Second Reply to Baxter, Part 1 · Chapter 2 · Section 3
SECT. III. Of the Ancient Britains.
THe next Witness he quarrels with, is, that of the Ancient Britains: for which he reproaches me at no small rate, saying, That this is a witness of great import, if true; but, it's all false still; And, Must our own Countrey, and all our Christian-Ancestours, be thus slaunder'd? pa. 255. And again, pa. 257. But thus, the honour of our Ancestours, and the history of the Church, and the souls of poor ignorant Christians among us, must all be hainously wronged by the falshoods of rash presuming ignorant men.
But, What cause there is for this Calumnious railing and shameful detraction; let the considerate-Reader judge. And for whose better information, and my just vindication in this parricular, I desire it may be observed:
That, First, what I offer from some Christians amongst the Britains, to this particular, I have given my Authorities, grounds, and reasons for the same; which will, amongst all sober just men, free me from being a Forger.
Secondly, That it is a testimony that I lay the least stress upon; but, from the probability thereof, through the many concurring circumstances, attending it, have brought it in, amongst so many other witnesses that speak so fully, and positively to the point: yet,
Thirdly, That I may vindicate my own integrity, and the reasons offered by me in this matter, I shall do these things;
1st, Give you a brief account what I have said in my treatise about it:
2dly, The substance of Mr Wills his Objections, and my answer.
3dly, What further Mr Baxter hath either added before he saw my answer to Wills; or, Rejoind thereto since.
First, That, amongst the Ancient Britains there were Christians that denyed Infants Baptism; I first gave my grounds, and after vindicated the same from Mr Wills cavills: which was, briefly, thus;
That finding,Austi… Question to the Britains, as Fabian from Bede reports. in Mr Fox those three Demands which Austin made to the Britains, about Keeping of Easter, Baptism, and Preaching, after the manner, usage and custom of Rome; I took notice (among other authors he quoted to make good the same) what Robert Fabian said about it, being one of our English Historians, who wrote in Hen. 6. or Hen. the Seventh's time; who tells us the story expresly, as I have mentioned (i. e.) pag 227.
And that as to Baptism, It was, that they should give Christendom to Children (which it seems they had omitted) but they refused the same: and would none of his Hests, as he tells us. And, that he was not mistaken in that particular, I gave six Arguments from several Circumstances about the same, as you have in pag. 228.
To which Mr Wills answers pa. 121; opposing that of Fabian to the account that Bede gives of the story, which he repeats, giving his reasons from thence, why the Britains did not deny Infants Baptism.
And to which I replyed pa. 139, &c. making it good from Bedes words that Fabian was right. And that they did deny Infants-Baptism; which seems plain from the following reasons, viz.
Why Fabian rightly understood Bedes words.Because Bede affirms that Austin should tell the Monks of Bangor, that they had done contrary to the custom of the Church of Rome, as well as the universal Church [then] and Apostolical Church [before]; and, amongst the rest, mentions that of Baptism to be one; and which must needs be, in their refusing to baptize children.
First, Because as to the baptizing of the Adult, they were not contrary to the Church of Rome, the universal, and Apostolical Church; as, pag. 288.
Secondly, Neither could it respect the particular mode, Rite, or ceremony, of Baptism: for the custom of the Romish Church therein, was not universal, being so much opposed by the Greek and Eastern Churches, some of the Western not fully agreeing with them therein at that time; and not at all to be made out, to be Apostolical.
Thirdly, It must needs therefore respect Infants-Baptism;
First, Because the Church of Rome had particularly enjoyned and imposed it, to beget Infants to Regeneration that they might be born of God, as the words of the Canon demonstrate; and which words carry the reason and ends of it: and that they intended the substance, and not the particular ceremony of the ordinance;
Secondly, Because Infants-Baptism was universally received in this seventh age, in other parts of the World, to this end here mentioned;
Thirdly, Because it was received and injoined to be an Apostolical practice;
Fourthly, It would have been Childish and ridiculous, to have said, Baptism in general was Apostolical which none ever denyed, and was so fully before received by them.
Therefore, Austin could intend nothing else, nor Mr Bedes words import any thing else, which therefore Fabian did so fully and significantly represent in saying, give Christendom to children; let them as the Church of Rome has received and enjoyn'd it, be born of God by Baptism, and become Christians as so generally, now received by other Churches also; and which you have been in the neglect of. But they refused the same, which was one reason of their destruction that immediatly followed. Which was the substance of my answer to Mr Wills: only that I proved largely against him, that Pelagius was not one of the Monks of Bangor; and that, if he had been one of that society, he had sadly declined both from their principle and practice, p. 141. As to what I said to Mr Wills upon Bede's words, Mr Bax. thus rejoyns, on his behalf, viz.
Mr B's opposition.Repeating and defending Fabians foppery, he argueth, that it could be nothing else in which they are sayd to contradict the Apostolical Catholick Church [but Infants-Baptism].
Answ. 1st. If Bede say, that Austin tells them that in many things they do contrary to the Roman Catholick and Apostolical Church; doth it follow, that the 3. things, in which he requireth their concurrence, were all parts of those many? To preach the Gospel to the Saxons was one; is that a point that they differed from all the Apostolick Church in? when it seemeth to be from no other reason than t…at they would not own the Saxons that had conquered them; nor the Papal power, that would usurp upon them: and on the same reasons, they might as well refuse to baptize the Saxons children.
Answ. To which I answer: that this about Infants-Baptism doth appear to be one of the many things that they did, contrary to the Roman, as well as to the then universal-Church; appears from the grounds before given, not yet answered; and which is sufficient to my purpose, though it would be good in neither of the other two. But, as to the Monks of Bangor's preaching then, to the Saxons, who appear to be laymen and unordained; to be sure, they therein did contrary to the Roman and universal, however they did to the Apostolical, Church: and, for refusing the Papal ordination, without which they could not be admitted to preach with them, to the Saxons; they did as well so to do, as to refuse Christendom to children; one being as little Apostolical, as the other. Neither doth it appear, that though the Saxons had conquered them a hundred years before, that they did refuse to preach to them, or baptize them; there being no cause for the same, upon any score of reason or truth, as Mr Baxter vainly imagines;
But, 2ly, saith he; There is no such thing in the words of Bede as (he saith) he hath shewed [but according to the manner of Rome]: and who knows not, that the Church of Rome and all in its Communion, then called the universal Church, used in Baptism the white-Garment, milk, and honey, as an Apostolical Tradition, or such as they know no original of Tertulian and Epiphanius are full witnesses of this, if there were no more. To which second answer of his, I say; that, the reason why Chrism, and Exorcism, could not be the only thing then intended; I have before given my grounds, whereof he takes no notice; and, that the universal Church is put in distinction to the Roman, let Bedes own words speak, viz. Nostrae consuetudini, that is, the Roman custom as Mr Wills owns; immo universalis Ecclesiae, there is the custom of the universal Church;
And it is well known, that the Geeek Church, in this age, did as much differ, from the Latine in those abominations, as the Monks of Bangor did from the Roman Christnings and ordination, and for which they Excommunicated one another, and rebaptized each other.
What good thoughts Mr B. has of Chrism and Exorcism, those horrid execrable blasphemyes as Homius calls them; and, how fain he would perswade us, that they are Apostolical from his full witness he tells us of, we shall tell him of, and reckon with him for, hereafter.
In the next place, we shall give you some return to the answer Mr B. makes to my six reasons why they denyed Infants-Baptism.
M. B's objections to my 6. reasons answered. 1st Reason. 1. From their so early receiving the Gospel, before Infants-Baptism was practised.The First was, because they received the gospel so early in the Apostles-times; there being no such thing as Infants-Baptism to be found in the Apostles practise, nor heard of, in the Asiatick Churches for some ages, as I proved: and for their so early receiving the Gospel, I made good from Gildas, their own Historian, viz. in the days of Tiberius Caesar, and that Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Basil, Chrysostom, makes early mention of their Christianity.
To which Mr. B. saith, that, they did not so early receive the Gospel, and, that it was by the Roman Souldiers, when they did; who built a Temple in Kent: But weakens none of my Authorities.
2dly, He saith, that the Asia… Church had Infants-Baptism amongst them, in Gregories time, of which no man doubts; But what is that, to the first Centuries we speak of? wherein we hear of as little Infants-Baptism at Rome, as at Jerusalem.2d Reason. Because they so cleaved to the letter of the scriptures.
The Second Reason he opposeth, was this, viz. Because, it appears they so fully prized and faithfully adhered to the Scriptures, both for Doctrine, and Discipline; wherein, no such thing is to be found, as hath been mentioned and confest.
To which he saith three things; First, that I would thereby insinuate, that there is no such thing to be found in Scripture.
Answ. Which I do indeed, till some body make it appear; and which never was yet done, notwithstanding the vain-glorious boast of plain-scripture-proof, and since, More proofs.
2dly, That, as much as the Ancient Britains cleaved to the Scripture; yet were there all Impietyes and wickedness in the Nation, as saith Gildas in his Complaint.
No doubt of it: for, I quote his very words, that there was but some amongst them that received the precepts of Christ intirely, whilst others of them, less sincerely; and the generality, very formally, p. 332. I, respecting only the true Church amongst them, the generality of the Nation being vicious and wicked, as other Nations were; Christs flock being but a little flock.
3dly, That, by the same Argument, all that cleave to the Scripture should be against it also, both in former and latter times: No doubt, but it should be so: Especially amongst them that renounce Tradition, and tells us, that what is practised in the Worship of God, without some express precept, or practise in the Word to warrant it, is Will-worship and Idolatry; ought Naturally to shun such a practise as is to be made out by neither, as confest by themselves.
The Third was,3d Reason. Because they were such enemies to Tradition. Because they did so vehemently respect humane tradition, as the worship of God; especially all Roman Inventions, Rites, and Ceremonies: this, as before undeniably appearing to come from Rome's Ordination and Imposition.
To which he demands of me, Whether I will not confess, that Cyprian's Carthaginian Council, Basil, and Austin, were for Infants-Baptism; were these Papists or Romans, and can I prove any Roman ordination before these?
To which I say, That Cyprian's letter (as is said) to Fidus, declares for it, to take away original guilt: and, because children pray in their crying, none doubt. That Basil doth any where assert it, I am yet to learn; or, that it was judged necessary; or, it was ever ordained with imposition, till Pope Innocents Canon in the Carthaginian Council (Austin presiding in that Council); I am yet to be informed, having many learned men of my side; And, if those Canons were not Romish, let all men judge.
2dly, He demands of me, Whether the Britains were against Traditions and ceremonyes? and, Had they not Bishops, and Monks, &c?
To which I say, they were against traditions & ceremonies especially Romish; and that serves our turn, for Infants-baptism. But, as to their Bishops; if he mean Elders, so have we: and so had the Donatists. But that they had Prelates or Lord-Bishops, doth not yet appear. And as for the Monkery; no Romish Monks (saith Fuller in his Church-history) being Abbey-labourers, not Abbey lubbers; who laboured with their own hands, and preached the Gospel; much in the way the Waldenses were in; being together in colledges, having all things in common amongst them, in imitation of the primitive times.
3dly, He demands of me, Whether Independents are not more against Tradition, than the Britains?
I say, Not whilst they hold Infants-Baptism: and, though they are against Traditions in word, yet not, in deed, in this thing; as I make appear by many Arguments in my answer to Mr Wills; which I earnestly recommend to all their considerations, pa. 72. to 79.
4. Reason, Because Constantine the son of Helen was not baptized till aged.4. Reason. Because Constantine the son of Helen was not baptized till aged. He denies Constantius Chlorus, the Father of Constantine, to have been a Christian but only a favourer of them; or, that Helen, his mother, was so at Constantines Birth: and whether he was born in England, doubtful. For proof whereof, I must refer you to our Chronicles; who general ly tells us, He was born in England; and, that his Father was a Christian, Eusebius tells us, Bonus à bono, Pius à pio: and, that his mother was so at his Birth, I must recommend you to Grotius and Dailley, better Historians than Mr B. or my self, to answer you;
A fifth Reason was,5. Reason. From the correspondencies that were betwixt the French Churches and them. from the correspondency and unity, that was betwixt the French Christians and them, afterwards called the Waldenses, who had colledges like them, communicated with them, in the ministry, &c. both in preaching and Baptism, viz. Germanus and Lupus. About which he makes a great dust; especially relating to Germanus and Lupus, cut of the legends in Baronius and Prosper, how that some would have them come from the Pope, and their Miracles they wrought with reliques; others, from the Bishops in France: Therefore, not from the French-Christians.
And, that the Waldenses were not a people now; nor, were any known of that judgement, till long after; And which if I could make good, I should do them Knights-service against the Papists, in the Question of the perpetual visibility of the Church, this being anno. 429.
Concerning which, what Knights-service it may do, I leave him to improve it: But, I conceive I have fully made appear, that the Churches of the Lyonists, or poor people of Lyons or Waldenses, are already made out to us, throughout most of the Centuryes. Eusebius tells us of the suffering of their Churches under Antoninus Verus, anno 179. made out also by Morland, Scultetus, Beza; Confest by the Papists themselves, Rainerius, Belvedre, and Riberia, as Treat. p. 333. 340. 341. to 345.
Jeffery Munmouth tells us, that, as long as the British Churches possessed the Countrey, they kept themselves sound in the faith, and pure in the Worship order and discipline of Christ, as it was delivered to them from the Apostles and the Evangelists; who were not conquered, till about 455. as Peter Heylins Cosmography shews. p. 310.
Beza tells us, That, Constance upon the Revelations sheweth, that the Reformation of the Church in the West parts of the world, began in France; and that from their source, it spread it self through the rest of Europe;
And, That the French Christians, as well as other of the Western Churches, baptized only the adult; I conceive the famous Hilary, Bishop of Poictu, tells us, in his sermon upon the 25. of Math. His words are these, Venturi ad baptismum, priùs confitentur credere se in Dei Filio, & in Passione, & in Resurrectione ejus, that whoever comes to Baptism must first confess That they believe in the son of God, in his death and Resurrecti…n, &c. This I added to my Reasons, in my reply; whereof M. B. takes no notice: And, That it was long before the French-Christians did generally baptize children; appears by Beatus Rhenanus in his Annotations upon Tertullian, who sayth, That the old custome was, that those that were come to their full growth, were Baptized with the bath of Regeneration: which custome was observed, until the time of Charles the great, and Lodowick, Emperours, (as by the statutes by them established appeareth) who ordained and gave express Commandement, that the Priests should not baptize any but at the feast of Easter, and Pentecost; except in the Extremity of sickness, and danger of death. As a Dutch Author (called, A plain and well grounded treatise of Baptism) hath it, p. 18. And which Basil tells us, was also the custome of the Eastern Churches in that Age, in his Exhortation to Baptism, Non alios quam catechumenos baptizatos esse, That no other were baptized but the Catechumens. And, in his 3d book against Eunomius, Must the faithful be sealed with Baptism? Faith must needs precede, or go before. And Fuller in his Church-History. p 28. tells us, out of Eucherius ad Hilarium, that this Lupus, the French-Apostle, was a near kinsman of Hilarie's; and their baptizing in Rivers discovers, It was not a work for children; and that they had not many Children with them in that work.
And further, Under this head, he tells us (as an Argument, that these Britains were not against Infants Baptism) that Pelagius, one of the Britains, was for Infants-Baptism: concerning which I must yet referr you to what I have already said to Mr Wills, whereof Mr Baxter takes no notice.
6. Reason. From Austin Letter to Gregory, to know how long the Baptism of a childe might be defer'd.The Sixth and last reason was, because Austin himself (upon the discourses, it seems, he met with, upon this point in Britain) writes to Pope Gregory, that sent him, To know, how long the baptizing of a child might be deferred, there being no danger of death, Which he greatly scorns, and saith, He is ashamed that he has medled with such a Collector, à Baculo ad Angulum: And, doth it not rather imply, that there was no controversy betwixt him and the Britains, about Infants-Baptism, seeing he never mentioned any such thing? The quite contrary seems to be: for if they had not so discoursed the point [deferring Childrens-Baptism till they came to Age that they might answer for themselves before Baptism] and gravelled him about it; What needed he to have sent to Rome for better Information about it? Then doth our scornful adversary p. 226. conclude like himself, viz. Reader, will not this kind of Arguing make thee an Anabaptist? or else, make thee pitty the seduced party? Oh! 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 mankinde; and the ignorant know not, but it may be all 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 t…ke 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 to be preferred, though it inferr not a Roman infallibility.
But, whether Mr B. may deserve to be one of these Authorized men and Concordant Ministers, to save us from popery, and seducing, and from being tossed to and fro, will be better understood when you have read some of the following Chapters.