Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 17
CHAP. XVII.
Proving that Children ought not to be Baptized, becauſe they were baptized in divers Centuries or Ages under the Apoſtacy of the Church, when moſt of Chriſts Inſtitutions were corrupted; wherein it is alſo proved, that for the two firſt Hundred Years after Chriſt, no Infants were baptized, containing an Anſwer to Mr. James Owen's 14 Chapter and 11 Argument, to prove Infant Baptiſm.
THus Mr. Owen begins in his 14th Chapter of his Book, viz. the Children of the Faithful were baptized in every Age of the Church of God ſince the Apoſtles time until this latter Age, as I can prove at large if it were profitable for the unlearned Reader, I ſhall ſet down ſome Examples.
Anſ. 8. Your argument is, that Children ought to be baptized, becauſe they were baptized in every age of the Church ſince the Apoſtles time.
Anſ. 1. Give one Inſtance if you can, out of approved Hiſtory, of one Infant baptized in the firſt or ſecond Century, but paſs by Two or Three Hundred Years after Chriſt, and many errors beſides this of Infant Baptiſm crept amain into the Churches. But pray remember, now you are without Book, you are forced to quit the Holy Bible, the Sacred Hiſtory, and great Charter of the Church; and therefore all your proof out of Humane Hiſtory, which may be true, or may not be true, ſignifies nothing. But you had beſt take heed, leſt we carry the cauſe againſt you here too, i. e. for the firſt Centuries; we will examine your Authors and humane Teſtimonies.
The firſt is Calvin a latter Writer, I know not but Ireneus and Cyprian might be both had out of him: I do confeſs, Ireneus lived not above Two Hundred Years after Chriſt; or in the ſecond Century, thus he and many others cite him, viz. Omnes venit Chriſtus per ſemet ipſum ſalvare, omnes qui per eum renaſcuntur ad Deum Infantes, & parvulos Juniores & Seniores. In Engliſh thus: Chriſt Jeſus came to ſave all by himſelf, all who by him are born again unto God, Infants and little ones, Young and Old.
Anſ. Reader, pray obſerve, here is not a word of one Infant baptized; but this Man infers it from his Words, ſo that we have nothing but Conſequences, neither from God's Word, nor the words of Man. Chriſt, no doubt, came to ſave ſome of all ſorts of Men, and who doubts but he came to ſave Infants, and little ones, Young and Old? But why muſt theſe Words [who are born again] be applyed to Infant Baptiſm. The ſcope of Ireneas in that Chapter, is to refute the Gnoſticks, who ſaid that Chriſt did not exceed One and Thirty Years of age; againſt whom Ireneus alledged that Chriſt lived in every age, i. e. of Infancy, Youth, and old Age, that by his Age and Example he might ſanctifie every age. So that here Ireneus ſpeaks not of being born again in Baptiſm; for he ſaith, Omnes inquam, qui per eum renaſcuntur in Deum; i. e. I ſay, all which are born again by him to God, i. e. by Chriſt, not as if he had baptized Infants, but becauſe he (i. e. Chriſt) was an Infant, that by the example or virtue of his Age, he might ſanctifie Infants, as the whole Diſcourſe in Latin plainly ſhews, viz. Magiſter ergo exiſtens, Magiſtri quoque habebat atatem, non reprobans, nec ſuper grediens hominem, neque ſolvens ſuam legem in ſe humani generis, ſed omnem etatem ſanctificans per illam, &c.
2. As to Cyprian, he lived as I find it in Hiſtory, about 248 or 300 Years after Chriſt; and ſhould I tell the Reader what Corruptions and Errors were let in about that time, he would not wonder to hear Infants were allowed Baptiſm: Yet we have Cyprian againſt Cyprian. It is true, as far as I can gather in his time, Infant Baptiſm was firſt introduced, without any Ground or Warrant from Chriſt; and it was as ſtrongly oppoſed, which appears by the Debates and Doubts about it.
3. The third humane Authority that is brought by Mr. Burkit, is that curſed decree of the Milevetan Council, that all who denyed Infant Baptiſm ſhould be Anathema, accurſed. If he comes but a little lower, he hath proof enough in the Popiſh Councils, Decrees and Canors. But 'tis to be obſerved, that thoſe Fathers pleaded for Infant Baptiſm, as that which took away Original Sin, and gave Children the Euchariſt too, in the firſt Sacrament abusing that Text, John 3. 5. and in the other, that in John 6. 53. Theſe are all the humane Proofs from the Churches, after the primitive Apoſtolical days which Mr. Burkit brought, and I doubt not but to give better and more Authentick Authors of the ancient Fathers againſt Infant Baptiſm, than hath been brought for it, and ſome of them nearer the Apoſtles days too. The firſt is Juſtin Martyr; though I have him not, yet take his Words, as they are cited by Mr. Richard Baxters Saints Reſt, Chap. 8. Sect. 5. I will declare unto you, how we offer up our ſelves unto God, after that we are renewed through Chriſt, thoſe amongſt us that are inſtructed in the Faith, and believe that which we teach them is true, being willing to live according to the ſame, We do admoniſh them to faſt and pray for forgiveneſs of Sinns, and we alſo pray with them, and when they are brought by us into the Water, and there as we were new born, are they alſo by the new Birth received, and then in calling upon God the Father, the Lord Jeſus Chriſt and the Holy Ghoſt, they are waſhed in Water, &c. the Food we call the Euchriſt, to which no Man is admitted, but only he that believeth the Truth of the Doctrine, being washed in the laver of Regeneration for Remiſſion of Sinns, and ſo liveth as Chriſt hath taught, this you ſee, ſaith Mr. Baxter, is no new way.
4. You cite Origen, who was you ſay famous in the year 230, who ſaith, in Hom. 8 in Levit. de Infantibus baptizandis Eccleſia traditionem accepit ab Apoſtolis, theChurch received infant Baptiſm by Tradition from the Apoſtles, we have proved you ſay, before this was a Scripture Tradition, for the Apoſtles baptized little Children.
Anſ. We may cite Origen againſt Origen, ſo little credit is to be given to Hiſtory in this caſe about him, and ſome other of the Fathers, for I find Origen ſaith, viz. they that are rightly baptized are waſhed unto Salvation, but ſo was not Simon Magus, he that is baptized unto Salvation, receives the Water and the Holy Ghoſt, which Simon did not but Water only, Hom. 6. upon Ezek. …1. 6. v. 4. Mountanus, p. 36. 37. and in his Commentary upon Rom. 6. saith the ſame Origen, ſuch Baptiſm that was accompanied with crucifying the Fleſh, and riſing again to newneſs of Life, was the approved Baptiſm; I muſt confeſs that Dr. Taylor ſaith, that Origen and Auſtin are the only Witneſſes that aſſerted Infant Baptiſm to be an Apoſtolical Tradition; but it appears by Eraſmus, that Origen's writings were greatly corrupted by Ruſſinus, and made to ſpeak ſometimes for Infant Baptiſm. See Jacob Merci…gus, p. 283. 291. and Montanus p. 29. to 35, 42, 43. Sir, had you proved Infant Baptiſm from the Scripture, and that the Apoſtles baptized Infants, you need not go to Humane Hiſtory that is ſo uncertain, and no Rule for us.
5. Gregory of Nazianzum, who you ſay was famous about the year 370, beareth witneſs for Infant Baptiſm; ſaith he, omni aetati Baptiſma convenit, Baptiſm is anſwerable unto every Age. And again, da infantis cuſtodiam, give Infants the Baptiſm of the Trinity, and that will be a great and excellent Guard unto them.
Anſ. I find a worthy Author that quotes this Gregory ſpeaking quite the contrary thing; in his third Oration, (ſaith he) the baptized uſed in the firſt place to confeſs their Sins, and to renounce the Devil and all his Works before many Witneſſes, and that none were baptized of old, but they that did confeſs their Sins, and how dangerous it was headlong, and without due Preparation to partake thereof. He therefore adviſeth, that the Baptiſm of Infants be deferred till they did not only make Confeſſion of their Faith, but were to deſire the ſame, ſee Dr. Taylor, p. 239. Now worthy Britains, what ſignifyeth the citing of ſuch Fathers, when we cannot be certain that we have their true writings; God hath preſerved his ſacred Word from Corruption, but not the Humane Hiſtory of the Fathers.
2. But ſhould this Father and St. Auſtine, and others that followed them, be for Infant Baptiſm, what will this avail the aſſerters of Infant Baptiſm, ſeeing the Church was before their times ſo greatly corrupted, and many grand Errors brought in; the Tradition of God Fathers and God Mothers, one of the Church of England hath lately ſhewed to be near as early in the Church as Infant baptiſm, which Mr. Owen will not therefore receive to be an Apoſtolical Tradition.
3. We readily grant, that Infant baptiſm is of great Antiquity, of more then Thirteen Hundred years ſtanding, ſo are many other abominable Errors, Practices and corrupt Ceremonies; but from the beginning it was not ſo, viz. 'tis not to be found in Holy Scripture, it is none of Chriſts Inſtitution; therefore an Human Invention; nor was it practiſed in the Two firſt hundred years after Chriſt, as I ſhall now prove out of as good Authors, as any Mr. Owen hath or can produce.
1. 'Tis ſaid Juſtin Martyr was Converted about 30 years after the Apoſtle John; and by the Order then uſed in the Church, It appears there was no Infant baptiſm thought of.
Walafrid Strabo, as I find him cited by a great Hiſtorian, ſays, that there was no Children, but aged and underſtanding Perſons Baptized in this Age; that is to ſay in the Second Century. Wal. Strabo. Eccl. Hiſt. cap. 26. Vicecom. l. 1. c, 30.
Tertullian in his Book of Baptiſm ſpeaking of that Text: Suffer little Children to come unto me, ſaith he, Indeed the Lord ſaid, do not hinder them to come unto me. Let them come therefore while they grow to Years, and while come, let them be Taught; let them become Chriſtians when they are able to know Chriſt. Why doth Innocent Age haſten to the Remiſſion of Sins? Men will deal more warily in Worldly affairs: So that they who are not truſted with an Earthly Inheritance, are truſted with an Heavenly one: Let them ask for Salvation, that thou mayeſt appear to have given it to them.
Dr. Taylor ſaith, that the Truth of the buſineſs is, as there is no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the ſuſception of it; ſo the neceſſity of Pedo-Baptiſm was not determined in the Church, till the Canons that was made in the Milevitan Council, a provincial in Africa, never till then. I grant, (ſaith he) it was practiſed in Africa before that time, and they, or ſome of them thought well of it. And though that is no argument for us to think ſo, yet none of them ever pretended it to be neceſſary, nor to have been a precept of the Goſpel. St. Auſtin was the firſt that ever preached it to be neceſſary, and it was in his Heat and Anger againſt Pelagius. Thus Dr. Taylor.
Ignatius in his Diſcourſe about Baptiſm aſſerts, that it ought to be accompanyed with Faith, Love, and Patience after Preaching. H. Montanus p. 45. and Jacob Dubois, p. 16. to 22. and Dutch Martyrology, where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp, Tralenſis to them of Philadelphia.
Dr. Taylor ſaith in his Diſſwaſive againſt Popery, p. 118. printed 1667, one of his laſt pieces, Thus, viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants, relies but upon two Witneſſes, Origen and Auſtin, and the latter having it from the former, it lies upon a ſingle Teſtimony, which (ſaith he) is a pittiful argument to prove a Tradition Apoſtolical. He is the firſt that ſpoke of it; but Tertullian, that was before him, ſeems to ſpeak againſt it, which he would not have done, if it had been an Apoſtolical Tradition; and that it was not ſo, is but too certain, if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives, who ſays, that anciently none were baptized, but Perſons of ripe Age.
Great Bazil in his Book of the Holy Spirit, Cap. 12. ſaith. Faith and Baptiſm are the two means of Salvation inſeparably cleaving together, for Faith is not perfected by Baptiſm, but Baptiſm is founded by Faith, and by the ſame Name both things are fulfilled; for as we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ſo alſo we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and indeed there goeth before a Confeſſion, leading us to Salvation; but Baptiſm followeth, ſealing our Confeſſion and Covenant.
The ſame Churches Teacher (ſaith the learned Dr. Du-Veil) in his Third Book againſt Eunomius, ſpeaketh thus, viz. Baptiſm is the Seal of Faith, Faith is the Confeſſion of the Godhead; it is neceſſary we ſhould firſt Believe, and then be ſealed in Baptiſm. Du veilon, Acts, c. 8. p. 278.
Zonaras ſaith, the Babe will then need Baptiſm when it can chuſe it.
Gregory Nazianzen in his Fourth Oration, ſaith Dr. Du-Veil,
Of thoſe who dye without Baptiſm, gives us an Inſtance in thoſe to whom Baptiſm was not adminiſtred by reaſon of Infancy. And the ſame Nazianzen, though he was a Biſhops Son, being a long time bred up under his Fathers care, was not, ſaith the ſaid Dr, baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner (ſaith he) Baſil the Great that was born of devout Parents, and inſtructed from his Childhood, was not baptized until a Man, p. 280. Alſo, ſaith he, John of Antioch, called afterwards Chryſoſtom, was born of Chriſtian Parents, as the truer Opinion is, tutored by the famous Biſhop Miletius, was not yet baptized, till he was One and Twenty Years of Age.
Hierom, alſo Ambroſe and Auſtin, who were born of Chriſtian Parents, and conſecrated to Chriſtian Diſcipline, even from their Childhood, were not baptized before thirty years of age, as Dr. Taylor Biſhop of Down aſſerts in his Twelfth Section of the Life of Chriſt.
Now, Sir here are Examples enough that do prove in the primitive times, Children of baptized Believers were not baptized, but had their Baptiſm delayed till they themſelves believed, and gave an account of their Faith. Had it been the conſtant cuſtom of the Godly to baptize Infants, would not theſe, think you, have been in their Infancy baptized?
Grotius, as I find him quoted by Dr. Du-Veil, ſaith,
The Primitive Churches did not baptize Infants, ſee Grotius's Notes on the Goſpel.
Nay, (ſaith the ſame great and learned Author,) it doth moſt plainly appear by the right of baptizing in the Romiſh Church, for baptiſm is to be asked before the Perſon to be baptized do enter into the Church, which the ſurety does in the Infants Name, a clear diſtinct confeſſion of Faith is required, which the ſame ſurety rehearſeth in the Infants Name, i. e. a Renouncing of the World, its Pomps, the Fleſh, and the Devil.
We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church Catechiſm came. But this is a clear Argument, ſaith the Dr. to prove of old, the Perſons who were to be baptized, themſelves asked Baptiſm in their own Name, and of their own choice, and profeſſed their own Faith.
In the Neo-Ceſarean Council it was framed thus. As to thoſe who are big with Child, they ought to be baptized when they will, for in this Secrament there is nothing common to her that brings forth, and that which ſhall be brought forth from her Womb, because in that Confeſſion, the Liberty of every ones Choice is declared.
Whence we may infer, 1. That in that age, there ſeemed to be that averſneſs from baptizing Children, that they were not willing to admit Women great with Child to Baptiſm, leſt it ſhould be thought that the Child was baptized with them.
2. That in thoſe times in the Confeſſion of Faith, in the Death, Burial, and Reſurrection of Chriſt, which was done in a Publick and Solemn manner in their Baptiſm, a liberty of Choice and Conſent was required as preparatory to it; for the incapacity of the Infant in the Womb, to declare this Choice and Conſent, is the reaſon why they conclude that the Infant was not baptized with the Mother.
3. That it was then judg'd neceſſary to have the Conſent and Choice of thoſe who were to be baptized.
Dr. Du-Veil, citing the ſame Synod on this paſſage (viz. that concerning the Baptiſm of a Woman with Child, that her Baptiſm concerns not her Child, for every one is to give a demonſtration of his own Faith and Confeſſion) ſaith, however the interpreters draw it to another purpoſe; it does appear that the Queſtion was made of a Woman big with Child, becauſe it did ſeem that the Child was baptized together with the Mother, which notwitſtanding ought not to be uſed, nor to be baptized, except of its own proper Election and Profeſſion.
Dr. Barlow, Late Biſhop of Lincoln, in his Letter to Mr. T. ſaith, I believe there is neither Precept nor Example in the Scripture for Pedo-Baptiſm, nor any juſt Evidence for it, for above 200 Years after Chriſt. Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable Cuſtom, and Naziarzen a good while after diſlikes it: Sure I am, (ſaith he) that in the primitive times they were Cat…cum…ni, then Illuminati or Baptizati, and that not only Pagans, and Children of Pagans Converted, but Children of Chriſtian Parents. The Truth is, I do believe Pedo-Baptiſm, how or by whom I know not, came into the World in the ſecond Century, and in the third and fourth began to be practiſed, though not generally, and was defended as lawful from the Text, John 3. …. groſly miſunderſtanding it, upon the like …. … 6. 53, they did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church Communicate Infants, and gave them the Lord's Supper; and I confeſs, they might do both as well as either, &c. Thus Biſhop Barlow.
… ſaith, Pedo-Baptiſmus duobus primis a Chriſto … … fuit incognitus, &c. Pedo Baptiſm was unknown in the two firſt Ages after Chriſt, but in the third and fourth it was approved of by a few; in the fifth and following Ages it began to be generally received. And therefore (as afterwards he ſaith) the right in indeed obſerved by us as an ancient Cuſtom, but … an Apoſtolical Tradition.
The ſame learned Author, ſaith, De peccato Orig. Numb. …. ſaith Morem Infantes Baptizandi non capiſſe … Seculum, &c. That the cuſtom of … infants, did not begin till the Third Age … Chriſt, but in the two former no footſteps of it appear. And afterwards ſaith Sine ipſius [Chriſti] …; it was introduced without the command of Chriſt.
Athanaſius in ſermone 3 contra Arianos, ſaith,
our Saviour did not ſlightly command to baptize, but firſt of all ſaid, Teach and then Baptize, that true Faith might come by teaching, and Baptiſm be perfected by Faith.
Haimo in Poſtilla upon the Text, Go teach all Nations, Fol. 278. In this place, (ſaith he) is ſet down a Rule rightly how to baptize, that is, that Teaching ſhould go before Baptiſm; for he ſaith, teach all Nations, and then he ſaith, and baptize them, for he that is to be baptized, muſt be before inſtructed; that he firſt learn to believe that which in Baptiſm he ſhall receive; for as Faith without works is Dead, ſo Works when they are not of Faith, are nothing worth.
Idem in Annatationibus in mar. The Apoſtles were commanded firſt to Teach and then to baptize: The Jews were brought by Ceremonies to the Knowledge of the Truth, but Chriſtians muſt learn to know them firſt.
Beda ſaith,
all thoſe that came to the Apoſtles to be baptized, were inſtructed and taught concerning the Sacrament of Baptiſm, then they received the Holy Adminiſtration thereof.
Rabanus, the Catechi, which is the Doctrine of Faith, muſt go before Baptiſm, to the intent that he that is to be baptized, (i. e. Catechamenus) may firſt learn the Myſteries of Faith.
Arnobius, Thou art not firſt (ſaith he) baptized, and then beginneſt to effect and embrace the Faith; but when thou art to be baptized, thou ſignifie unto the Prieſt what thy deſire is, and makeſt thy Confeſſion with thy Mouth.
Jerom upon Matt. ſaith, The Lord commandeth his Apoſtles that they ſhould firſt inſtruct and teach all Nations, and afterwards ſhould baptize thoſe that were inſtructed into the Myſteries of the Faith; for it cannot be, (ſaith he) that the Body ſhould receive the Sacrament of Baptiſm, till the Soul have received the true Faith.
Sir, What think you now of the Teſtimony of the ancient Fathers, and of the practice of the Churches after the Apoſtles days? Sure the Reader muſt needs conclude, we have the advantage here too, and you muſt yield whether you will or no, and give up the Controverſie.
But to proceed, Your firſt Demonſtration to prove Infant Baptiſm in the days after the Apoſtles is this, viz. becauſe that Children had Hands laid upon them in their Minority.
Anſ. This ſignifies nothing, for as the Fathers changed the Ordinance of Baptiſm from believing Men and Women to ignorant Babes, ſo they changed impoſition of Hands (which I own to be a principle of Chriſt's Doctrine, Heb. 6. 12) to ſuch young People, who in their Minority had learned the Articles of the Chriſtian Faith. But clear it is, in the primitive Apoſtolical times, none but baptized Believers were admitted to that Ordinance of laying on of Hands, as Acts 8. 14. and 19. 6.
But your Brother Mr. Burkit acknowledgeth, that formerly there were ſuch called Catechumeni, Perſons taught or inſtructed, and afterwards baptized.
He ſaith further, that there were two ſorts, the laſt he brings for his purpoſe, but I know not where he hath his Teſtimony, and therefore paſs it by.
So much to your firſt Demonſtration from the Fathers.
Your ſecond Demonſtration to prove Infant Baptiſm is this, viz. becauſe in the primitive times Infants were admitted to the Lord's Supper, therefore you conclude they were admitted to Baptiſm.
Anſ. And they had (ſay I) as much Ground for the one as for the other, and there is the ſame parity of reaſon to conclude, as they erred in one, ſo they did in the other.
Why doth you not from hence give Infants alſo the Lord's Supper? The Reaſon you give I have before proved inſignificant.
As to his third Demonſtration, it is not denyed but that Infant Baptiſm was received in the Church in the third and fourth Century, with many other Fopperies, but that doth him no kindneſs; the Church was adulterated from the true Apoſtolical Faith and Practice, in many Reſpects in thoſe and after times downwards.
His fourth Demonſtration is this, viz. If it was a groſs Error in the Primitive Fathers to admit Infants to Baptiſm, then they in ſuffering ſuch an Error to paſs uncenſured and uncondemned, were guilty of the greateſt Impiety, &c.
Anſw. What then? I ask him and you, or any other of our Oppoſers, whether ye do not believe for ſeveral Centuries thoſe Fathers who admitted Infants to the Lord's Supper without cenſuring or condemning it, were not guilty alſo of as great Impurity? Beſides, did not the ſame Fathers hold other Errors? See Mr. Perkins Demonſt. of the Problem, pag. 488. Theſe are his Words, viz.
And whereas ſome Fathers, viz. Ireneus, Juſtin, Clement, Tertullian, held that the Law of Nature had power to ſave the Gentiles without Chriſt. And again he ſaith,
The Fathers have Errors, yea and ſometimes groſs ones. Doth not Hiſtory tell us the Fathers uſed other Rites alſo, and that in Baptiſm? See Perkins, p. 549. The Fathers, ſaith he, uſed ſome other Rites and Ceremonies which are now omitted, as Kiſſing of the Child, which was baptized, in Cyprian, l. 3. ep. 8. uſe of Milk and Honey, uſe of Milk and Wine, Hierom in Iſ. c. 55.
It was an uſe for the Baptizer to blow in the Face of the Baptized; and the Party baptized uſed to Exuffiate the Devil, whom he renounced. What Credit is to be given to ſuch Fathers?
Mr. Owen ſaith, That Infant-Baptiſm was ſo generally in the Church of God, that the Pelagians could not deny it, tho they denied Original Sin, againſt the which it was a Medicine. And that Bernard, who lived between the Year 1091, and the Year 1153, declareth it was the Practice of the Church in thoſe Ages.
Anſw. We deny not, but readily grant, that the Baptiſm of Infants was in the Church long before that time: And remarkable 'tis, that about 1091 or 1100, Popiſh Darkneſs was at its greateſt height. And was it any wonder thoſe Fathers gave Baptiſm to Infants when it was the Practice of thoſe times before Bernard, to give Infants the Lord's Supper alſo, as well as Baptiſm? Which Mr. Owen knows well enough, if he hath read any thing of Hiſtory.
2. Bernard, Mr. Owen ſaith, Cenſur'd thoſe who oppoſed Infant-Baptiſm, &c.
1. From whence it appears there were ſome Chriſtians who oppoſed Infant-Baptiſm even in the darkeſt time of Popery.
2. What Wonder is it to hear that ſuch in thoſe corrupt times, who deny'd Infant-Baptiſm, were cenſured, when we who do deny it now, are ſo unrighteouſly cenſured by you and your Brethren, notwithſtanding ſuch clear Light in theſe days is broken forth?
Mr. Owen alſo endeavoureth to prove, that the Waldenſes were for Infant-Baptiſm.
And he ſeems to charge Mr. Tombs and Mr. Danvers for aſſerting the contrary.
Anſw. To which I anſwer, I ſee no reaſon why he ſhould condemn Mr. Tombs or Mr. Danvers in this matter; for according to ſome Hiſtories it appears, that the Antient Waldenſes and Albigenſes, as alſo the Antient Britains, were for the Baptizing of Believers: ſee D. Balthazar Lidius, in his Hiſtory of the Church, p. 2. col. 2. out of Renarius, and G. Bildas in his Book called De Hiſtoria Aurelii Ambroſii.
And the Learned Uſher, in his Book of the State of the Chriſtian Church, as Mr. Danvers obſerves, p. 237. ſhews, that they deſended Believers-Baptiſm in oppoſition to that of Infants: ſee Moreland, Book 1. c. 4. p. 67. yet no doubt but ſome of the Waldenſes might be for Infant-Baptiſm. Yet Mr. Owen confeſſeth that Bernard acknowledgeth that Hiſtory doth ſpeak of the Waldenſes denying Infant-Baptiſm, tho he would fain have it from what the ſaid Bernard ſaith, to be a Slander caſt upon them by their Enemies the Papiſts. Let it be how it will concerning them, know, Noble Britains, that we build not our Faith about Baptiſm upon the Practice and Cuſtom of Men, Fathers, General Councils, Proteſtant Reformers or Churches; but upon the Word of God.
To conclude with this Argument: From hence we infer, that the practice of the Church under the Romiſh Apoſtacy of Infant-Baptiſm, in every Age, ſince the firſt Centuries unto theſe Times, is no good Proof for it. What tho Calvis and Luther, two famous Proteſtant Reformers, and many other Modern Divines were, and many Godly and Learned Men are now for this Tradition; Muſt it be therefore a Truth? Muſt our Faith ſtand in the Wiſdom of Men in this matter, or in the Power of God, and in the Authority of his Sacred Word? Our firſt Proteſtant Reformers were raiſed up to reſtore thoſe Grand Fundamentals of Faith, more than to reform Matters of Diſcipline, and about this Rite of Infant-Baptiſm and ſome other Ceremonies. The Path of the Juſt is as a ſhining Light, that ſhines more and more to the perfect Day, Prov. 4. 18.
You Hint, that not one queſtioned the Privilege of Children to Baptiſm, until the Adverſary came while Men ſlept, and ſowed Tares among the Wheat.
Anſw. Sir, you miſtake, it was while Men ſlept that the Enemy firſt ſowed the evil Seed of Babes-Baptiſm in the Church. Moreover, the Baptiſm of Believers, in oppoſition to Infant-Baptiſm, I have proved is no part of thoſe Tares the Adverſary hath ſowed, but it is Seed which Jeſus Chriſt himſelf sowed, or 'tis (I mean) his own holy Inſtitution.
You tell us a Story of one John Smith, a Miniſter of the Church of England, who went into Holland, and united with the Church of one Mr. Ainſworth, and in the end being caſt out of the Church, he baptized himſelf, and the… rebaptized others.
Anſw. I could tell you of many evil and foul things and practices done by ſome Presbyterians, but ſhould I brand the whole Brotherhood from thence? Do you not ſhew an evil and detracting Tongue, by caſting ſuch Odiums upon the whole Body of gracious Chriſtians, falſly called Anabaptiſts: For we are not for Rebaptizing, or Baptizing again ſuch who have been truly and rightly Baptized, that were the proper Subjects of that holy Ordinance.
2. But may be this may be a falſe Story too, and wrote in prejudice by ſuch who loved not the practice of baptizing of Believers, nor the People who ſo practiſe.
For what need had he to baptize himſelf, were there none called Anabaptiſts in Holland nor Germany before that time? 'tis much we have not the Munſter Story of John of Leydon. I perceive you have malice enough againſt us, the Lord give you Repentance if it be his Will.