The Plea of the Children of Believing Parents, Section 2
SECT. II.
As to the Book it ſelf, who ever was the Author, I charged it with falſhood in the Hiſtorical part: When I ſent to borrow it again, a ſecond Edition was ſent me, then I ſaw the Letter was true, which aſſured me Colonel Danvers was the Author; and abundance of Authors more added than were in the firſt: A whole Regiment is drawn up, to the admiration of the Ignorant Anabaptiſts that now cry Victoria, if he doth not abuſe his Authors, and the Anabaptiſts too, which he hath moſt groſly.
For the ancient Fathers, ſeveral of them I had read, and knew them to be contrary to his Opinion: But to follow Authors in particular, I thought it a vain thing on the Lords-Day, and that in a Country Congregation. His quoting of the old Britains, and the Waldenſes, as being Enemies to Infant-Baptiſm, I took notice of, anſwered that and no more. Of which a little afterwards.
As to the numerous company of Authors he hath quoted, I ſhall ſay but two things.
Firſt, I deſire my Author to tell us if amongſt them all he can find, who was the Author of Infant-Baptiſm, if it be an Errour; as we can tell him who firſt oppoſed Infant-Baptiſm, Hereticks not of the lower rank.
The Lord Brooks, is a perſon whom the Anabaptiſts would perſwade us, was one of their Sect, becauſe of ſome Lines of his, with which I accord: But he tells us what prevailed with him on the contrary; his words are theſe.
For ought I could ever learn, it was the conſtant cuſtom of the pureſt and moſt primitive Church, [mark Sir, not myſtical Babylon then] to baptize the Infants of believing Parents: For I could never find the beginning and firſt Riſe of this Practice; where as it is very eaſie to tract Hereſies to their firſt riſing up and ſeting foot in the Church.
This agrees with what I am upon, why then do you quote him as if he were yours? As for what he ſaith about Schiſmaticks, Sir, you are the Schiſmatick, for I have kept Communion with a godly Anabaptiſt; but one tells me, that he deſired Communion with one of your Churches, but they would not admit him to Communion, becauſe he would not be dipped.
I ſee my Author hath named Maſter D. Rogers, as if he did favour his Opinion, when as living in the next Town to him, and having intimate acquaintance with him, I knew him to be a ſmart Enemy to the Anabaptiſts.
2. The ſecond thing I would ſay to them, is this, That ancient Father, pious, humble, and learned Auſtin flouriſhed above twelve hundred years before my Author, or any Anabaptiſt in England was born; then he lived ſo many years nearer the Primitive Churches, than my Author, or any of our Anabaptiſts: Whether then B. Auſtin, or thoſe Anabaptiſts ſhould beſt know the practice of the Primitive Churches as to Baptizing of Infants, let any ſober man judge: He being a perſon ſo learned and ſo famous, no queſtion had all thoſe Authors which my Author quotes, that wrote before him, if not many more which we have not: And did not that learned pious Father underſtand them as well as my Author, or any Anabaptiſt now in England? And though he was no Chriſtian himſelf, yet was not he acquainted with the practice of the Greek Churches in his time better than our Anabaptiſts? Now he ſaith, the practice of Infant-baptiſm was ſo univerſal in the Church, Auſtin. l. 1. de peccat. mer. & reniſ. c. 26. De baptiſ. contra. Denat. l. 2. c. 7. & l. 4. c. 24.that it could not but come from the Apoſtles. Eccleſia ſemper habuit, &c. The Church ever heard it, ſaith he.
Had not Auſtin ſpoke true, there was one did watch him [Pelagius] who would have told him of it to purpoſe, for that Practice ſtood in Pelagius's way, but Pelagius did not deny it.
And whereas my Author doth not regard the Writers as to this Controverſie, that wrote after the Third Centuary; I am very confident there is no Author that wrote in the three firſt Centuaries, that have any thing in them to oppoſe the baptizing of the Infants of believing Parents; but on the contrary, ſome of them ſpeak for it.
They that read the moſt ancient Writers next the Apoſtles, may ſee the ſubject matter they treated upon, did not give them any occaſion to ſpeak of Infant-Baptiſm, they had other Points in hand.
As to the old Britains, I was a little ſtartled to read them brought againſt Infant-Baptiſm, the Proof my Author brings out of Fabianus, I did read in him, but I much queſtion the truth of Fabianus, becauſe Mr. Fox, giving us an account what Auſtin the Monk required of the Britiſh Biſhops when he came into England; tells us, He required that they ſhould Preach the Goſpel to the Engliſh-men, and that they ſhould among themſelves reform certain Rites and uſages in their Church, ſpecially for keeping Eaſtertide, and Baptizing after the manner of Rome.
Mr. Fox quotes ſeveral Authors beſides Fabianus, for this: But that paſſage, That they ſhould give Chriſtendom to children, which Fabianus reports, he doth not mention.
To Baptize after the manner of Rome, to uſe their Ceremonies in Baptiſm, and to baptize Children; differ much. I ſearched what Ceremonies were then uſed in Rome in Gregory's time, and no wonder though the Britiſh Biſhops rejected them.
But that the old Britains were againſt Infant-Baptiſm, is very falſe, wch I thus prove.
What year God firſt ſent the Goſpel into England, the Learned do not agree; there ſeem to be ſtrong grounds to believe, that it was before King Lucius ſent to Eleutherius B. of Rome; ſome ſay it was, An. 156, others 169, others 170, others 180. The Conteſt between Auſtin and Pelagius, was about 417, in the 63 year of Auſtins life, as Bucolcerus gathers. Pelagius denied Original Sin; upon that denied Infant-Baptiſm as being ſuperfluous: not becauſe Infants cannot believe, which is the ſole Argument of our Anabaptiſts, Pelagius a learned man would have ſlighted ſuch an Argument as this. Auſtin proves Infants to be guilty of Original Sin, from the univerſal practice of the Church to take away Original Sin, they did baptize Infants: Now this Infant-baptiſm ſaith Auſtin, The Church ever had it, ever held it, De verb. Apo. Ser. 10.they received this from the faith of their Anceſtors, and this will it keep with perſeverance to the end. Let Pelagius who was a Britain, anſwer this: Britany had received the Goſpel 240 years before this Conteſt. Pelagius knew the practice of his own Country, and if it had been true, that the old Britains did not baptize Infants, as my Author ſaith, why did not Pelagius Confute Auſtin, charge him with falſhood; the Britains do not baptize Infants, ergo, it is not the practice of the Univerſal Church: This being an Argument Auſtin did ſo urge, and put ſo much ſtreſs upon it, Pelagius would have removed it if he could.
But ſo far was Pelagius and his followers from denying what Auſtin affirmed, that Celeſtius a Pelagian, in a Book which he put …orth at Rome, hath theſe words, which Auſtin quotes out of it; We do confeſs that Infants ought to be baptized for remiſſion of ſins, according to the rule of the Ʋniverſal Church, and according to the ſentence of the Goſpel, …hough Caeleſtius do not mention the Text, …et by the following words, we may plain…y ſee he means, John 3.5. Except a man be …orn again of Water and of the Spirit. So that according to this Pelagian, here is Scripture ground, and the Rule of the Ʋniverſal Church for Infant-Baptiſm.
So then for the old Britains, they were not againſt Infant-baptiſm: Now then for the Waldenſes, were I to charge any Opinion or practice upon other Churches, I ſhould firſt look to the Confeſſion of their Faith, then I may boldly charge them or not. As we have a few Anabaptiſtical Writers in England, ſhould their Books a hundred years hence fall into the hands of Anabaptiſts in foreign parts, ſhould they then aſſirm that the Church of England, [or the Churches in England] were Anabaptiſts, would not this be falſe, and take it as a wrong done unto us? View the Confeſſion of Faith of the Church of England, of the Aſſembly of Divines, of the Independents in England, in New England, all their Confeſſions declare for Infant-baptiſm. Thus ſhould my Author have done, if he would deal honeſtly with the Waldenſes, produce their Confeſſion of Faith, and the Article in which they condemn Infant-baptiſm. In the Articles which I have read over, I find no ſuch thing, but that Baptiſm ought to be Adminiſtred only with pure Water, without any mixture of hallowed Oyl.
The Miniſters in the Vallies of Piemont, in the year 1532, when the Anabaptiſts in Germany were riſen up, in the 17th Article of their Confeſſion, declare for Infant-baptiſm: The Churches in thoſe Vallies, kept chaſte to Chriſt from the Apoſtles times, and were long before the Waldenſes were named; they were called Waldenſes, but this was a Nick-name put upon them by their Adverſaries, to make the World believe, that their Religion was but a Novelty. [Morland. p. 12.]
In the Confeſſion of the Faith of the Waldenſes in Bohemia, (ſo Vergerius three times calls them) the 12th Article Declares for Infant-baptiſm, Anno 1535. As the Anabaptiſts roſe up, ſo the Churches drew up their Confeſſions againſt them: The Miniſters in their Preface to their Confeſſion, write, That ſome malicious Spirits, becauſe they would caſt all the Odium upon them that they could, did reckon them amongſt the Anabaptiſts. But they anſwer, Nos ex factione Anabaptiſtarum non eſſe, nemini ignotum eſt. All men know they were none of that Faction, nor had any thing to do with the Anabaptiſts. The Doctrine they confeſſed in their Churches, they held and owned, before the name of the Anabaptiſts was ſo much as heard of.
So that my Author hath plainly abuſed both the old Britains, and the Waldenſes.
Obſerving how my Author and Mrs. Tombs inſulted over Mr. Baxter, and he that gave me the Challenge to Print, telling me, All my Party were ſilent, and I living in a Country ſmall Town, and not hearing what Books came forth, I could not tell what to think of it; but when I wrote my Copy for the Preſs, I left here a ſpace, till I wrote to Mr. Baxter, to know whether he had met with any Arguments to change his thought. I thank him, he ſent me down his Book in anſwer to them both. Then one lent me Mr. Wills. I heard alſo of Mr. Whitſton, but I ſaw none of theſe Authors till my Copy was written, but I ſee they have anſwered Mr. Danvers to purpoſe, diſcovered his groſs falſhood and forgery. Another Divine I met with that knows Mr. Danvers, though he hath not written againſt him, yet he hath ſo traced him, that he told me, never did Jeſuites abuſe Authors in their Quotations, more than he hath done.
That the Jeſuites practice lies this way, we may ſee in Bellarmine, who quotes Ten of the Fathers to juſtifie his Doctrine of Chriſts preaching to the Spirits in priſon, 1 Pet. 3.19. when as Six of them (I may ſay, Eight of them) give that Interpretation of the Text, which Bellarmine himſelf condemns. See (ſaith that pious and learned Reignolds) With what Conſcience theſe Jeſuites handle the Controverſies of Religion; which may well be applyed to Mr. Danvers, abuſing ſo many Authors as he hath done. [Reignold. Praelec. 86. de lib. Apochr. p. 1044. See him again, p. 1083.]