divines that there is a great difference between an Ordinance it self and some particular circumstances or the subject to which that Ordinance is to be apply'd For the Ordinance it self as the setting up Baptism as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant renewed by Christ it requires express warrant in the word of God But when we have such Warrant for the Ordinance it self to whomsoever we find by grounds or principles in Scripture that it doth of right belong there we may apply it though we want express testimony for it if we have none against iâ— And that this is the Doctor 's meaning is clear from what he tells us in his Exposition of Heb. c. 1. p. 86. viz. That it is lawful to draw consequences from Scripture-Assertions and such consequences rightly deduced are infallibly true and de fide nothing will rightly follow from truth but what is so also and that of the same nature with the truth from whence it is derived so that whatsoever by just consequence is drawn from the word of God is it self also the word of God and of truth Infallible And if Mr. D. will please to ask the Doctor what he intended by express Warrant I am confident he will find him exactly of Bucers mind who thus expresses himself on Rom. 6. Lex dei perfecta est docet que quibus totam Vitam ad voluntatem Dei instituere licet quare contineri in Scripturis necesse est certa non expressa nominatim oracula de omnibus quaecunque afillis Dei sive publice sive privatim suscipi convenit Mr. Danvers hath pickt up another saying of Mr. Collins before his Vind. Minist Evang. viz. That in things relating to the worship of God nothing ought to be done without express Warrant in the Gosple This Assertion of Mr. Collins's in that latitude as it is laid down is liable to exception for there are many Circumstances relating to Gods worship as time place and order that are not so expresly set down in the Word which nevertheless may lawfully be prescribed by the Church provided that it agrees with the general Rules set down in the Word and I find this was written in opposition to Souldiers that took up the practice of Preaching without Ordination and his endeavouring to make the bow straight might make him bend it a little too much the other way But I am confident if he was to explain what he meant by those words Mr. D. would find them very little for his purpose But to come more closly to the matter what express Command have we for the observation of the Christian Sabbath for want of which many Anabaptists notwithstanding the Apostles met on the first day of the week own not the Morality of it Again what express Command or Example have we for Womens receiving the Lords-Supper good consequence there is for it but no express mention of it But this satisfies not Mr. Danvers for he is for express Scripture to prove Women received the Lord's Supper as you have it in his reply to Mr. Blinman who very rationally and truly argues against Mr. Danvers that the words upon which he lays the stress of Womens receiving the Lord's Supper are in express terms against him it being these all that beleived were together and as he argues rightly the Greek phrase is expresly of Men and not of Women viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being masculin expresly limits it to Men and not to Women c. Mr. Danvers Replies very confidently that the exception of Mr. Blinman seems to be as defective in Grammar as in Divinity and why in Divinity since Mr. Blinman holds that Women received the Lords-Supper and this is not the thing disputed and then he paedagogue-like sends the Reverend Learned Man to his Grammar to learn what Syllepsis means which is nothing to the purpose but to make a noise To gather up then the Discourse we grant all this is good by consequence That the first-Day ought to observed as a Christian Sabbath that Women ought to receive the Lord's-Supper but we cannot prove either by express terms To conclude then how injurious and no less ignorant a Spirit appears in those words of Mr. Danvers That Mr. Blinman trifles in the things of God and plays with Words to pervert the Truth when he only tells him being challenged thereunto that as much might be said for Infant-Baptism as Womens receiving the Lords-Supper there being no express Command for either but only implicit and both warranted by consequence There is a third Author quoted by Mr. Danvers viz. Dr. Hammond who saith that an Institution of Christ such as each Sacrament is should not be judged by any other rule than either the Word wherein the Institution is set down or the Records of the practice of Christ or his Apostles A sound position but such as toucheth not the case before us for we judg of the Sacrament of Baptism as belonging to the Infant-seed of Believers by the Word wherein the Institution is set down as before is shewn Thus we have manifested the Sophistry and weakness of Mr. Danvers's arguings together with the impertinency of his Quotations Nevertheless he concludes as if he had done some great thing By all this evidence it appears that Mr. Wills is so Heterodox in his Positions that he hath neither Scripture Reason Antiquity or the learned Protestant-Writers to stand by him and wherein if he persists he gives up not only the Independent but whole Protestant Cause as if all the Protestant Cause depended upon the sayings of those three men before mentioned or on my opposing him for wresting and misapplying the same against Infant-Baptism But what should make him fancy the Protestant Cause depended upon the sayings of this Triumviri I cannot imagin unless it be because one is an Independant the other a Presbyterian and the third Man an Episcoparian and Protestantism is only found among the men of these Professions the Anabaptist being not concerned in it And truly if we consider what Mr. Danvers hath said of the Protestants in some parts of his Discourses we had need of much charity to believe it
grant Infants-Baptism to be of the number of them But what saith Mr. Baxter in the forementioned place If I prove saith he that all Church-members must be admitted by Baptism and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-members is not this as much as to prove they must be baptized What thinks Mr. Danvers of that passage of Nazianzen in his 5th Book of Theology Quae colliguntur ex Scripturis Sacris perindè habenda sunt ac si in illis scripta essent those things that are gathered out of Scripture are to be of like esteem with us as that which is written in Scripture Without doubt Mr. Danvers look's upon this as a Popish saying in Nazianzen The rest of his Parallel is so frivolous that I will not trouble my self nor the Reader with it And truly if one were minded how easy is it to retort upon him and shew the vanity of his discourse in such a manner as for instance Doth Mr. Danvers say that the promise Gen. 17. 7 pertains not to the Carnal seed of Abraham but to the Spiritual so doth Estius the Jesuit against Calvin about which Mr. Danvers committed so great a Mistake that if I had done the same he would have said I had belyed Calvin and abused the World Doth Mr. Danvers say Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham not to Believers and their seed so saith Cardinal Bellarmin in his first book of the Sacraments and after him other Papists affirming that Circumcision is not said to be a seal universally to any faith but only a seal of the individual faith of Abraham Doth Mr. Danvers say it could not be a seal to an Infant that had no faith Bellarmin speaks the same If it be a seal saith he in that Baptism comes in the place of Circumcision it is in vain to baptize Infants because they have no Faith so that it seems his sentiments about these points are the same with the Papists also Mr. Danvers Exceptions against our Testimonies for Infants-Baptism from the Ancients examined and confuted His first Exception is against that passage we bring from Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Triphon part 2. propos 3. where he saith It was lawful for all to receive the spiritual Circumcision which was done by Baptism From whence we argue That if it was lawful for all to receive it then Infants who were the subjects of the legal Circumcision for they must be part of the all and not excluded To this Mr. Danvers saith two things 1. That it is a meer Impertinency and nothing to the purpose why so 1. Because there is not one woâ—d of Infants nor of Infants-Baptism nor its Apostolicalness And what of that doth he not know that omne universale continet in se particulare every universal contains within it self the particular And doth not Justin say it was lawful for all to receive the spiritual Circumcision which is Baptism Nor do we stand in need of a word for its Apostolicalness here since the only end for which the Quotation is urged is to prove that Justin was for Infants-Baptism 2. He tells us it is not only Impertinent but Absurd to interpret the word All to be all men for then it must comprehend wicked as well as good Unbelievers as well as Believers But this is a shift for I say All is here to be limited to those who are within the Church for to them Only appertained the Legal Circumcision under the Law of which Justin speaks and by proportion to such only the Spiritual Circumcision Baptism now under the Gospel As to what he further objects that Justin in this very Dialogue tells us that by the Word and Baptism Regeneration was perfected in all mankind As it is more than the Magdiburgs say for their words are per aquam et fidem regenerationem fieri humani generis so it makes nothing at all against us because this is added by the Magdiburgs in the same place speaking how they baptized in Justin's time De adultis paenitentiam requirunt c. They required Repentance of the Adult before Baptism If Mr. Danvers had set this down he could not have framed his objection Just thus he deals with Mr. Baxter's Treatise of Baptism Ch. 7. p. 49. 2d Edit where he quotes Mr. Baxter as rendring some part of Justin Martyr's Apology in these words in his Saints Rest Ch. 8. Sect. 5. viz. I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves to God after that we are renewed by Christ c. Where if you will compare you shall see both how considerably he varies it in the words from Mr. Baxters words and likewise how he leaves out that which would have shewn the Quotation nothing to his purpose viz Justin Martyr speaking of the way of Baptizing the Aged In the next place he excepts against what we urge for Infants-Baptism from Irenaeus who lived in the same Century with Justin in the Age of those that saw the Apostles and so must needs know their Practice It is a passage of his in lib. 2. Advers Haeres c. 39. where discoursing of Christ that came to save all ages he specifieth particulars as Infantes et Parvuli Infants and little ones as well as pueros et juvenes et seniores Boys young men and old men and then concludes Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum All I say who by him are born again unto God Where by Infants being born again unto God must needs be understood after the Scripture-notion and sence and as the Ancient Fathers usually took the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Baptism For as Mr. Mede observes that by the Washing of regeneration Tit. 3. 5. none will deny is meant Baptism And Vossius upon that Scripture saith that to call Baptism Renascentia Regeneration is usitata veteribus loquendi forma an usual form of speaking among the Ancients And to put this out of all doubt Justin Martyr in his Apology before-mentioned speaking of the manner how they were baptized saith The party was brought to the place where the water is and regenerated in the same manner wherein we were regenerated To this Mr. Danvers hath little to say and if I mistake not very little to purpose as that it is Impertinent as before and far-fetched and that there is not a word of Infants-Baptism in it or Apostolicalness which is just the 2d part of the same tune which was sung but now And further he adds that as the interpretation upon which it is founded is fallacious so neither Scripture nor Justin doth call Baptism Regeneration absolutely who saith they do but only the Symbol of Regeneration And this is very true and which no body denies but I must tell Mr. Danvers that this is altogether impertinent and far off from the matter we are upon But his Confidence doth not abate for he tells us 't is manifest these Authorities are to little purpose yea wholly insignificant and nothing
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
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
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
about the year 604. did bear their Testimony against Infants-Baptism 1. Because Mr. Fox out of Bede tells us they refused to Baptize after the manner of Rome which Fabian particularly explains to be in the point of Infants-Baptism In answer to this I did in my Infants-Baptism Asserted 1. except against Fabian's Paraphrase upon the words which Bede gives us from Austin and that for these Reasons 1. Because in the Preface to Fabian we there read that what he relates of these matters is taken from Bede's Ecclesiastical History in which there is no mention of the Britains denying to give Christendom to Children for all that he saith is in his second Book and the words are In as much as you do contrary to our custom yea to the custom of the universal Church nevertheless if you will obey me only in these three things soil That you keep your Easter in its proper time administer Baptism whereby we are born again to God after the manner of the Holy Church of Rome and the Apostolical Church and preach the Word of God together with us unto the English Nation we will patiently bear all other things which you do although contrary to our customs But they answered they would do none of these Mr. Fox relates it thus That they would not agree refusing to leave the custom which they so long time had continued without the Assent of them all which used the same Fox Act. Mon. 1. Book p. 107. 2. Because Fabian is not lookt upon as a Faithful Historian and therefore Mr. Fox in the aforesaid Book suspecteth him of divers mistakes and follows not his relation of giving Christendom to Children in this story as it is set down by him for he gives us it in the words of Bede viz. That they refused to baptize after the manner of Rome 3. None of the other Ancient Historians as Cretensis in Polychron Huntington c. mention their refusing to give Christendom to Children they only speak generally of refusing to baptize after the manner of Rome Some other reasons were given which I let pass having already said enough to shew on what a sandy foundation Mr. Danvers builds this his peculiar Assertion that the Ancient Britains denyed Infants-baptism he having nothing for it but Fabians conjecture wherein he differs from all other Historians in the World But saith Mr. Danvers Fabian hath fully hit Bede's meaning why 1. Because Austin tells the Brittish Christians that among many things wherein they were contrary to the custom of Rome and to the Universal Church one was in this particular of Baptism and this he conceives must needs be in their refusing to Baptize Children and his Reasons are 1. Because as to the Baptizing the Adult they were not contrary to the Church of Rome I answer though they were not contrary to them as to the Subject of Baptism viz. the Adult yet they might be and were so if so pure as Mr. Danvers represents them in regard of the Adjuncts which the Church of Rome annext to Baptism viz. those Superstitious additions of Chrysm Oyl c. They both baptized the Adult but not after the same manner and this was that which Austin stood upon he would have had them Baptize after their manner But Mr. Danvers objects 2. It could not respect the Mode of Baptism that 's strange for doth he not tell us just before p. 38. of his Reply from Mr. Fox who takes it from Bede That they refused to baptize after the manner of Rome and can he tell wherein the difference lies between Mode and Manner But let us weigh his Reasons which are as light as a Feather why it could not respect the Mode of Baptism His first is Because the custom of the Church of Rome was not Universal but opposed by the Greeks and Eastern Churches not at all to be made out to be Apostolical He says true indeed though it be not ad Rhombum and though the Church of Rome was not so universal neither could be made out to be Apostolical yet they are so proud as to term it so and say what we can to the contrary they do still arrogate as much to this day 3. Therefore saith he it must needs respect Infants-baptism whether this be intended as an Argument or a Conclusion who can tell it is brought in as a third Argument and then it is idem per idem It must needs respect Infants-baptism because it must needs But he wheels about again after a confused manner and comes in with five other Arguments 1. Because the Church of Rome had particularly enjoyned and imposed it to beget Infants to Regeneration and therefore must intend the substance and not the Ceremony To which I reply 1. It is very strange that Mr. Danvers's mind should thus run altogether upon Childrens Baptism when the work which Austin would have had them gone upon was to Baptize the Adult Pagans such as the Saxons then were and to Preach the Gospel to them and we reade not unless I mistake of any Children that he baptized at all nor any of his company although he sent to Gregory to know how long the baptizing of a Child might be deferr'd there being no danger of Death 2. How came the Canon of the Church of Rome into Mr. Danvers's mind of Childrens being born of God by Regeneration for Austin spake not of this but only exhorts the Britains to administer Baptism whereby saith he we are born again as holding that grown Persons are born again to God as well as Children according to the Judgment of the Church of Rome as well as the ancient Fathers Doth not Just in Martyr say the same speaking of the manner how the Christians were baptized they go saith he to the Water and are regenerated as we our selves were regenerated c. So that these are but childish Cavils against Childrens-Baptism 2. He urgeâ— another and that is Because Infants-Baptism was universally received in this seventh Age in other parts of the World for this end This is such an Argument that I know not well what to say to it unless it be that since Infants-Baptism was so universally received in other parts of the World it 's altogether improbable it should be shut out of Wales The third and fourth Arguments make but one which is because Infant-Baptism was received and enjoyned as an Apostolical practice and it had been childish and ridiculous to have said Baptism in general was Apostolical Mr. Danvers says true It had been indeed ridiculous for Austin to have said Baptism in general was Apostolical and therefore he speaks of the manner of Baptizing which he would have the Britains observe as they did that is to do it in that superstitious way with Chrysm Oyl c. which is held by the Church of Rome to be Apostolical And whereas I say the Britains did no more reject Infants-Baptism than they did Preaching to the Saxons He thus replys True having as much
reason to reject the one as the other A strange Assertion For though Infants-Baptism be in his account unlawful yet the Preaching of the Gospel one would think should be lawful and more reason there is to Preach the Gospel than to Baptize either the Adult or Infants But what makes Mr. Danvers judg otherwise as to these Britains It is because he conceives by Preaching here must be understood Authoritatively by being ordained by them and not as a company of Lay-men or Mechanicks It seems than this Gentle-man is for Mechanicks Preaching but that which is remarkable is to see how much he hath overshot himself in the heat of Disputation For the Britains to whom Austin addrest his Speech were not Lay-men or Mechanicks but seven Bishops and an Arch-Bishop as Mr. Fox informs us Act. Mon. 1. Book p. 107. Although 't is true they admitted not Romes Supremacy over them which was the main quarrel as Mr. Fox tells us out of Cluniacensi who gives this Reason why they would not comply with Austin because they would not admit of the Bishop of Romes Supremacy over them Ex Pet. Cluniacensi ad Bernardum Reader thou must know that Mr. Danvers gave five other Reasons in his Treatise of Baptism to confirm his former Position and because I said in my Answer they were trifles he tells me in his Reply that that is an excellent way of Answering next to Bellarmin thou lyest But I must tell Mr. Danvers I did not only say they were trifles but proved them such And because he doth so cunningly insinuate the contrary I shall now repeat my Answer to his Reasons adding a little and submit it to judgment 1. His first Argument that the Britains were against Infant-Baptism was Because they kept themselves both in Discipline and Doctrine expresly to the Scripture Before I speak to this know that he hath altered his note for his first Argument in both his Treatises of Baptism was this Because the Britains received the Christian Faith Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick Churches who had no such thing as Baptizing Children Now this being more than he can tell and a Negative Argument as to matter of Fact is not valid as I told him in my Answer and besides I minded him with that of the Magdeburgs who expresly tell us that Infants-Baptism was in use in the Asiatick Churches Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 124. He is so ingenious as to wave that Argument But to the 1st as it is here in the Reply which is because they kept themselves in Discipline and Doctrine expresly to the Word This he thinks will effectually do the business that is casheer Infants-Baptism from them To this I answer 1. To say they kept themselves expresly in Discipline and Doctrine to the Word is more than Mr. Danvers can prove and it is more than Jeffery Monmouth speaks from whom he hath his intelligence This therefore that they keep to the express Word is his own Dictate 2. It is not true what he saith nor can I apprehend how Mr. Danvers should believe himself for no Anabaptist believes Episcopal Government to be so expresly set down in the Word and Mr. Fox tells us as before that no less than seven Bishops and an Arch-Bishop came out of Wales at Austin's Summons who were also so proud that wanting some ceremonious Observance at their first coming to Austin they took such offence that in disdain and great displeasure they went away And observe Reader the sense of Mr. Fox upon this their carriage I profess saith he I cannot see but both Austin and them were to be blamed who so much neglected their Spiritual Duties in revenging their Temporal injuries that they denied to joyn their helping hand to turn the Idolatrous Saxons to the way of Life and Salvation in which respect all private respects ought to give place and be forgotten and for which cause he conceived the stroke of God's Punishment did light upon them afterward The business of Infants-Baptism never entered into this good-mans mind as if they refused to comply with Austin on that account nor is it like that ever the Britains thought of it 2. His next Argument is Because they were zealous Impugners of Tradition But by the story we find no such Zeal unless it was against Austin for not honouring them and besides this Argument of Mr. Danvers is altogether precarious for we have shewed before that though Austin held Infants-Baptism a Tradition yet withal it was in his opinion grounded on Circumcision and the Papists as Bellarmine affirm the warrantableness of it may be collected from Scripture But to make short work with it I deny that they were such Impugners of Tradition if the Discpline of Arch-Bishops and the observation of Easter be Traditions as Mr. Danvers judgeth them to be for as the difference between Austin and them was not about the Subject of Baptism but the Ceremony so they differed not about keeping Easter but only as to the circumstance of time when it was to be kept That the Britains and Picts kept Easter though not at the same time as the Romish Church did see Mr. Fox Act. Mon. page 111. where mention is made of a Synod in which the controversie about keeping Easter was debated before King Oswie Alfrid's Father and 't is said Coleman then Bishop of Northumberland followed not the custom of Rome nor of the Saxons but the Picts and Britains in celebrating Easter from the 14th day of the first month till the 28th of the same against whom Wilfrid replied The Easter we keep we have seen at Rome the same is used in Italy and France and finally all the World over save only by these here present with their accomplices the Picts and Britains 3. Reason is Because Constantine the son of Christian Parents was not Baptized till aged so in his Treatise of Baptism but in his Reply 't is not baptized in this Island But we have shewn Constantius his Father was no Christian at Constantine's Birth and in all likelyhood lived and dyed a Pagan though he had much respect for Christians and even Constantine himself was a Pagan for sometime after he was Emperor 4. Another of his Reasons is Because the custom of the Britains was to baptize after Confession of Faith being in Union and Communion therein with the French Christians And I told him this was a good Argument to prove they were for Infants-Baptism because the French Christians afterward called Waldenses were for it and had used it so many hundred years witness the Confession at Angrogne Nor will Mr. Danvers his Old Salvo serve his turn which is That the ancient Waldenses were against Infants-baptism though he cannot but grant the more modern were for it For we have met with something of late that must needs convince him and that is that Infants-baptism was practised in the Country where the Waldenses do inhabit near twelve hundred years since For the Famous French Historian John de Serres in his History of France translated into English tells us p. 12. That Anno Christi 500 Clovis the great King of France then an Heathen desired to marry Clotilde Daughter of Chilperic Brother of Gondebault King of the Burgundians whose Seat was then at Arles in Provence Gondebault denyed Clovis because of the difference of Religion Clovis to remove this promised her liberty of Conscience so the marriage was concluded And saith the Author although Clovis were a Pagan yet he was no enemy to the Christians sitting himself to the humour of the Gauloys who generally followed the Christian Religion He suffered his Wife likewise to baptize her Children So it 's plain the Burgundians from whence the Waldenses sprang were for baptizing Infants and belike it was also at that time the universal practice of the Gauls 5. The last of Mr. Danvers's Arguments that the Britains were against Infants-baptism is because Austin himself was so raw and ignorant in the Rite that when he came into Britain and the question was here put to him I know not by whom how long a Child that was in danger of Death might stay unbaptized he was fain to send to Rome for Solution This is so raw an Argument indeed to prove the Britains were against Infants-Baptism that instead of an Answer it deserves to be laught at For at this very day wherein Infants-Baptism is so generally practised some take a liberty to delay longer than others who are for the speedy administration thereof And if this Argument doth import any thing it is that Austin himself was not so well studied as he ought to have been as to the time when Children should be baptized What in the last place he speaks of Hilary that none were baptized in the Western Churches but the Adult is confronted in the beginning where we have shewn that he hath no such saying in lib. de Trinitate the Book referr'd to and how he himself was for Infants-Baptism from his 2d Epistle to Austin As for his other witnesses Munzer and John of Leyden with the rest of that Faction though he doth pertinaciously persist against the clearest evidences in palliating or rather denying the horrid crimes laid to their charge and withal very disingenuously reflects dishonour upon those of the Reformation I shall not be at so much expence of time and Paper as to expose his gross aberrations herein but quietly permit him to injoy the comfort and honour of such witnesses FINIS Preface to the Reply Synodus 4tae Carthaginensis Cent. 4. cap. 9. pag. 873. Laodicens Concilium Cent. 4. cap. 9. p. 833. Common-Prayer Book last Edit Dipt by washing is nonsense * Dr. Richard Allestree the worthy Provost of Eaton-Colledg †In his Book entit More proofs of Infants Church-membership pag. 343. * In his Treatise of Baptism London 1674. pag. 65 66. †Anno. 1656. * Pag. 343. of his Book before cited ☞ ☞ ☜ ☜
ad Quintum Sextum that is to Beringarius his 5th and 6th Arguments against Transubstantiation not against Infant-Baptism Launifrank answers Opposuit doctrinam perpetuam consentientem Ecclesiae Dei So that this Authority is quite cashier'd and Mr. Danvers must have an unparallel'd Confidence to attempt the retrieving him The next is Cassander out of Guitmundus who saith that with the Real Presence he denied Baptism to Little-Ones though the latter not so publickly as the former but Guitmund and Cassander say quem tamen Errorem in publicum non produxit that is he never publickly denied Infant-Baptism Mr. D. translates it not so publickly because else it might be presently queried how then could Guitmund tell and rather than lay such a stumbling-block in the way he thinks it expedient to make bold with his Authors and abuse them than by telling truth undeceive his Reader This might be a sufficient Answer but to give Mr. D. fuller satisfaction I shall make a more particular inquiry into this business And as for Guitmundus the Magdeburgs tell us Ait eum Beringarium de Baptismo Infan de conjugio non recte docuisse Which proves him as much against Marriage as against Infant-Baptism But Bp. Usher tells us in his book de successione cap. 7. § 37. that Deoduinas Leodiensis took it upon common fame that Bruno and Beringarius did quantum in ipsis erat baptismum parvulorum evertere And adds deinde ex Leodiensis fide refert Guitmundus so that Guitmundus took it from Leodiensis who had it from common fame which indeed arose from their denying it to be necessary to Salvation As clearly appears by Walden charging Wickliff to deny it who yet was so positive in the point as Mr. Baxter hath proved And Usher also tells us that In tot Synodis adversus Beringarium habitis nullam de Anabaptismo litem illi intentatam invenimus Which further proves it And whereas Mr. Danvers insinuates 2 Ed. pag. 243 244. that Beringarius recants this opinion against Infant-Baptism and then recanted his Recantation there is not a word of Infant-Baptism in his Recantation He produceth also Thuanus to prove Beringarius and his followers were great asserters of Baptism after Faith 2. Edit pag. 73. and in his Reply pag. 116. He quotes his preface to his History to prove that the Arch-Bishop of Triers did persecute the Beringarians for denying Infant-Baptism It is true he tells us that the Arch-Bishop did eos diocesi sua expellere because illius doctrinam populis disseminarent but that Thuanus should say he did it because they denyed Infant-Baptism is one of Mr. Danvers's mistakes there being not the least syllable of any such thing in that Preface or in the whole History that I can find His last evidence to prove it is a Council called by H. 1. of France to suppress the heresies of Bruno and Beringarius for denying Transubstantiation and Infant-Baptism for which he quotes Bibliotheca Patrum pag. 432. But I can't find either in Bibl. Pat. or the Councils or any where else but in Mr. Danvers's book that that Council ever charged Beringarius with denying Infant-baptism Let Mr. Danvers prove it if he can And just after this rate doth he prove his matters But suppose these Authors had affirmed what Mr. D. would make us beleive they did yet it falls short of sufficient proof because the same sort of men charged Luther and Calvin to be against Infants-Baptism and this we have acknowledged from Mr. Danvers's own pen in his Innocency and Truth vindidicated p. 127. The next of his Witnesses are Peter Bruis Henricus Arnoldus but of this I have spoken already that even the Magdiburgs and Osiander who relates what Peter Cluniacensis and Bernard say of them do question the Truth of what their wicked Adversaries lay to their charge to which I refer the Reader and shall only add what Mr. Marshall says to Mr. Tombes The truth is saith he these two men did for 20 years together so much spread the Doctrine of the Waldenses and so plague the Bishops Mitre and the Monks Bellies that I wonder not though they charged any thing upon them that might make them odious to the people He that reads the railing Book of Cluniacensis will find that he acknowledgeth most of what he layeth to their charge to be upon the report of others He lays this to their charge that Children that die before they could actually believe were damn'd and that they did not altogether believe the Apostles Prophets no nor Christ himself By their corrupt consequences say the Magdiburgs they would make them hold any thing as before To deny Chrisme and Oyl and Spittle in the baptizing of Children was all one with them And if Mr. Danvers believes Cluniacensis did slander them in the other things he must excuse us if we believe he did also in this about Infant-Baptism One thing I shall mind the Reader with and so pass on and that is the good Intelligence Mr. Danvers holds since almost all the Testimonies that he brings through-out all his Book are borrowed either from Monks Abbots Jesuits Inquisitors or some Cankered Popish Priests that make no Conscience of loading the professors of the Truth with all manner of Calumnies But saith he Cassander witnesseth the same in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleave viz. that Peter Bruis and Henricus denyed Baptism to little ones affirming that only the Adult should be baptized 'T is true he saith so and withal tells us cum Baptismo fide etiam salutem et regnum Dei Infantibus ademerunt quod ad credentes tantum et baptizatos pertinere sensuerunt with Baptism and Faith they took Salvation also from Infants as judging it belonged only to Believers that were baptized but how comes Cassander by this good intelligence why the Abbot of Cluni told him so and if Mr. Danvers will not believe they damned all Infants though the Abbot affirms it why should we believe they denyed them Baptism for which he can produce no better proof but if Cassander is a person of such credit with Mr. Danvers I hope he will no longer reckon Peter Bruis and Henricus among the Waldensian Barbes because he tells us in this very Epistle that the Waldenses were for Infants-Baptism Dr. Prideaux is also introduced to confirm it how that they were condemned in the second Lateran Council for rejecting Infants-Baptism it is Common for the Popish Councils to condemn men for that which they never held But Mr. Baxter tells us there is not the least proof of any such matter medled with in that Council I let pass also Vice-comes because he writes palpable lyes how that Luther Calvin Beza denyed Infants-Baptism and why because as Mr. Danvers say's truly in his Reply page 127 they did oppose and neglect to do it as the Church of Rome ordained it without the Ceremonies of their Church which was all one to them as if it was not practised
at all We are much engaged to Mr. Danvers for this he hath as it were spoken all in a word given us a key to open the Mystery of the business and rightly to understand why Beringarius Peter Bruis Arnoldus were charged for denying Infants-Baptism I must now prepare my self with Patience for Mr. Danvers is come to his Paroxysme and would even move a Stoick I perceive he is strangely transported with Passion and makes Proclamation against me Know saith he that hence you have a further discovery of his unfaithfulness and want of Conscience for daring thus to abuse the World with a Cheat and that which he knows to be a mere forgery of his own The Flame is not yet extinguished but spreads into two pages more and is rather increased He hath injuriously belyed Osiander belyed Cluniacensis belyed Peter Bruis belyed the Truth which by this forgery he would cover abused the World belyed and abused me and much to be feared his own Conscience by this piece of Folly and Falshood Now what shall I say to all this shall I implore an Increpation from above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jude 14. Or shall I bespeak Mr. Danvers in the Language of Craesus to Solon in Lucian's Dialogues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good words O man would any one have expected such polluted feet of Clay with which he kicks at me should be attendants to that head of Gold I mean those Christian words in Mr. Danvers's Preface I will not render railing for railing it being ever judg'd the sign of a bad cause for persons to betake themselves to such courses and thereby supply the want of matter with Rage Clamour and Noise Who would not have judg'd Mr. D. by those lines a person able to command his Passion yea a second Moses Parsons the Jesuit notwithstanding he wanted nothing but a Glass to view the Effigies of a Railer yet he censureth the practice as unworthy But to speak something for Vindication from these foul and shamefully-invective accusations First I confess my inadvertency in mistaking the Century and from hence it was that I related things charged upon the Albigenses of the 12 Cent. and applyed them to Peter Bruis and Henricus of the 11th though I find all of them joyned together by the Magdiburgs under Cent. 12th The occasion of this mistake was a cursory reading of Dr. Homes his Answer to Mr. Tombes the Book being lent only for a day or two where the said Doctor reckons up about 20 errors charg'd upon the Albigenses as he hath it from Osiander I profess that I speak the truth I had no design to misrepresent Mr. Danvers's pretended witnesses and to cast a slur upon it and I hope this is enough to satisfie the Ingenuous Reader and may also work some Conviction in Mr. Danvers of his uncharitableness of Spirit and the intemperancy of his Pen in such frequent Judgings of my Heart and Conscience that I did knowingly and out of design go about to deceive the Reader and what should tempt me hereunto was it to cast Dirt on his Witness How blind a thing is Prejudice Mr. Danvers is not Ignorant that if that had been my Aim I might have furnished my self with sufficiency of that nature even from Cluniacensis and Bernard But he saith I did it knowingly and went on purpose to deceive why so because I picked only five particulars out of those twenty Articles that were laid to the Charge of the Albigenses a Convincing Argument no doubt though no body can fathom the Mystery of the Policy in so doing unless I open it which plainly is this The reason why I transcribed no more out of Dr. Homes was because I do not judg it commendable to write whole Pages and more out of Authors and to conceal their Names as Mr. Danvers useth to do 2 It was done out of design as he saith because I knew Osiander saith these things are not reported by Cluniacensis and Bernard but by others whereas I never read those things in Osiander until Mr. Danvers's Reply came forth 3 It must be so he concludes because I neither mention Century Book Chapter or Page for the greater blind no doubt as he saith I use to do in other Quotations out of Osiander whereas I have not mentioned so much as one Chapter or Page out of Osiander in all my Answer to him Thus Reader thou see'st what this mighty Charge amounts to and which is one of these heinous Crimes I have committed mentioned in the Preface to work prejudice against me and if I were now given to Revenge I could presently ballance accounts He knows I have Advantage enough against him for that shameful mistake of his in saying Calvin interprets that Promise Gen. 17. 7. to be understood of the spiritual Seed of Abraham when it was Estius the Jesuit and Calvin doth most expresly say the contrary viz that 't is meant of the fleshly and natural Seed and Estius declares his judgment against him And if I were addicted to such Billings-gate language I could retort upon him He belyes Calvin he belyes the Truth which by that Forgery he would cover and hide he abuseth the World with a Cheat and much more fear his own Conscience by this piece of Folly and Falshood 3. As for his 3d Demonstration that the Waldenses were against Infants-Baptism fetcht from the Catholique Emperours and Popes Councils and the rest of the Tribe that follows Monkes Abbots Inquisitors I shall believe it as much as that of Vice-comes who saith not only Peter Bruis c. was against Infants-Baptism but also Calvin Luther nor will that serve Mr. Danvers turn to tell us that they were so reputed because they did oppose and neglect to Baptize Children as the Church of Rome ordained and practised unless he can give us some assurance that the Waldenses were not accused and condemned by these Councils upon the same account Moreover he tells us Rainerius the Inquisitor in his Book Contra Waldenses saith de Baptismo dicunt quod ablutio quae datur infantibus nihil prosit c. Concerning Baptism they say that that which is given to little ones profits nothing And this Evidence Mr. Danvers would have noted because I do positively deny that Rainerius in the Catalogue of their Errors gives the least hint of any such thing that they denyed Infants-Baptism This is another of his great Charges against me in his Preface where he saith Rainerius tells us totidem verbis i e in so many words they denyed it For Vindication of my self let the Reader 1 know That in my Infants-Baptism Asserted p. 96. I quote Dr. Featly's Roma ruens for what I have said who gives us a Catalogue of the Errors which Rainerius charged the Waldenses with in his Book Contra Waldenses Chap. 4. and this of denying Infants-Baptism is not amongst those which he recites 2 I must tell Mr. Danvers that the words he quotes don 't prove Rainerius charges them with