More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Chapter 4

More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism · Chapter 4

p. 239CHAP. IV. Of Mr. Danvers's his Witneſſes againſt Infant-Baptiſm.

§. 1. WHen he hath told you, that In his ſmall ſearch (ſhamefully ſmall) he cannot find there is any authentick teſtimony that it was practiſed on any till the fourth Century; he in the next words ſaith that it is granted that Tertullian ſpake againſt it in Africa, which is clear evidence that ſome had been ſpeaking for it in that corner of the world:] This is no contradiction with him: And did they only ſpeak for it and not practiſe it? Speak once like a man: And was not that till the fourth Century?

§. 2. His Catalogue containeth three Columns: The firſt of the Baptiſm of the Adult: And what Chriſtian ever denied this? And what meaneth the man in labouring to prove it? The ſecond is of the Inſtituting and aſſerting of Infant-Baptiſm; of which more anon. The third is of his Witneſſes againſt Infant-Baptiſm. And the firſt of theſe mentioned in the Catalogue is Tertullian in the third Century. By which he ſeemeth to confeſs that till the third Century he hath no witneſs againſt it. But I have ſaid ſo much elſewhere and others more, to prove, 1. That Tertullians words prove that Infant-Baptiſm de facto was then in uſe; 2. That he only telleth his opinion p. 240of the point of convenience, but concludeth not againſt Infant-Baptiſm as unlawful; 3. That it is moſt probable he ſpeaketh of the Infants of Heathens; 4. That he ſpeaketh from that ſtrict ſingularity which made him plead alſo for the Montaniſts Fanaticiſm, and againſt ſecond marriages, and for his inordinate faſtings, &c. as a man differing from the Churches and numbered with the Hereticks (though I think him a learned Godly man.) And I refer it to the Readers judgement whether in my book of Infant-Baptiſm I have not proved by many other words in Tertullian that he was not againſt all Infant-Baptiſm, but for it among Chriſtians.

§. 3. His next and great Witneſs is the Donatiſts together. This is ſomething, were it true: but it is ſuch a kind of falſhood as I muſt not name in its due epithets, leſt you think me over-ſharp.

§. 4. His words are [Donatus a learned man in Africa taught that they ſhould baptize no Children but only that believed and deſired it.]

Anſw. Utterly falſe: And how doth he prove it? By Sebaſt. Frank. whom I will not ſearch to ſee whether he ſay ſo or not. Reader, if the queſtion be, what was done, ſaid or held by thouſands of men twelve hundred years ago, and the Writings of them and their Adverſaries were extant, and the Hiſtories written of them in that and the next Ages, would you have a man paſs by all proof from theſe, and tell you what a fellow of his own opinion ſaith eleven hundred years after? p. 241He brings us with great oſtentation the Dutch Anabaptiſts Martyrologie and ſuch like Hiſtories of a few years old, of fellows that knew little more than as he doth, what their Party or Companions told them, or what they ignorantly gathered from ſuch Books as are yet to be ſeen by us as well as by them. If I ſhould diſpute what Auguſtine held, would Mr. D. fetch his proofs from the writings of James Nailor, or George Fox, or Iſaac Pennington, yea or Mr. Tombes to prove his aſſertions, while Auguſtines works are at hand to be ſeen?

§. 5. So next he ſaith [that the followers of Donatus were all one with the Anabaptiſts, denying Baptiſm to Children, admitting the Believers only thereto who deſired the ſame] And he … one called Twisk.

Anſ… ▪ …tterly falſe; They held no ſuch thing.

§. 6. His next proof is indeed from an unqueſtionable witneſs; he ſaith [Auguſtines third and fourth Books againſt the Donatiſts do demonſtrate that they denied Infant-Baptiſm, wherein he manageth the argument for Infant-Baptiſm againſt them, with great zeal, enforcing it by ſeveral arguments, but eſpecially from Apoſtolical Tradition, and curſing with great bitterneſs they that ſhould not embrace it.

§. 7. Anſw. Mr. Bagſhaw is now quite overdone in the quality of untruths: Reader, either this man had ſeen and read the Books of Auguſtine mentioned by him, or he had not. If not, doth he uſe Gods Church and the ſouls of poor ignorant people with any tenderneſs p. 242of Conſcience, ſobriety or humanity, to talk at this rate of Books, that he never ſaw or read, which are ſo common among us to be ſeen? If he underſtand not Latine, how unfit is he to give us the Hiſtory of theſe antiquities? And how audacious to talk thus of what he knoweth not? If he underſtand it, what cruelty is it to the Church to venture on ſuch untruths to ſave him the labour of opening and reading the books he talketh of? But if he have read them, then I can ſcarce match him again among all the falſifiers that I know in the world; I dare not be ſo uncharitable to him as to think that ever he read them.

§. 8. The Books are ſeven that Auguſtine wrote of Baptiſm againſt the Donatiſts: And in them all I cannot find one ſyllable of intimation that ever the Donatiſts denied Infant-…iſm, but enough to the contrary that they …: Nor do the third and fourth books mentioned by him meddle with it any more than the reſt: There is not in the ſeven books nor in all the reſt of Auſtins books againſt the Donatiſts, one word that I can find, of any ſuch controverſie with them at all: And for a man to ſay that in two books he manageth the arguments for Infant-Baptiſm againſt them with great zeal, &c. when there is not one word that ſuppoſeth them to deny it, bluſh Reader in compaſſion for ſuch a man.

§. 9. Re…der, the Donatiſts were a great party of men in Africa: They were Prelatical and for Ceremonies as the other Churches were: They differed from the reſt on the account of the Perſonal ſucceſſion of their Biſhops. In a p. 243time of perſecution they ſaid (truly or falſly was a great controverſie) that one of the Biſhops delivered up the Church-books to the Perſecutors, to be burnt, rather than die himſelf, when they demanded them; And that the Catholick Biſhops received ſucceſſively their ordination from that man, and called them Traditores; whereas the Biſhop that all their Biſhops had ſucceſſively been ordained by, was one that had refuſed to deliver up the Church-books; And conſequently he was the right Biſhop, and they that had their ſucceſſion from him were true Biſhops and Churches, and all the reſt were no true Biſhops or Churches; and therefore that all their Baptiſm and Sacraments were nullities, and their Communion unlawful, and that all people were bound in Conſcience as ever they would be ſaved to ſeparate from the reſt (called Catholicks) and to come to them and to be rebaptized. So that their Schiſm was much like the Papiſts, who confine the Church to their party, and condemn all others, ſave that the Papiſts (ordinarily) rebaptize not (though they ſay ſome Monks have done it, as elſewhere I have cited.) The Donatiſts were Epiſcopal ceremonious Separatiſts, that did it on the account of a purer Epiſcopal ſucceſſion. Till their days the holy Doctors of the Church had almoſt all been againſt drawing the ſword againſt Hereticks, even Auguſtin himſelf. But the greatneſs of their party and the proud conceit of their greater zeal and ſtrictneſs than the Catholicks had, made them ſo furious that the Catholick Paſtors could not live quietly by them. Inſomuch that ſome of them p. 244wounded the Miniſters in the ſtreets, and ſome of them made a ſalt ſharp water and ſpouted into Miniſters eyes as they paſt the ſtreet, to put out their eyes; till many ſuch inſolencies provoked Auguſtin to change his judgement of toleration, (and eſpecially the multitudes ſeduced by them,) and the Biſhops to crave the Emperors aid: The Emperor made Edicts for mulcts and baniſhment to thoſe that perſevered: This (being a new way) ſo exaſperated the Donatiſts, that in very paſſion many of them (yea Biſhops) murdered themſelves to bring odium on the Catholicks, to make the people believe that the cruelty of the Catholicks compelled them to it: And this was the ſtate of theſe two parties; but not a word of difference about Infant-Baptiſm between them that ever I read in either part.

§. 10. The Controverſie between Auſtin and them he thus ſtateth: Lib. 1. c. 1, 2. Si haberi foris poteſt, etiam dari cur non poteſt? Baptiſm received out of the Catholick or true Church among Schiſmaticks is true baptiſm: and therefore baptiſm given without by Schiſmaticks is true baptiſm.

Impie facere qui rebaptizare conantur orbis unitatem, & nos recte facere qui Dei Sacramenta improbare, nec in ipſo ſchiſmate audemus: They do impiouſly that endeavor to rebaptize all the united Chriſtian world, and we do rightly who dare not deny Gods Sacraments, no not in a Schiſm.] For Auguſtin peaceably held the Donatiſts baptiſm to be true and valid though irregular and unlawfully given and taken, p. 245but the Donatiſts held all the Catholicks Miniſtry and baptiſm null.

§. 11. Therefore he thus ſummeth up their differences, cap. 3. Duo ſunt quae dicimus, & eſſe in Catholica Baptiſmum, & illic tantum recte accipi: Item alia duo dicimus, eſſe apud Donatiſtas baptiſmum; non autem recte accipi: Harum ſententiarum tres noſtrae tantum ſunt, unam vero utrique dicimus.] That is, [Two things we ſay, that there is Baptiſm in the Catholick Church, and that there only it is rightly received: Alſo two things more we ſay, that there is Baptiſm with the Donatiſts; but that with them it is not rightly received: of theſe ſentences, three are only ours, and one is common to us both:] Auſtin held it a ſin, to be baptized among Schiſmaticks, (to joyn with their Sect) but not a nullity.

§. 12. Hereupon he addreſſeth himſelf to evince the ſinfulneſs of their Schiſm and unchriſtianing all the Churches: And indeed he ſeems to think that though Baptiſm was among them, yet hardly Salvation: And his argument (though I think we muſt abate for mens paſſions and temptations) is worth the Separatiſts conſideration: that baptiſm that deſtroyeth (remitteth he calls it) not ſin, is not ſaving: that which is without love remitteth not ſin: But Schiſmaticks, ſaith he, have not love: For, Nulli Schiſmata facerent ſi fraterno odio non excaecarentur: Annon eſt in Schiſmate odium fraternum? Quis hoc dixerit? Cum & origo & pertinacia Schiſmatis nulla ſit alia niſi odium fraternum.] That is, None would p. 246make ſchiſms if they were not blinded by the hatred of their brethren: Is there not the hatred of brethren in Schiſm? What man will ſay ſo? Whenas both the Riſe and the Pertinacie of Schiſm is no other than the hatred of brethren.] But blind zeal will not let men know their own hatred, when yet they defame their brethren as no brethren, and endeavour to have all others think them ſo bad as not to be communicated with, and ſeparate from them on that account.

§. 13. The main ſubject of all the reſt of theſe ſeven Books of Auſtin is to anſwer the Donatiſts claim of Cyprian and his Carthage Council as on their ſide: and to anſwer all the ſayings of him and the ſeveral Biſhops of that Council. The plain truth is this: In the firſt age the Churches were ſo ſober and charitable as not to account every erring brother and party Hereticks, but ſuch as ſubverted the Eſſentials of Religion: And ſome of theſe corrupted the very form of Baptiſm: The baptiſm of theſe the Church took for null, and baptized ſuch as they pretended to have baptized. Cyprian and the other African Biſhops knowing this, and being much troubled with heretical Churches about them, ſtretched this too far and rebaptized them that ſuch Hereticks baptized as did not change the form of Baptiſm, but incorporated men into their corrupt ſocieties: The Donatiſts took advantage by this example and all the Reaſons of the Council, to go ſo much further as to take the Catholicks for Hereticks or unlawful Churches, and rebaptize thoſe that p. 247they baptized: Auſtin anſwereth all the Councils reaſons, but praiſeth Cyprian as a holy Martyr, and no Heretick though miſtaken.

§. 14. And it is not enough for me to ſay that all theſe Books of Auſtin have not a word of what he ſpeaketh, as controverting Infant-Baptiſm with the Donatiſts, but moreover, he bringeth the Donatiſts agreement with the Catholicks in the point of Infant-Baptiſm, as a medium in his arguing againſt them, Lib. 4. c. 23. ſhewing how much baptiſm availeth, in that Chriſt himſelf would be baptized by a ſervant, and Infants that cannot themſelves believe are baptized [Quod traditum tenet univerſitas Eccleſiae cum parvuli Infantes baptizantur qui nondum poſſunt corde credere ad juſtitiam & ore confiteri ad ſalutem, quod latro potuit: Quinetiam flendo & vagiendo cum in eis myſterium celebratur, ipſis myſticis vocibus obſtrepunt; & tamen Nullus Chriſtianus dixerit eos inaniter baptizari.] That is, [Which all the **Including the Donatiſts.Church holdeth when little Infants are baptized, who certainly cannot yet with the heart believe to righteouſneſs and with the mouth confeſs to Salvation: And yet no Chriſtian will ſay that they are baptized in vain.]

Thus he argueth againſt the Donatiſts, If the whole Church hold Infant-Baptiſm, and no Chriſtian will ſay that it is in vain, though they themſelves believe not and confeſs not, then you ſhould not ſay all baptiſm is vain becauſe we Catholicks adminiſter it, or becauſe it is received in our p. 248Churches. The whole tenor of Auſtins charitable language to the Donatiſts, and the ſcope of this place ſheweth, that he here pleaded univerſal conſent, and by [all the Church] and [no Chriſtian] includeth the Donatiſts. And ſo he oft argueth againſt the Pelagians, who though they denied original ſin, durſt not differ from the whole Chriſtian world by denying Infant-baptiſm, but pretended that it was for the conveyance of Grace, though not for remitting ſin.

§. 15. And Auſtin next addeth [Et ſi quiſquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat (Quanquam quod univerſa tenet Eccleſia, nec Conciliis inſtitutum, ſed ſemper retentum eſt, non niſi authoritate Apoſtolica traditum rectiſſime creditur) tamen veraciter conjicere poſſumus, &c.] That is, [And if any one in this caſe (of Infant-baptiſm) ask for Divine authority (Though that which the univerſal (or whole) Church doth hold, and was not inſtituted by Councils but was ever held, is moſt rightly believed to be delivered by the Apoſtles authority) yet we may truly conjecture, &c. (and ſo he paſſeth to the Scripture argument from Circumciſion.)

§. 16. Here note, 1. That this was no controverſie with the Donatiſts, 2. Nor with any other Sect, but hold by all the Church, 3. That he only ſaith as in a Parentheſis that [that which all the whole Church holdeth, and did ever hold, not inſtituted by any Council, is juſtly taken for an Apoſtolical tradition,] which I think few Proteſtants or ſober Chriſtians will deny. Who can imagine that Timothy, Titus, Silas and all the p. 249whole Church in the Apoſtles daies and ever ſince, ſhould hold and agree in any thing as a part of Chriſtian Doctrine or Worſhip, which they had not from the Apoſtles? Had the Apoſtles ſo little charity as not to endeavour to rectifie any of their errors? 4. Note here that the Donatiſts never denied this (that Infant-baptiſm was ever held by the whole Church to that day, and not inſtituted by any Council:) And were not Auſtin, the Donatiſts and the whole Church liker to know the univerſality and Antiquity of the thing, than the Holland or Engliſh Anabaptiſts about fourteen hundred years after them? 5. Note that he bringeth Scripture for it alſo.

§. 17. Indeed I find ſome that before thoſe times had been above Ordinances and againſt all baptiſm, but none againſt Infant-baptiſm as unlawful. Therefore Auguſtine ſaith elſewhere, that it is eaſier to find Hereticks that deny all baptiſm, than any that change the form of baptizing; ſo ſure hath the Tradition of univerſal practice delivered down the form and words of baptiſm to us.

§. 18. Afterward pag. 230. Ed. 2. Mr. Danvers cometh to Auſtin again, and ſaith that Vincentius Victor did oppoſe Auſtin in the point of Infant-baptiſm, citing Auguſt. li. 3. c. 14. de Anima.

Anſw. Not a word of truth: no ſuch matter in that Chapter or the whole book.

§. 19. Next he ſaith [Creſconius did alſo oppoſe Auſtin in the point of Infants baptiſm, and did maintain — that there was no true baptiſm p. 250but that which adminiſtred after faith.

Anſw. Utterly falſe ſtill. There was no ſuch controverſie between them. No wonder if he had miſcited ſentences that will thus go to falſifie whole Books, as ſpeaking of that which they never meddle with! Auguſtine having written againſt Petilian (their beſt ſpeaker, having of a Lawyer been made a Biſhop) Creſconius a Donatiſt Grammarian interpoſed for Petilian, and perſwaded Auſtin to gentler thoughts of them; but ſpeaks not a word againſt Infant-baptiſm.

§. 20. Nay, lib. 3. cap. 31. Auſtin tells us that they held it as well as the Catholicks: ſaith he, [Circumciſionem certe praeputii in figura futuri baptiſmi Chriſti ab antiquis obſervatum eſſe, negare, ut arbitror, non audetis: That is, I ſuppoſe you dare not deny that Circumciſion was obſerved by the ancients in figure of the Chriſtian baptiſm.] It was a granted thing.

§. 21. And it was Creſconius words to Auſtin [Ʋna Religio, eadem Sacramenta, nihil in Chriſtiana obſervatione diverſum: & adhuc adverſus invicem laboramus? Saith Auſtin, Quare ergo rebaptizas Chriſtianum? Ego non rebaptizo; that is, [We have all one Religion, the ſame Sacraments, there is nothing in our Chriſtian obſervation divers (ſaith Creſconius) And yet do we ſtrive againſt each other? Why then doſt thou rebaptize a Chriſtian (that differeth not from them?) I rebaptize no Chriſtian, (ſaith Auſtin.) So that here was no diſagreement in Sacraments or any Chriſtian obſervance. Only as Auſtin ſaith lib. 7. de bapt. c. 2. the quarrel p. 251was that the Catholicks were charged to be Traditores quia ex traditoribus, the ſucceſſors of ſinners: Thus being wiſe and righteous overmuch did tear and almoſt ruine the Churches.

§. 22. He addeth, pag. 223. Ed. 2. the ſaying of Oſiander, Fuller, Bullinger, that the Donatiſts and the Anabaptiſts held the ſame opinions?

Anſw. 1. In what? In all things or ſome? that is, in the point of Rebaptizing perſons before baptized (do you own that indeed?) But not as being againſt Infant-baptiſm. 2. So, many Prelatiſts have called the Puritans Donatiſts; and abundance of Proteſtants ſay that the Papiſts ſucceed the Donatiſts in appropriating the Church to their party. Do not write next that they ſay the Papiſts are againſt Infant-baptiſm, leſt you make your ſelves Antichriſtian alſo.

§. 23. Reader, the Donatiſts were ſo great a party of men and had ſo great a number of Biſhops, and ſo many wrote againſt them whoſe works are yet extant, and their cauſe had ſo many publick examinations, that I leave it to thee if thou have the brains of a man, to judge whether if they had been againſt Infant-baptiſm in a time when Auſtin ſaid no Chriſtian denied it, neither Optatus, nor Auſtin, nor any other of their moſt copious oppoſers would ever have charged them with ſuch an opinion, nor any examiners, Councils or Hiſtorians of their ages; even when the Catalogues of hereticks unhappily took in ſo many little matters as they did, and made hereticks ſome more and worſe than p. 252they were? And now if John Becold will ſay they were of his ſide, we muſt believe him.

§. 24. His dealing with the Novatians is the ſame or worſe: He feared not in the face of the Sun, to write that the Novatians oppoſed Infant-baptiſm, and numbreth them alſo with his party. When it is a falſhood as much aggravated as theſe particulars import. 1. They were an honeſt and numerous people, and ſcattered almoſt all over the Empire; tolerated till Innocents time in Rome, and long tolerated and much favoured by many Emperors and Patriarchs in Conſtantinople, becauſe (as Socrates ſaith) they agreed in Doctrine with the Catholicks: And could they have denied Infant-baptiſm, and not be accuſed of it? 2. They had many bitter enemies that would ſoon have caſt this in their teeth. 3. Many Councils had to do with them, where multitudes had opportunity to accuſe them. 4. They were an ancient Sect, ariſing even in Cyprians time, and long continued: And in ſo many generations it would have been known. 5. They are put in the Catalogues of many Hereſiographers that are keen enough, and none of them (that ever I found) accuſe them of any ſuch thing: No not Epiphanius himſelf, who is moſt copious, and not very backward to accuſe. And ſhall either John of Leyden or any of his party now in the end of the world perſwade us, by ſlandering ſo many thouſands of innocent men, that they were guilty? And can Mr. Danvers now tell us that they held that which for a thouſand years hath lain unknown?

p. 253§. 25. He citeth Socrates, l. 7. c. 9. that Innocent baniſhed them out of Rome.

Anſw. Elſewhere indeed Socrates and many more ſay ſo: But doth that prove they were againſt Infant-baptiſm?

§. 26. Somewhat he would fain ſay at the ſecond hand out of Albaſpinaeus, Obſerv. 20. I hope he never read the book: Albaſpinaeus there purpoſely decideth the Controverſie, what the Novatian Hereſie was, in ſeveral Chapters, and never mentioneth any ſuch opinion or ſuſpicion of them. The ſame doth that great Antiquary Jeſuit Petavius; (and what theſe two men knew not of the Fathers and Church-hiſtory, few in the world knew, unleſs I may except Blondel and Ʋſher:) In his notes on Epiphanius of the Novatians, he entreth on the ſame Controverſie as Albaſpinaeus did, and never mentioneth any ſuch thing.

§. 27. Next he tells us that Ecbertus and Emericus do aſſert that the Waldenſes, the new Cathari, conform to the Doctrine and manners of the old, the Novatians.

Anſw. But did they ſay that the Novatians were againſt Infant-Baptiſm? Why did you cite neither words, page nor Book? And if they had, ſhould two railing ſlanderous Papiſts near a thouſand years after Novatian be taken for witneſſes that he was againſt Infant-baptiſm, againſt all the Hiſtory of the Church that concerneth them to the contrary? Socrates himſelf (an honeſt Hiſtorian) and Sozomen alſo are ordinarily by the Papiſts accuſed as Novatians, becauſe they ſpeak fairly and p. 254impartially of them as honeſt men: (and whether they were or not I know not, but by their own words conj…cture the contrary) And they lived when and where the Novatians were beſt known: And yet tell us not a ſyllable of any ſuch ſuſpicion of them.

§. 28. Next he ſaith, Perin ſaith that the Waldenſes were the off-ſpring of the Novatians, driven out of Rome about Anno 400.

Anſw. It is very probable: Therefore the Waldenſes were not againſt Infant-baptiſm. For it is certain the Novatians were not: And the ſame Perin ſaith the Waldenſes were not. But if they had, would that prove that the Novatians were, ſeven hundred or eight hundred years before?

§. 29. Next he citeth as Caſſanders reaſon againſt him that the Donatiſts were for Infant-baptiſm, the ſixth Council of Carthage, ſaying that [All that returned from the Donatiſts ſhould be received into the Catholick Church without rebaptization though baptized in Infancy,] and ſaith, [It is but a ſuppoſition at beſt that they might be baptized in Infancy or they might not, and can ſignifie nothing againſt all the former evidence.] And is it not ſhame and pity that ſo publick matters of fact muſt be handled at this rate? What is his former evidence but ſuch as humane nature may bluſh at, to find that one called a man and a Chriſtian, and too good for the communion of ſuch as we, ſhould be guilty of? And why talketh he of this one reaſon againſt him in ſo publick a matter of Hiſtory? as if he knew not what abundance more may eaſily be p. 255produced, if it were of any need? And how ſhamefully are theſe plain words of a Council put off, as if all the Biſhops that lived in the ſame time and Countrey with them knew not what the Donatiſts hold, ſo well as he and ſuch as he?

§. 30. His next witneſſes are [the ancient Britains that having received the Chriſtian doctrine and worſhip from the Apoſtles times did intirely keep thereto — whom Auſtin the Monk would have engaged [eſpecially in Chriſtening children and keeping Eaſter, but in aſmuch as they utterly refuſed to be ſeduced by him therein &c.

Anſw. This is a witneſs (being ſuch a body of witneſſes) of great importance (as that of the Donatiſts and Novatians was) if it were true: But it's all falſe ſtill: And muſt our own Countrey, yea all our Chriſtian Anceſtors be thus ſlandered? Whether Britain received the Chriſtian doctrine and worſhip from the Apoſtles time (if he mean in that time) is very doubtful and nothing to our buſineſs: we have no ſufficient proof of any ſuch thing: The Reaſon of the caſe maketh me conjecture that Chriſtianity was firſt brought hither by Soldiers, of the Roman Legions; eſpecially ſince I read in Beda that the firſt Temple I find any mention of was built at or near Canterbury by ſuch Soldiers. But who ever brought it, it's like they were of the Aſian and not the Roman opinion, (whether Soldiers that had been in the Aſian Legions, or who elſe, is not known) and it is certain p. 256that they were not againſt the obſervation of Eaſter: For both they and the Scots that concurred with them againſt the Romans, did ſtrictly keep it: But all the queſtion was of the due time.

§. 31. Nor is there the leaſt proof or probability that they were againſt Infant Baptiſm. 1. Becauſe Auguſtine the Monk that quarrelled with them, never chargeth them with it, in his Ep. to Gregory or to themſelves. 2. Beda that was downright againſt them, and a Roman zealot, and the ancienteſt writer after Auſtins time, and lived in the ſame Country with them, and knew them, and deſcribeth all the conteſts with them, yet never layeth any ſuch thing to their charge; when yet he mentioneth the Rebaptizing of One by Biſhop John, becauſe it was an ignorant inſufficient man for the Prieſthood, that Baptized him; and this a rare inſtance. 3. The Scots that about Eaſter and other contrarieties to the Romans, were of the Britains mind, and refuſed ſo much as to eat with the Romans, yet are charged with no ſuch thing. 4. And the controverſie continued for above an hundred years after Auſtins time, and great ſtir and meetings and diſputes were about it, as Beda tells us at large, before the Scots were changed: And in all that time, there would have been opportunity for their forward adverſaries (eſpecially Wilfrid, afterward St. Boniface of Mentz, who was the Chief) to have found out this matter of accuſation. 5. None of the hiſtorians near following thoſe times do charge any ſuch p. 257thing on them. And yet were the old Britains againſt Infant-Baptiſm?

§. 32. But to put all out of doubt take the words of Auſtin to them in his three demands thus by Beda recorded, Eccl. Hiſt. li. 2. c. 2. [ Ʋt Paſcha ſuo tempore celebretis; ut Miniſterium baptizandi quo Deo renaſcimur juxta morem Romae ſanctae Eccleſiae, et Apoſtolicae Eccleſiae compleatis; ut genti Anglorum una nobiſcum praedicetis verbum domini]. That is, [1. That you celebrate Eaſter at the due time; 2. That ye compleat the Miniſtry of Baptiſm by which we are born again to God, according to the faſhion (or manner) of the holy Church of Rome, and the Apoſtolical Church. 3. That you Preach with us the word of God to the Engliſh Nation].

And what is here of Infant-Baptiſm? How proveth he that that was meant by the Roman manner or faſhion of Baptizing? Is the ſubject of Baptiſm, the Manner? when about the Manner indeed there were then ſo many and different ceremonies? Nay when above an hundred years before this Auſtins dayes, a wiſer Auſtin had told the Donatiſts, that the whole Church was agreed for Infant-Baptiſm, and no one Chriſtian held it to be in vain? ſure this was not ſo long after, a Manner peculiar to Rome? But thus the honour of our Anceſtors, and the hiſtory of the Church, and the ſouls of poor ignorant Chriſtians among us, muſt all be heinouſly wronged by the falſhoods of raſh preſuming ignorant men.

p. 258§. 33. And if this had been as true as it is falſe (that the old Britains were againſt Infant-Baptiſm) it would inform theſe men that it is not delaying Baptiſm till riper age, that will keep it from formality, nor the Church from falling into all impiety: For if our eldeſt hiſtorian Gildas may be believed (and who may if not he?) his Countrymen the Britains, were Princes, Prieſts and People fallen to ſuch abhominable wickedneſs, murder, drunkenneſs, filthy luſts, deceit, theft, cruelty &c. that he takes the Princes for wolves and monſters, and the Prieſts for no Prieſts but traytors, (excepting ſome good men among them) &c. It is neither Infant nor Adult Baptiſm that will ſecure againſt the corrupting of Churches, but Grace with either hath ſaved ſouls.

§. 34. He cites himſelf here Fox, quoting Beda, Polychron. and others. And what ſay they? [Baptizing after the manner of Rome] And what's that to his queſtion? But he tells you that Fa…an ſaith [that you give Chriſtendom to children.] I have not Fabian to examine: but if he do, when he knoweth that he is an empty f…llow, of the other day as it were and that he hath nothing but what cometh from Gregory, and Beda; and that in them there is no ſuch thing: will a k…wn …a…ſification of a … about nine hundred years after, diſprove the yet v…ible words of the …, which undertake to give you not only the ſe…ſe but the very ter… ?

§. 35. He proceedeth to prove by argument p. 259that the Britains were againſt-Infant Baptiſm.

1. Becauſe they received the Scriptures, the Chriſtian Faith, Doctrine and Diſcipline from the Apoſtles and Aſiatick Churches, who had no ſuch thing as the Baptizing of Infants among them?

Anſw. No ſuch thing in the Aſiaticks Churches? He might as well ſay, There is now no ſuch thing in England. But perhaps hee'l ſay that he meaneth in the Apoſtles time or ſoon after: Of which you have tryed▪ part of his ſtrength. But when he hath ſtudied well Biſhop Ʋſhers Primordia who ſaith all that is to be ſaid for our Antiquity, he will find no proof that we had our Religion from the Apoſtles or any in their time.

§. 36. But ask the man whether Aſia it ſelf long before the dayes of Gregory had not Infant-Baptiſm? And whether they received not the Scriptures and Religion as certainly from the Aſiatick Churches, and ſo from the Apoſtles, as the Britains did? And whether this will prove that at that time they were againſt Infant-Baptiſm? If not, why will it prove the ſame of the Britains?

§. 37. His ſecond Argument is [Becauſe they ſo fully prized and faithfully adhered to the Scripture, &c.]

Anſw. What will not partiality ſay? 1. You muſt believe him that Scripture is againſt Infant-Baptiſm: And then the controverſie is at an end. 2. You muſt believe him how cloſely p. 260they adhered to Scripture, if you can, when you have read Gildas (who is tranſlated into Engliſh) their neighbour, one of them, the only certain hiſtorian that knew them, who deſcribeth them as I have ſaid, as moſt flagitious heinous wicked men. Though I hope they amended after Gildas dayes, yet that ſhewed you how they held to Apoſtolick diſcipline or Scripture. The book is ſo very ſmall; it is but equal to intreat him to read it before he uſe this argument again **It ſeems by ſome citations out of it after that he hath read it, and yet ſpeaks thus!. 3. You muſt believe him that all that prize and adhere to Scripture are againſt Infant-Baptiſm. Read and try whether there be not greater evidence that Cyprian, Athanaſius, Nazianzene, Chryſoſtome, Auguſtine, the Aegyptian Monks, and other ſuch ſtrict perſons in thoſe ages, at leaſt the Novatians, and Donatiſts (in his own judgement) prized the Scripture than the Britains? And doth it follow (in deſpite of their own profeſſions and practiſes) that all theſe and the reſt ſuch, were againſt Infant-Baptiſm?

§. 38. Were not this as good an argument? Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Bradford, Hooper; all the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes, &c. prized the Scriptures: Ergo they were all againſt Infant-Baptiſm. Yea even Independents and Preſbyterians and all that prize and cleave to them now in England?

§. 39. 3. He addeth [Becauſe they did ſo vehemently reject humane Traditions in the worſhip p. 261of God; eſpecially all Romiſh Rites and Ceremonies; this as before undeniably appearing to come from Romes ordination and Impoſition.]

Anſw. 1. [ Ʋndeniably] is a word that ſhameth you to every intelligent Reader that underſtandeth Church hiſtory. Will you not confeſs your ſelf that Cyprian and that Carthage Council, Nazianzene, Baſil, Auguſtine &c. were for Infant-Baptiſm? were all theſe Papiſts, or Romans? Can you prove any Roman Ordination of it before all theſe?

2. How know you that they ſo vehemently rejected humane Traditions in the worſhip of God? Did they not uſe the Aſiatick Ceremonies? Did they not preciſely obſerve Eaſter, and place Religion in keeping it on their own dayes? Had they not Biſhops, and were they not Monks? And do you gather by Gildas that they were ſuch as you dream? And did they not Plead Tradition for their difference from Rome?

3. And were not the Scots then of their mind, and as much againſt Traditions as they? and more againſt vice and formality in and after Colmans and Columbanus dayes? And are not the Independents more againſt Traditions now than the Britains were? And are they therefore Anabaptiſts?

§. 40. He addeth [4. Becauſe Conſtantine the Great (the ſon of Conſtance and the famous Helena, both eminent Chriſtians) in the ye…r 305. was not Baptized till he was aged as before. A clear proof that the Chriſtians in Britain p. 262in thoſe dayes did not Baptize their children].

Anſw. Some will laugh at theſe things, but I had rather mourn for the poor peoples ſnares. 1. It's falſe that Conſtance was a Chriſtian, at leaſt when Conſtantine was young. No regardable hiſtory maketh him any better than a moderate favourer of the Chriſtians. 2. It is not proveable that Helena was one in Conſtantines Infancy. 3. There is no probability that he was born in England, as many Learned men have proved. 4. It is certain he was educated and lived in other Lands. 5. He was no Chriſtian in his youth himſelf, nor profeſſed it till after he was Emperor: The ſign of a Croſs appearing in the skies and his victory thereupon is ſaid to be the means. 6. He lived long at Rome, and Conſtantinople, and elſewhere before he was Baptized. And was that a certain proof that none of thoſe Countreys were for Infant-Baptiſm, no nor for Baptiſm at Converſion neither, becauſe Conſtantine was not Baptized! 7. He kept in with the Philoſophers (having one at his Table familiar with him) to hold all parties to him. 8. And many in thoſe times thought that all ſin being pardoned at Baptiſm, they muſt live much ſtrictlier after they were Baptized, and were in much more danger by their ſin, and therefore would not be Baptized till old, as Conſtantine when he was like to die. And now where is this mans clear proof that the Britains were Anabaptiſts?

p. 263§. 41. 5. Saith he [Becauſe of the Correſpondency and unity that were between the French Chriſtians after called the Waldenſes, and them —viz. Germanus and Lupus.]

Anſw. What abundance of untruths will one mans head hold! 1. He would make the ignorant believe that the French Churches that ſent over Germanus and Lupus were ſuch as after were called Waldenſes: When yet before he citeth Perin ſaying that the Waldenſes were the offſpring of the Novatians baniſhed from Rome. Beda Hiſt. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. tells us briefly that the Britains being infected with Pelagianiſm by Agricola the ſon of Severianus a Pelagian Biſhop, ſent to France for help, as being unable themſelves to diſpute the caſe. The Biſhops of France in a great Synod agreed to ſend Germanus Biſhop of Altiſſiodore, and Lupus Biſhop of Trecaſſe (brother to Vincentius Lerinenſis.) Proſper in his Chronicle tells us that Germanus was ſent by Pope Celeſtine by the inſtigation of Palladius a Deacon: Ʋſher reciteth and rejecteth not Baronius his conciliation, that it was done by the Pope and French Biſhops. Germanus and Lupus come over, and work miracles by the way, and here Germanus carried a box with him of the Reliques of all the Apoſtles and many Martyrs (Beda c. 18.) This he layeth to the eyes of a blind maid and cured her ſuddedly, which confounded the Pelagians: Theſe Reliques he buryed in St. Albanes Sepulchre; And inſtead of them took with him ſome of the duſt where St. Albanes blood had been ſhed, p. 264which remained red till then. And after other miracles and a victory he returned with a proſperous navigation, ſaith Beda c. 20. by his own Merits and St. Albanes interceſſion. Afterwards he returned again in a ſecond neceſſity with Severus, and delivered the Britains from Pelagianiſm, who yet lived in ſuch wickedneſs as Beda after Gildas deſcribeth.

Here let the Reader note againſt Mr. Danvers dream, 1. That this was done in 429. And if Mr. D. could prove indeed that all the Biſhops of France then were Waldenſes, or of the judgement ſo called ſo long after, he would do us Knights ſervice againſt the Papiſts in the queſtion of the perpetual viſibility of the Church. But if I cite Mr. Danvers for it, I doubt they will laugh at me, and make no more of his authority than I do of the Dutch Anabaptiſts Martyrology.

2. Note that Proſper ſaith it was the Pope that ſent Germanus.

3. Note that he was ſent by the Biſhops of France, who then did little differ from Rome, but ſubmitted to his Primacy, (and Patriarchate) in the Empire, though reſerving their liberties; Read the Epiſtles of Leo 1. againſt Hillary Arelat. and all that ſtory, and you will ſee how much the Pope uſurped there betimes.

4. Pope Celeſtine was the great maintainer of Auguſtine againſt Pelagius, and ſo the apter to do this.

5. The Pope had before this ſent Palladius to the Britains who received him: And p. 265therefore they were then on ſome fair terms with him.

6. Germanus and Lupus were Biſhops, and they that ſent him; and ſo Antichriſtian to ſome Anabaptiſts

7. Germanus ſure was not of Mr. D's. Church, that uſed Reliques ſo ſtrangely for working miracles? Was this an Anabaptiſt?

8. This was all done after Auguſtine had written, that no Chriſtian thought Infant-Baptiſm vain: (or about that time.) And yet were all the Britains then of another mind?

9. The Biſhops of France (with Pope Celeſtine) took part with Auguſtine againſt Pelagius, and ſent Lupus with Germanus to do that work: And yet were all theſe Biſhops againſt Auguſtine, about Infant-Baptiſm, which he ſaith all the Church Ʋniverſal agreed in?

10. Laſtly, the Britains were infected with Pelagianiſm; Pelagius (called Morgan, being a Britain (and Ʋſher ſaith, ſome ſay born the ſame day with Auguſtine) and Celeſtius a Scot or Iriſh man; And the Pelagians themſelves were for Infant-Baptiſm, (And if any Chriſtians in the world had been againſt it, they would have been the likelieſt, who denyed Original ſin: Yet even they durſt not deny this.) And is it a credible thing that all theſe Britains who were ſome of Pelagius's mind, and ſome of Auguſtines, were yet againſt both in point of Infant-Baptiſm? Yea and not a word ſaid of this by any writer, when their Pelagianiſm made ſo great a ſtir! Yet this man gathereth that the Churches p. 266of France were Anabaptiſts (contrary to all hiſtory) becauſe the Waldenſes 600 years after were Anabaptiſts (which is alſo falſe:) And the Britains were Anabaptiſts, becauſe the Churches of France ſent two Learned men to diſpute againſt Pelagianiſm in England, (when the unlearned Britains could not do it). Reader, will not this kind o… arguing make thee an Anabaptiſt? or elſe make thee pitty the ſeduced party? O what a temptation to Popery do ſuch men lay before the people! When men ſee that every ſuch a one that hath ignorance and pride enough to make him wiſe in his own eyes, ſhall thus pour out falſhoods to cheat mankind, and the ignorant know not but it may all be true, it tempteth men to think that there muſt be ſome Authorized men whom the Ignorant muſt believe before ſuch ſeducers, or elſe confuſion and falſhood will take place of truth, and the people will be as children toſſed up and down, and carryed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. And indeed a concordant Miniſtry is ſo to be preferred, though it infer not a Roman infallibility.

§. 42. 6. His laſt proof that the Britains were againſt Infant Baptiſm, is becauſe Auguſtine the Monk was himſelf ſo raw and ignorant in the rite, as to ask, How long the Baptizing of a child might be deferred, there being no danger of death?]

Anſw. I grow aſhamed that I have medled with ſuch a Collector: A baculo ad angulum. Doth it not rather imply that there was no controverſie p. 267between him and the Britains about Infant-Baptiſm, ſeeing he never mentioned any ſuch thing?

§. 43. His next witneſſes againſt Infant-Baptiſm are in the fourth Century, called by him Dadoes, Sabas, Adulphus, and Simonis who (ſaith he in his catalogue) oppoſe it. And p. 229. he ſaith to prove it, but that they were charged to have an ill opinion of the Sacrament of the Altar and of Infants Baptiſm. And he citeth Hiſtor. Tripartita li. 7. c. 11. (and ſome fellow an hundred years ago.)

Anſw. And have we here any honeſter dealing than before? Read and judge. That which the Tripartite Hiſtory cited by him ſaith is this, that [There was then a Sect called Meſſalians or Euchetes (known in the Catalogues of Hereticks) and called The Praying Hereticks) who expected the operation of ſome Devil thinking him to be the Spirit of God, refuſing to work and giving themſelves to lie and ſleep to expect Revelations; Indeed their opinion was that Prayer was all, and Baptiſm and the Lords Supper were nothing, dicentes Divinum cibum nihil nec prodeſſe nec laedere; that the Sacred or Sacramental food, did neither profit nor hurt: Theſe men were led by one Dadoes, Sabbos, Adelphius, Hermas and Simeon: And Adelphus when old (for they hid their opinion) bewrayed his error in a ſpeech to Flavian of Antioch; that Baptiſm doth the Baptized perſon no good, but prayer only expelleth the Devil. And 1. Theſe men were no more againſt Infant-Baptiſm than p. 268againſt the adults Baptiſm. For they were above all Ordinances ſave Prayer. 2. They were againſt neither as unlawful, but againſt both and other ordinances as unprofitable. 3. They carryed this much in ſecret; which they could not have concealed had they not Baptized Infants. 4. Some hereticks, and all Infidels and Pagans were againſt all Baptiſm as well as they: And doth any of this prove that any one Chriſtian was againſt Infant Baptiſm more than adult?

§. 44. Next he tells you that Fauſtus Regienſis ſaith that Perſonal and actual deſire was requiſite in every one that was to be Baptized (Vincent and Creſconius I ſpoke to before) And he citeth not a word of his writings for it, nor any other but one Jacob Merning, I ſuppoſe a Dutch Anabaptiſt.

Anſw. Reader, thou ſeeſt ſtill how thou art uſed. Fauſtus Rhegienſis is a known Author; his works are common; He is commonly taken for a Semipelagian, and he hath a book to prove that ſouls are bodies, which Claudianus Mammertus hath anſwered. But I never read one ſyllable in him, nor in any other that ever wrote of him or againſt him, that ſhould make one doubt whether he was for Infant-baptiſm. Could he be in ſuch a ſtation as he was, and have ſo many writings, and ſo many adverſaries, and yet hold ſuch an opinion and never be ſuſpected? Do the Anabaptiſts no better own their cauſe? But the words he alledgeth are but ſuch as he citeth of my own; If truly cited, no doubt ſpoken only of the adult, p. 269and of what the Infants do by them. But who can anſwer words not cited? Muſt we read all his works again to ſee if there be ſuch a word, as oft as ſuch a man will talk to us at this rate?

§. 45. The next is [Albanus a zealous godly Miniſter in the ſixth Century was put to death for baptizing Believers, though baptized in Infancy or by Hereticks.]

Anſw. Still all alike. 1. Baronius is cited an. 413. n. 6. when in my Book there is not a ſyllable of any ſuch matter: 2. But thereabout he hath the Hiſtory of the Donatiſts, who rebaptized all both old and young, as if our Separatiſts now ſhould tell all England, [You are all out of the true Church which is only with us, and if you come not to us and be not baptized in our Churches, you have no true baptiſm nor can be ſaved.] And for ſuch rebaptizing many were troubled. And is this a witneſs againſt Infant-baptiſm? Shall we not have one true word?

§. 46. His tale of Swermers he refers us for to Merning and Rulicius, or Lulicius and Glanaus, men that I know not ſo well as himſelf, and I had rather he had referred me to himſelf or Mr. Tombes.

§. 47. He addeth p. 231. [Nicephorus l. 17. c. 9. ſaith that [In the year 550. one Peter Biſhop of Apamen and Zoroarus a Monk in Syria did maintain and defend the point of dipping, rebaptization or weder-dipping.

Anſw. Did Nicephorus write in Dutch? 1. Is dipping any thing to the caſe of Infants? 2. Are you really for Rebaptizing; and are you juſtifying p. 270it? If not, why cite you inſtances of Rebaptizers? Too many beſides the Donatiſts rebaptized others to engage them to their Sect as the only Church. 3. Do you know the Hiſtory of the Council of Calcedon and Dioſcorus, and the Neſtorians? Reader, believe not this man any further than ſenſe or great evidence conſtraineth thee: That which Nicephorus there ſaith is this, [Severus of Antioch, and Peter of Apamea, and Zooras a Monk, were found to curſe the Council of Calcedon, and to hold but one nature in Chriſt; praeterea anabaptiſmos aliaque nefandae obſcoenitatis plena facinora peragere, that is, [and alſo to have practiſed Rebaptizings, and other villanies full of ſuch obſcenity that is not to be named.] If he rejoyce in theſe Witneſſes, is here a word of Infant-baptiſm? When ſhall I come to a ſentence that is true?

§. 48. The next is [Adrian Biſhop of Corinth in the ſeventh Century did publickly oppoſe Infant-Baptiſm, inſomuch as he would neither Baptize them himſelf, nor ſuffer them to be Baptized by others, but wholly denyed Baptiſm to them: Wherefore he was accuſed by Gregory Mag. Biſhop of Rome, to John Biſhop of Lariſſa, as appears by Gregories Letter to the ſaid John, in which among others he complains againſt the ſaid Adrian that he turned away children from Baptiſm and let them die without it, for which they proceeded againſt him as a great tranſgreſſor and blaſphemer.]

Anſw. Not one true Sentence in all this: 1. It's falſe that Adrian publickly oppoſed Infant-Baptiſm. p. 2712. It's falſe that he was accuſed for it by Gregory, or that Gregory laid any ſuch thing to his charge: 3. Or that they ſo proceeded, if my books be true. Reader, the caſe in Gregories Epiſtles here cited is this. Adrian was accuſed malevolently of many things (not by Gregory) but to Gregory: Among others, that through him ſome Infants had dyed without Baptiſm. Gregory writeth to John Biſhop of Lariſſa on his behalf, and ſaith that [no one of the witneſſes could ſay that he knew any ſuch thing by him, but that they were told ſo by the mothers of ſome children, whoſe Husbands had for their faults been removed (from the Church) ſed nec in baptizatos eos mortis tempus profeſſi ſunt occupaſſe, ſicut accuſatorum continebat invidioſa ſuggeſtio, cum in Demetriade Civitate baptizatos eos eſſe conſtiterit] that is, [Nor did (the witneſſes) ſay, that they died unbaptized, as the envious ſuggeſtion of the accuſers contained; for it is manifeſt that they were baptized in the City Demetrias.]

1. Is here a word that he was againſt Infant-baptiſm? 2. Could a Biſhop of ſo great a City and Dioceſs have been againſt Infant-baptiſm and none to be able to prove it, even in envious accuſations? Would not every week detect it? 3. Would Great Gregory have thus juſtified him, if he h…d but ſuſpected ſuch a thing, above a hundred years after Auſtin ſaid no one Chriſtian thought Infant-baptiſm vain? Was this great Pope an Anabaptiſt? 4. Is it not plain by all this, th… it was but the particul… children of ſome excommunicate p. 272mens wives, who maliciouſly accuſe him (not for being againſt Infant-baptiſm; no nor againſt their Infants baptiſm; but) for delaying it? It is like, to difference them from the children of Church-members: And yet that they were afterward baptized. See here what a witneſs he hath brought?

§. 49. The next in his Catalogue is, [Aegyptian Divines] but after in his book before it he tells you of one Berinius an eminent learned man that profeſſed inſtruction to be neceſſary before baptiſm, and that without it baptiſm ought not to be adminiſtred to high or low] and citeh Beda l. 4. c. 16.

Reader, the paſſage in Beda is but this, That Ceadwall having conquered the Iſle of Wight gave it to Biſhop Wilfrid (no friend to Anabaptiſts) who gave it his Siſters Son Bernwin appointing him a Prieſt called Hildila, who by his labour among the Heathens converted and baptized two of the Kings Sons, who were baptized and had a ſtrange deliverance. And is there a ſyllable in this ſtory that Infant-baptiſm is concerned in? No nor a word of one Berinus an eminent learned man that profeſſed as he ſaith, though it be nothing to the purpoſe: Nor was the buſineſs done as he ſaith in Lower Saxony but in the Iſle of Wight; ſo little is there that hath the leaſt kin to truth in this lamentable Reporter.

§. 50. His Teſtimony of Aegyptian Divines he citeth two late Papiſts for (inſtead of juſt proof) who neither of them ever dreamed that thoſe Aegyptians were againſt Infant-Baptiſm. p. 273That the adult ſhould be Catechiſed and inſtructed before Baptiſm, all the Chriſtian world agreed: That there were ſome Monaſteries of the Aegyptian Monks that would not hold communion with the Church of Rome, is known; and what a turn was made among many of the Clergy after the Council of Chalcedon on Dioſcor…s his account, whereupon a great body of the Southern Churches cut off from Rome, and diſowning them are called Neſtorians (many injuriouſly) to this day. And Fulgentius was diſſwaded from going to the ſtrict Heremites and Monaſticks near Aegypt, becauſe they were ſeparated from the Roman Communion, as you may ſee in Fulgentius's life. But what is all this to Infant-baptiſm?

§. 51. Next he tells us that in the ninth Century Hincmarus Laudunenſ. was againſt Infant-baptiſm, and reciteth many words of Hincmarus Rhenenſis to him.

Anſw. The book is Bib. Pat. Suppl. To. 2. containing 55. Chapters: And if I muſt read every word of ſuch long books to try his Citations, I muſt ſpend many months to be able to tell you that a man told you ſo many untruths: All that I can find by a curſory peruſal is but this, about a Village in the other Pari…h, whom it ſhould pay Tythes to, [habebas imbreviatos quot Infantes ſine baptiſmate, & quot homines ſine Communione inde obierunt, quae mihi in publicum objicere nolles, ne poſtea tibi improperarem; at ſi alia mala de me ſcires, illa etiam de me diceres.] Reader, is here a ſyllable againſt Infant-baptiſm? Who was the accuſer here? What is in p. 274the accuſation but as in Adrians to Greg. which plainly proveth the contrary, that he was for Infant-baptiſm and ordinarily uſed it, when the intimation was but that he had let ſome Infants die without baptiſm and ſome men without Communion? Hath not many a Miniſter among us been ſo accuſed? And are we therefore againſt Infant-baptiſm? Or was Hinomarus againſt adult Communion becauſe envy ſaid he let ſome die without it?

§. 52. Reader, the truth is I am ſo weary of this work, that I cannot perſwade my ſelf to follow it any further, it is ſo ſad and loathſom a buſineſs that is ſet before us; fitter to be wept over than anſwered at large. I ſhall yet take notice of what he ſaith of the Waldenſes, and to that further ſay, 1. That I have elſewhere vindicated them already from this ſlander. 2. That ſo do many of their bitter adverſaries, in laying no ſuch thing to their charge. Among whom to what is ſaid elſewhere, I add but the Teſtimony of Nauclerus a Popiſh bitter enemy to them, who Vol. 2. part 2. pag. 265. reciteth their Doctrine as being agreeable with the body of Doctrine held in the Reformed Churches, never mentioning any denial of Infant-baptiſm, but only that they affirmed Water to be ſufficient without Oyl.

p. 275AND now as to our Teſtimonies for the Common practice of Infant-baptiſm from the daies of the Apoſtles, I will not abuſe the Reader by reciting again the teſtimonies long ago recited. Let him but conſider what I have there ſaid out of Juſtin, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Nazianzene, Auguſtin and others, and I leave the matter to his Judgement.

§. 53. And further where they feign Nazianzen to be indifferent I will add but theſe words out of his Orat. 40. vol. 1. p. 648. Ed. Morel. [foreign — [Haſt thou an Infant? Let not naughtineſs ſurprize him firſt, [Let him be ſanctified from his Infancy: Let him be conſecrated to the ſpirit from his Infancie: But doſt thou fear the ſeal becauſe of the weakneſs of his nature? How weak a minded mother art thou, and of how little faith? But Hannah, &c. Thou haſt no need of Amulets and Inchantments **Which the Heathens uſed to Children.with which the wicked one creepeth into the minds of vain men, ſtealing to himſelf the veneration due to God: Give him the Trinity, that great and excellent [Amulet.]

That all this is ſpoken of Baptiſm is paſt all doubt: Yet Nazianzen in ſome caſes admitteth of delay till three years old: But took baptiſm to be ſo neceſſary for Infants, that he thought that if any though by ſurprize and not the Parents p. 276contempt ſhould die unbaptized, they ſhould not goe to Heaven (or be Rewarded) though he thought they ſhould not go to Hell or be puniſhed: Ib. Orat. 40. His opinion therefore for delay three years in caſe of ſafety conſiſted with too much apprehenſion of its neceſſity even to Infants.

§. 54. When I read his language of holy Cyprian, I confeſs the apparition of ſo frightful a ſpirit, doth affright me from his doctrine. Firſt, The man (with greater audaciouſneſs than the Papiſts uſe the Fathers,) doth firſt attempt againſt all conſent of antiquity, and without any proof, to queſtion the truth of the ſentence of Cyprian and the Carthage Council to Fidus.

Secondly, And what could he ſay more to betray the Prot…ſtant Cauſe to the Papiſts, than as after [Either Cyprian had been vilely Ruffined, or that he himſelf was a notable Factor for Antichriſt, and that in him the myſtery of iniquity did very ſtrongly work.]

The man it ſeems had never read Jeremy Stephens his Edition of Cyprian de unit. Eccl. and how thoſe few words of Peter and the Church of Rome were added by Corrupters (though he is willing to believe in the general that his writings were corrupted) But we have certain Copies at leaſt of ſo much of them, as confute his Cauſe. I remember our great Antiquary Biſhop Ʋſher told me that it was Tertullian and Cyprian that he took for the Chief Records of Church Antiquities, next a few ſmall things which give little information of matters of fact. And ſome of the things p. 277that this man ſo ſtarteth at, Cyprian held, and as Epiphanius ſaith, All the Chriſtian Churches: And muſt he then be a Factor for Antichriſt? Who then is this Man a Factor for? Mark, Reader, whether it be any wonder if I be abhominable and Antichriſtian to him, when Cyprian and the ſixty ſix Biſhops with him muſt come under (hypothetically) that ſuſpicion. 1. That Cyprian who was ſo holy and wiſe a man; 2. That lived before Antichriſt was born; 3. That died a Martyr for Chriſt; 4. Who is ſo great a part of the pure antiquity; that if you caſt him away, what will the reſt be for a great time? 5. That Cyprian who is called by ſome the firſt Anabaptiſt, becauſe he was for rebaptizing thoſe baptized by Hereticks; 6. That Cyprian who ſo ſtifly oppoſed the Biſhop of Rome (though himſelf was in the error;) 7. That Cyprian whom the Donatiſts boaſted of as their predeceſſor in rebaptizing, and Auſtin was put to anſwer (though with his honour;) 8. That Cyprian who lived before any Chriſtian Emperor, when ſtrict diſcipline upheld religion without and againſt the Magiſtrates ſword; and who wrote ſo many of his Epiſtles only for the rigor of Church-diſcipline? O wh…t pleaſure is this to Papiſts? If we be but ſuch Antichriſtians ſay they, as holy Cyprian and the primitive Churches were, we will prefer it before the Anabaptiſts Chriſtianity?

§. 55. And if Cyprian was Antichriſtian, where then was the Church of Chriſt? It will be hard to anſwer Papiſt or Seeker about its viſibility, or Infidel about its reality: And what a King do p. 278they make Chriſt that make him to have no Kingdom, that they can prove to have been exiſtent —

§. 56. We will eaſily grant him that Cyprian de unit. Eccl. is abuſed by the Papiſts, and the very words thruſt in are proved ſo to be by many Copies that have them not: Yea, Jeremy Stephens ſaith that there are eight Copies in England which omit twenty three of the Epiſtles which are commonly received (and it's moſt credible by other Copies are Genuine:) And yet none of theſe leave out the Epiſtle to Fidus about Infant-baptiſm.

§. 57. And whereas he ſaith that Cyprian urged not Tradition, I anſwer, there was no cauſe: For the queſtion was not whether Infants ſhould be baptized; much leſs whether they were to be dedicated in Covenant to God, and to be Church-members; but only whether they ſhould be baptized before the eighth day: For Fidus thought that at one two or three days old they were ſo unclean as made them unmeet for baptiſm, and that the eighth day was the time of their purification; which Cyprian and the ſixty ſix Biſhops confuted, and ſhewed that Gods mercy accepteth them from the beginning without reſpect to legal days. And what uſe was here for a plea from Tradition for Infant-baptiſm, which was not denied?

§. 58. And it ſeems to me to be a great evidence that the Tradition of the Church was then for it, in that this Council of Biſhops (before true Popery was born) ſo unanimouſly determine of the day or time, and not one of them, p. 279no nor Fidus himſelf that raiſed the doubt, did ſo much as raiſe any ſcruple or queſtion about Infant-baptiſm it ſelf at all: which ſure they would have done on ſuch an occaſion if any or many Chriſtians, or any Churches had denied it. No wonder therefore if Auguſtin ſo long after ſay that no Chriſtian taketh it to be in vain?

§. 59. Yet again I will confeſs, that the words of Tertullian and Nazianzen, ſhew that it was long before all were agreed of the very time, or of the neceſſity of baptizing Infants before any uſe of Reaſon, in caſe they were like to live to maturity: For I am perſwaded that the Apoſtles and firſt Miniſters were ſo taken up with the Converting of Infidels (Jews and Gentiles) that the caſe of Infant-baptiſm was ſo poſtponed and taken but as an Appendix to the baptiſm of the adult, as that it was thought leſs needful to give it a particular expreſs mention in the Records and Hiſtory of the Church. The Churches made no queſtion of Infants Church-memberſhip, as being undoubtedly in the promiſe, and devoted to God by all faithful parents: And they took not baptiſm at firſt, for their firſt Covenanting or Conſent, but for the ſolemnization of it; and ſo not for Infants firſt real ſtate of relation to Chriſt and right to life (which was before it, as it was to believers before baptiſm;) but for the ſolemn inveſtiture in thoſe rights: And ſo Greg. Nazian. Or. 40. giveth this brief definition of baptiſm, that it is nothing elſe but a Covenant made with God for a new and purer kind of life: And hereupon many who thought Infants Church-members p. 280(viſible) and ſafe upon their Parents Covenant conſent, thought that the time of ſolemnization was ſo far left to prudence as that (as the Iſraelites did Circumciſion in the wilderneſs) it might be delayed a few years by ſuch Parents as deſired it, till children could ſomewhat anſwer for themſelves.

§. 60. Yet after my review of this controverſie upon their urgencie, I find no proof brought by any of theſe men, that ever one Church in the world was without Infant-members, (that had Infants,) nor one perſon in the Church againſt Infant Church-memberſhip and baptiſm, from Chriſts days till the Waldenſes (about eleven hundred or a thouſand years) except that Tertullian, who took them for Innocent and therefore Church-members, did in ſome caſe adviſe the delay: I ſay, I find not one Chriſtian or Heretick againſt it: (unleſs you will impute it to them that were againſt all baptiſm, which Infidels alſo are.) And though I verily believe that the Waldenſes were not againſt Infant-baptiſm, nor is there full proof that any in their time were, yet becauſe I am loth to judge the Papiſts utterly impudent lyars, I think it moſt probable that in the Waldenſes days and Country, there was a ſort of odious Hereticks, that denied Infant-baptiſm, and the Reſurrection, and held community of Wives and other abominations reported all together by their oppoſers in thoſe times.