Vindication of a Late Treatise on Infant Baptism, Chapter 2

Vindication of a Late Treatise on Infant Baptism · Chapter 2

p. 51CHAP. II.

Wherein Mr. Danvers pretends to shew that Infants-Baptism hath neither Foundation in Scripture, nor Antiquity, with an answer thereto.

§ 1. THe Arguments used in his Treatise of Baptism, we have again in this his Reply thus. That if Infants-Baptism had been any Appointment, or Ordinance of Jesus Christ, there would have been some Precept or Example; but the Scripture is wholly silent as to either, &c.

To which I gave this answer, in my Infants-Baptism asserted &c.

First, A thing may be said to be commanded in scripture two ways:

1. Expresly, or litterally and syllabically, that is, totidem verbis, in so many words: Thus we acknowledg Infants-Baptism is not commanded; it is no-where said, Go Baptize Infants, if it had there would have been no controversie.

2. A thing may be Commanded in Scripture implicitly, and by good Consequence; and what is thus commanded is as valid and obliging, as if it were in so many letters and syllables, and thus we affirm Infants-Baptism is commanded. There are in Scripture clear grounds and principles, from whence by just and warrantable consequences it may be deduced, that Beleivers children ought to be baptized; for if they belong to the Covenant p. 61and are holy, if they are members of the visible Church &c. then they have right to Baptism with more to this purpose, Infants-Baptism Asserted, pars 1. p. 36.

To which Mr. Danvers says nothing in his reply, but plays the sophister, mangles my discourse, picks up words scattered in my Book about a hundred pages each from other, and spoken upon different accounts, and withal foisteth in some of his own with them, and then falls a-skirmishing with the man of Clouts which he hath made.

To give you some instances of his disingenuity herein.

1. He represents this to be my argument for Infants-Baptism, viz. That as there is no scripture expresly commanding, so neither is there any scripture excluding Infants from Baptism, nor any Scripture that saith there was no Infants baptized, and then refers the Reader to p. 36. 38, 101, 131, 132, where note, what a Compass he fetcheth to glean up words and then patcheth them togetther for an Argument: and after all this, the words are not to be found in those pages, but are more his than mine: I have told you before, what is asserted by us, namely, That Infants-Baptism is implicitly, though not expresly commanded in Scripture: pag. 36, and pag. 38, I speak thus—To say, Infants-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ because we have no Examples in Scripture, of any that were Baptized, is a pittiful Argument: for we have no Examples of most of the Apostles that they were Baptized, and shall we say therefore they were not Baptized?

Pag 101. Which is another of my places that Mr. Danvers turns the Reader to; I shew, that the want p. 69of an express Command makes not against the lawfulness of it, and that the Anabaptists want an express Command or Example (there being neither to be found in the Book of God) to plunge Men head and ears under Water, as they use to do; Nor have they any Precept or Example, to Baptize people with their cloaths on. And in p. 131. and 132, the last of my pages he refers to, I thus express my self, that there is nothing in Christs Commission that is against Childrens Baptism; for the Teaching that is therein required, excludes not the Children of Believers (if foreign, be restrained to Teaching) as appears by the consideration of the conditions of the Persons to whom Christ sent his Apostles to Baptize who were Aliens, and though Believing goes before Baptism in Mark it doth not exclude Infants; because the same condition, that is required there to preceed Baptism, is required to precede Salvation: so that if the Sense be that Infants must not be Baptized, because they cannot believe, it will as directly follow they must not be saved, because they cannot believe. The way of answering one answers both, by the same distinction the Salvation of Infants may be maintained, their Baptism may. Thus Reader, I have given thee the whole which Mr. Danvers improves into an Argument against me, as before; but how justly I shall leave to thy consideration. And I must crave leave to say that this Argument: Infant-Baptism is lawful because no-where forbidden in Scripture, nor nowhere told where it was not done, is a Brat of his own begetting, which he would fain lay at my door.

Next follow some passages quoted from Divines p. 54that are Pedobaptists; as, first from Dr. Owen in his Book called Innocency and Truth Vindicated (by which name Mr. Danvers hath baptized his Book, though little of either is found in it); who lays down this position, That no part of Gods worship, either in the old or new-Testament, was lawful, but what had some express warrant from his word for the same; in opposition to what Dr. Parker asserts, that what is not forbidden may be Lawful: To this I answer that I humbly conceive, that his position of express warrant is to be understood with some limitation: for I have learned from Mr. Ger…, and some other Divines, that there is a great difference between an Ordinance it self, and some particular circumstances or the subject to which that Ordinance is to be apply'd: For the Ordinance it self, as the setting up Baptism as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant, renewed by Christ, it requires express warrant in the word of God: But when we have such Warrant for the Ordinance it self, to whomsoever we find by grounds or principles in Scripture that it doth of right belong, there we may apply it though we want express testimony for it, if we have none against i…. And that this is the Doctor's meaning is clear from what he tells us in his Exposition of Heb. c. 1. p. 86. viz. That it is lawful to draw consequences from Scripture-Assertions, and such consequences rightly deduced are infallibly true, and de fide: nothing will rightly follow from truth, but what is so also, and that of the same nature with the truth from whence it is derived; so that whatsoever by just consequence is drawn from the word of God, is it self also the word of God, and of truth Infallible. And if Mr. D. will please to ask the Doctor what he intended p. 55by express Warrant, I am confident he will find him exactly of Bucers mind who thus expresses himself on Rom. 6. Lex dei perfecta est, docet que quibus totam Vitam ad voluntatem Dei instituere licet, quare contineri in Scripturis necesse est certa, & non expressa nominatim, oracula, de omnibus quaecunque afillis Dei, sive publice, sive privatim suscipi convenit.

Mr. Danvers hath pickt up another saying of Mr. Collins before his Vind. Minist. Evang. viz. That in things relating to the worship of God nothing ought to be done without express Warrant in the Gosple. This Assertion of Mr. Collins's in that latitude as it is laid down is liable to exception; for there are many Circumstances relating to Gods worship, as time, place, and order, that are not so expresly set down in the Word, which nevertheless may lawfully be prescribed by the Church, provided that it agrees with the general Rules set down in the Word: and I find this was written in opposition to Souldiers that took up the practice of Preaching without Ordination: and his endeavouring to make the bow straight might make him bend it a little too much the other way. But I am confident if he was to explain what he meant by those words, Mr. D. would find them very little for his purpose. But to come more closly to the matter, what express Command have we for the observation of the Christian Sabbath? for want of which, many Anabaptists (notwithstanding the Apostles met on the first day of the week) own not the Morality of it. Again, what express Command, or Example have we, for Womens receiving the Lords-Supper; good consequence there is for it, but no express mention of p. 72it. But this satisfies not Mr. Danvers, for he is for express Scripture, to prove Women received the Lord's Supper; as you have it in his reply to Mr. Blinman: who very rationally and truly argues against Mr. Danvers that the words upon which he lays the stress of Womens receiving the Lord's Supper are in express terms against him, it being these [all that beleived were together] and as he argues rightly, the Greek phrase is expresly of Men and not of Women, viz. foreign, the Article foreign, being masculin expresly limits it to Men and not to Women, &c. Mr. Danvers Replies very confidently, that the exception of Mr. Blinman seems to be as defective in Grammar as in Divinity [and why in Divinity, since Mr. Blinman holds that Women received the Lords-Supper, and this is not the thing disputed] and then he paedagogue-like, sends the Reverend Learned Man to his Grammar to learn what Syllepsis means: which is nothing to the purpose but to make a noise.

To gather up then the Discourse, we grant all this is good by consequence, That the first-Day ought to observed as a Christian Sabbath, that Women ought to receive the Lord's-Supper, but we cannot prove either by express terms. To conclude then, how injurious and no less ignorant a Spirit appears in those words of Mr. Danvers; That Mr. Blinman trifles in the things of God, and plays with Words to pervert the Truth, when he only tells him (being challenged thereunto) that as much might be said for Infant-Baptism as Womens receiving the Lords-Supper, there being no express Command for either, but only implicit, and both warranted by consequence.

p. 73There is a third Author quoted by Mr. Danvers, viz. Dr. Hammond, who saith, that an Institution of Christ, such as each Sacrament is, should not be judged by any other rule, than either the Word wherein the Institution is set down, or the Records of the practice of Christ or his Apostles. A sound position, but such as toucheth not the case before us, for we judg of the Sacrament of Baptism as belonging to the Infant-seed of Believers by the Word wherein the Institution is set down, as before is shewn.

Thus we have manifested the Sophistry and weakness of Mr. Danvers's arguings together with the impertinency of his Quotations. Nevertheless he concludes, as if he had done some great thing. By all this evidence it appears that Mr. Wills is so Heterodox in his Positions, that he hath neither Scripture Reason, Antiquity, or the learned Protestant-Writers to stand by him, and wherein if he persists, he gives up not only the Independent, but whole Protestant Cause (as if all the Protestant Cause depended upon the sayings of those three men before mentioned, or on my opposing him for wresting and misapplying the same against Infant-Baptism). But what should make him fancy the Protestant Cause depended upon the sayings of this Triumviri, I cannot imagin, unless it be because one is an Independant, the other a Presbyterian, and the third Man an Episcoparian, and Protestantism is only found among the men of these Professions, the Anabaptist being not concerned in it. And truly if we consider what Mr. Danvers hath said of the Protestants in some parts of his Discourses, we had need of much charity to believe, it would be at all grievous to him, if the Protestant p. 58cause miscarried; for we are all in his esteem a company of erroneous persons, not of the Church of Christ, having no true Ministry or Baptism, Antichristian enemies to the Truth, as well as to them, and ever and anon linkt by him with the Papist, as conspiring togethher in upholding the Tradition of Infants-Baptism, and therein grounding all our Christianity, and against which he bids defiance; and declares against all possibility of Communion with us, whilest we adhere thereto, as may be seen in his Preface to his Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 2.

But will Mr. Danvers allow of no consequences, or are not implicit Commands obligatory? you have his judgment in what follows.

1. He tells, us he will allow of Consequences when there is express Scripture for the thing else-where, as in the case of the Resurrection, else not: And I pray, who now is Heterodox? No thanks to him for his grant, for we have no need of consequences to be drawn, where the thing is set down in express terms: It seems if the Doctrine of the Resurrection had not been delivered in Scripture plainly in so many words, all consequential arguings from the Infinite Power and Justice of God requiring it, would little have avail'd with him. But he might have learned from Mr. Sydenham (with whom he is acquainted) that to deny Consequences to have the strength of Commands is to leave very few Duties to be practised, or Sins to be avoided: expound the Ten-Commandments without Consequences, and very few will be found literal transgressors, but most deplorable debaucht Persons. And since the Bible is p. 59but a short System of Religion, every place is fitted to expound each other, and this must be done by Rational, Spiritual, Comparisons and Inferences: and how doth Mr. Danvers prove that those of his way, must be covered when Baptized, have they any express Word, or Example for it? doth he not fly to rational Inference? how doth he know Baptizing is by Plunging? hath he any other way for it than consequential Reasonings? it must be so, he conceives, for the word signifies it; see his Reply, p. 34.

2. He saith, he will admit of plain Consequences, which mends the matter very little. For now we shall want some Supreme Judg to determine, which are plain, which not; must we go to him and his party for resolution? certainly it must be so according to his mode of arguing, for though he will admit of plain consequences he presently adds, Therefore we deny the Inferences usually drawn from Circumcision under the Law for Baptism under the Gospel to be either plain, proper, or true: How blind was Nazianzen, Jerom, Austin, and the rest of the Fathers, to infer Infants-Baptism from Circumcision? and how irrational are the deductions of such an innumerable company of Doctors and learned Divines? Had they lighted their Candles at Mr. Danvers's Torch, they might have seen what had been plain, proper and true Inferences; but the Vanity of his discourse in this kind, we have shewed in our Infants-Baptism Asserted, part 1. 116, 117. and answered their objections against our Arguments for Infants-Baptism drawn from Circumcision.

In the next place he saith, That as to the Antiquity of Infants-Baptism, with its impious Concomitants of Salt, Oyl, Spittle, Chrism, Exorcism, it was not p. 76about 400 years after Christ, in the Milevitan and Carthaginian Council, and that according to my own grant.

To this I answer, that here Mr. D. doth impose: For in the 106 page of my Infant-Baptism (the place which he intends) I do not calculate the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism, from those Councils 400 years after Christ; nor is there any thing there spoken of Salt, Oyl, Spittle, &c. This trumpery is an addition of his own, to render Infant-Baptism odious, although he knows it was used also in the Baptizing of grown Persons in those days. 2. What is there spoken of Infants-Baptism is from Dr. Taylor, and no grant of mine, about the necessity of Infant-Baptism not determined till the Canon of the Milevitan Council. 3. He makes me to say positively, that the reason why it was not enjoyned sooner was, because the lawfulness of it was rarely, if at all questioned before, and then glories that I have confirmed his witness against Infants-Baptism; whereas all that I say amounts but to a conjecture, and that upon a supposition of the truth of Dr. Taylors speech concerning the time when Infant-Baptism was established by Canon; for these are my words: Belike the reason why it was not established sooner by Council, under an Anathema, was, because it was rarely, if at all, questioned or opposed till then. It was indeed determined in Cyprian's Council about a hundred and fifty years before, that Infants might be Baptized before the eight day, but no Anathema was made about this point of Baptism so early. 4. Observe Reader what an idle Inference my Antagonist draws from the pretended Grant of mine; then saith he, if it be so, that the Canons in the Milevitan Council, p. 77and inforcing Infants-Baptism [with thirty more Councils doing the same] were only made upon the occasion of those that denied, or opposed it.

We have then, saith he, our witnesses throughout all ages confirmed by himself, the Reader must needs see how precarious he is in his reasoning, and if he hath no more to say for his Witnesses in all ages than this, I am sure he will never carry it at the Bar of an Impartial Judg: He must seek elsewhere for his Witnesses than in my Writings, or he is never like to find them, and if I had argued at the rate as Mr. Danvers doth in this thing, I might justly have deserved his censure for folly, and falshood.

Lastly, he concludes that till any instance be produced of any Child that was Baptized, as an Ordinance of Christ, within the first 300 years, he is yet unreprovable in his Assertion, and very safe in what he hath said.

I answer, 1. That this is very weakly spoken, in as much as he confesseth just before from the Magdeburgs, that the Records of Antiquity say nothing of the particular persons, either Infants or Adult, that were Baptized in the third Century, but only; there is mention made of one Family Baptized, in which there was a young Man named Symphorianus, Magd. Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 1. 25. 2. What though we have not the particular names of Children (having not the Church-Registers) it is sufficient that we are informed in general that it was then the practice of the Church to Baptize Children, as we have it in the same place before-mentioned, p. 125. significat Cyprianus in Epistola ad Fidum, etiam Osculum Infanti p. 62a ministro baptizante dari solitum, that is, Cyprian in his Epistle to Fidus doth likewise intimate, that the Minister used to kiss the Child when he Baptized it: Let Mr. Danvers's Friends judg, whether this be not enough, if no more could be said, to confute all his Discourse about Antiquity. Add hereunto this consideration, That in this Century Tertullian perswading to defer both the Baptism of Children, and others who are of age, doth thereby intimate that it was the custom of the Church at that time to Baptize the one as well as the other; otherwise there was no reason why he should desire that they would defer the one as well as the other.

Concerning Tradition, which Mr. Danvers saith, is the principal ground that hath been urged for Infants-Baptism, with an answer thereto.

Sect. 2. To make out this he quotes Austin, who calls it an Apostolical Tradition; to which I said in my Answer, that anciently the greatest points of Faith were by the Fathers named foreign; so they are called by the Apostle, 2 Thes. 2. 15. which is all one with Divine Doctrines or Ordinances, for so the word is rendered, 1 Cor. 11. 2. And to make this more fully appear, the Magdiburgs tell us, that Bazil calls the manner of Baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, a Tradition, by which he means the Doctrine of the Lord Christ. Magd. Cent. 4. c. 4. p. 235. Egregie & Basilius hâc de re scribit, lib. 3. contra Eunomium, Baptismus noster est secundum Traditionem Domini in nomine Patris, &c. that is, our Baptism is according to the Tradition of p. 63the Lord, in the name of the Father, &c. Again Bazil in his Book de Spiritu sancto, by Tradition means the Scripture, as Hermannus Hamelmannus observes de Tradit. Apost. & tacitis. p. 355. Certum est quod Basilius per vocabulum Traditionis, aliquando Scripturam intelligit; it is certain that Bazil doth sometimes understand by the word Tradition, the Scripture; for so he speaks to Amphilochius in his 10th Chapter of the above-mentioned Book of the Holy-Spirit. Hanc Traditionem quae me perduxit ad lucem ac Dei cognitionem largita est, &c. If Austin then means the same that Bazil doth by Tradition, viz. the Scripture, he says true, when he tells us that Infants-Baptism were not to be believed, unless it were an Apostolical Tradition, and although he intends the word otherwise in that famous speech of his in his 4th Book against the Donatists, Chap. 24. (which Mr. Danvers doth ill in curtailing) namely, That if any do inquire for a Divine Authority for the Baptizing Children, let them know, What the Universal Churh holds, nor was instituted in Councils, but always retained, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other than by Apostolical Authority; to which this is added in the next words▪ Tamen veraciter conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulis Baptismi Sacramentum, ex circumcisione Carnis quam prior populus accepit, that is, Nevertheless, we may conjecture how much the Sacrament of Baptism is available to Children, by the Circumcision of the Flesh which the former people received.

His next instance is from Bellarmin, that it is an Apostolical Tradition, &c. But Mr. Danvers is not ignorant that Bellarmin saith, Satis aperte Coll…gitur ex scripturis, to which purpose we have him, p. 80Tom. 3. lib. 1. c. 8. de Sacrament. It is clearly gathered from Scripture.

A third passage Mr. Danvers brings from Dr. Field in his Book of the Church, Chap 20. Where speaking of the several sences in which the word Tradition is taken he saith, That Infants-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not delivered in the Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants, or that they should do so: And is it fair dealing for Mr. Danvers to stop here, when the following words would have cleared the point, which are these; yet is not this received by bare and naked Tradition, but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it, lib. 4. p. 375. and the more inexcusable is our Antagonist being formerly minded of this unfaithfulness in our Infant-Baptism Asserted, &c. And when I shewed to a Friend that hath a great respect for the Anabaptists, how he had served Dr. Field, the said person presently said, certainly Mr. Danvers is either weak or wicked.

The last instance is from the Convocation at Oxford, and he deals unfairly with them likewise, by altering, and disordering their words; For he quotes them thus. That without the Consentaneous judgment and practice of the universal Church they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof in the point of Infant-Baptism: whereas they are expressed in another strain, and less advantageous to Mr. Danvers's purpose, being thus. That the Consentient judgment and practice of the universal Church is the best interpreter of Scripture in things not clearly exprest; and then they say, that without it they should be at a loss in sundry points of Faith and manners, believed and practiced p. 81when by Socinians and Anabaptists, they are called upon for proofs, instancing in the Trinity, and Coequality of persons in the Godhead: baptizing Infants, …e observation of the Lords day, and even the Canon of the Scripture it self, &c.

Mr. Danvers having as he thinks cleared his Position, proceeds to draw a parallel between Papists and Protestants, to shew that there is no great difference between them, after the manner as I have represented the Protestant sentiments in the point.

To which I reply, 1. That the Papists hold many things that are Orthodox and sound, especially in Doctrinals, but are very corrupt in Discipline, and abominably unsound in the point of Tradition, for they equal it with Scripture: and the Council of Trent determined that Tradition was to be entertained pari pietatis affectu, with the like affection as the Scripture, &c.

The Protestants abhor this, as may be seen at large in the afore-mentioned Author Hamelmannus in his Book of Traditions, where disputing against Staphilus, and Cassander, and speaking particularly of Infants-Baptism, p. 818. he saith non nobis satisfaeceret, nisi peteretur probatio paedobaptismi ex Scripturis; Tradition would not satisfie us unless we had Scripture-proof for it.

Now for his Parallel.

1. Do the Papists, saith he, maintain that the Ecclesiastical Tradition of Infants-Baptism, as it is gathered from the Scripture, and appointed by the Church, is of equal Authority with Scripture it self? so, saith he, doth Mr. Wills assert for Protestant Doctrine, That the Tradition of Infants-Baptism, proved by Consequential Arguments from the Scripture, p. 82ought to be esteemed as firm and good, as the Scripture it self; and to prove that I say so, Mr. Danvers refers the Reader to p. 117. of my Book, where there is nothing spoken of Tradition; but only a position quoted from Mr. Baxter's Scriptureproof, viz. That evident consequences, or Arguments drawn by Reason from Scripture, are as true proof as the very words of a Text. And is there any hurt in this? can any man that is rational deny it? doth not Dr. Owen positively assert it? Nay, doth not Mr. Danvers himself tell us We admit of plain consequences? Reply p. 69. though he will not grant Infants-Baptism to be of the number of them. But what saith Mr. Baxter in the forementioned place? If I prove, saith he, that all Church-members must be admitted by Baptism, and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-members, is not this as much as to prove they must be baptized? What thinks Mr. Danvers of that passage of Nazianzen in his 5th Book of Theology? Quae colliguntur ex Scripturis Sacris, perindè habenda sunt, ac si in illis scripta essent: those things that are gathered out of Scripture are to be of like esteem with us, as that which is written in Scripture. Without doubt Mr. Danvers look's upon this as a Popish saying in Nazianzen. The rest of his Parallel is so frivolous, that I will not trouble my self, nor the Reader with it. And truly if one were minded, how easy is it to retort upon him, and shew the vanity of his discourse in such a manner? as for instance.

Doth Mr. Danvers say that the promise Gen. 17. 7, pertains not to the Carnal seed of Abraham, but to the Spiritual? so doth Estius the Jesuit against p. 83Calvin, about which Mr. Danvers committed so great a Mistake, that if I had done the same he would have said I had belyed Calvin, and abused the World. Doth Mr. Danvers say, Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham, not to Believers and their seed? so saith Cardinal Bellarmin, in his first book of the Sacraments, and after him other Papists, affirming that Circumcision is not said to be a seal universally to any faith, but only a seal of the individual faith of Abraham.

Doth Mr. Danvers say, it could not be a seal to an Infant that had no faith? Bellarmin speaks the same; If it be a seal, saith he, (in that Baptism comes in the place of Circumcision) it is in vain to baptize Infants, because they have no Faith: so that it seems, his sentiments about these points are the same with the Papists also.

Mr. Danvers Exceptions against our Testimonies for Infants-Baptism from the Ancients, examined and confuted.

His first Exception is against that passage we bring from Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Triphon, part. 2. propos. 3. where he saith, It was lawful for all to receive the spiritual Circumcision, which was done by Baptism: From whence we argue, That if it was lawful for all to receive it; then Infants who were the subjects of the legal Circumcision, for they must be part of the all, and not excluded.

To this Mr. Danvers saith two things. 1. That it is a meer Impertinency, and nothing to the purpose, why so?

1. Because there is not one wo…d of Infants, nor of p. 84Infants-Baptism, nor its Apostolicalness: And what of that? doth he not know that omne universale continet in se particulare, every universal contains within it self the particular? And doth not Justin say it was lawful for all to receive the spiritual Circumcision, which is Baptism? Nor do we stand in need of a word for its Apostolicalness here, since the only end for which the Quotation is urged is to prove that Justin was for Infants-Baptism.

2. He tells us it is not only Impertinent, but Absurd, to interpret the word [All] to be all men, for then it must comprehend wicked as well as good, Unbelievers as well as Believers. But this is a shift; for I say, [All] is here to be limited to those who are within the Church, for to them Only appertained the Legal Circumcision under the Law, of which Justin speaks, and by proportion to such only, the Spiritual Circumcision [Baptism] now under the Gospel.

As to what he further objects, that Justin in this very Dialogue tells us, that by the Word and Baptism Regeneration was perfected in all mankind: As it is more than the Magdiburgs say, for their words are, per aquam et fidem regenerationem fieri humani generis; so it makes nothing at all against us, because this is added by the Magdiburgs in the same place (speaking how they baptized in Justin's time) De adultis paenitentiam requirunt &c. They required Repentance of the Adult before Baptism. If Mr. Danvers had set this down, he could not have framed his objection. Just thus he deals with Mr. Baxter's Treatise of Baptism, Ch. 7. p. 49. 2d Edit. where he quotes Mr. Baxter as rendring some part of Justin Martyr's Apology in these words in his Saints p. 85Rest, Ch. 8. Sect. 5. viz. [I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves to God after that we are renewed by Christ &c. Where if you will compare, you shall see both how considerably he varies it in the words from Mr. Baxters words, and likewise how he leaves out that which would have shewn the Quotation nothing to his purpose, viz [Justin Martyr speaking of the way of Baptizing the Aged.]

In the next place he excepts against what we urge for Infants-Baptism, from Irenaeus, who lived in the same Century with Justin, in the Age of those that saw the Apostles, and so must needs know their Practice: It is a passage of his in lib. 2. Advers. Haeres. c. 39. where discoursing of Christ that came to save all ages, he specifieth particulars, as Infantes et Parvuli, Infants and little ones, as well as pueros et juvenes, et seniores; Boys, young men, and old men: and then concludes, Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum; All, I say, who by him are born again unto God. Where, by Infants being born again unto God, must needs be understood, after the Scripture-notion and sence, and as the Ancient Fathers usually took the word foreign, that is, Baptism. For as Mr. Mede observes, that by the Washing of regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. none will deny is meant Baptism: And Vossius, upon that Scripture saith, that to call Baptism Renascentia, [Regeneration] is usitata veteribus loquendi forma, an usual form of speaking among the Ancients. And to put this out of all doubt, Justin Martyr, in his Apology before-mentioned, speaking of the manner how they were baptized, saith, The party was brought to the place where the water is, and regenerated in the same manner, wherein we were p. 86regenerated. To this Mr. Danvers hath little to say, and if I mistake not, very little to purpose, as, that it is Impertinent as before and far-fetched, and that there is not a word of Infants-Baptism in it, or Apostolicalness: which is just the 2d part of the same tune which was sung but now: And further he adds, that as the interpretation upon which it is founded is fallacious; so neither Scripture nor Justin, doth call Baptism, Regeneration absolutely [who saith they do?] but only the Symbol of Regeneration. And this is very true, and which no body denies but I must tell Mr. Danvers that this is altogether impertinent, and far off from the matter we are upon.

But his Confidence doth not abate, for he tells us, 'tis manifest these Authorities are to little purpose, yea wholly insignificant, and nothing to the purpose [do not only tell us this Story, but give us Reason for it, or say nothing] and that they failing, as he concludes they do, there is foreign pedobaptismi, a fearful tumbling down of the whole Fabrick of Infants-Baptism, Repl. p. 79.

And to help after, he presents us with a pretended saying of Dr. Barlow, but he doth not point to any Book or page where we shall find it. The words which Mr. Danvers saith the Doctor speaks are, these; viz. I Believe and know that there is neither precept nor practice in Scripture for Pedobaptism, nor any just evidence for it for above two hundred years after Christ. Reader, thou must understand that Mr. Danvers hath made mention of this Reverend and Learned Mans name, above twenty times in his Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1, 2. and in his Reply, as if he had spoken much in derogation of the Antiquity of Infants-Baptism. For p. 87in the 1st Edition of his Treatise of Baptism p. 74. we have him thus, Dr. B. late Doctor of the Chair, a person of great Learning and Eminency, hath these words in a Letter I have seen in print; I do believe, and know, there is neither Precept nor Example in Scripture &c. as before: And for as much as I questioned the Truth of this, [that is, that the Doctor was of this Opinion] and being desirous to know his Judgment, and whether he owned any such printed Letter, I did therefore write to him, and received this following Letter from him, viz.

Dr. Barlow's Letter.

SIR,

I Understand by your Letter (and the Books you mention, which I have since read) that some late Writers have made use of my name, (giving me the Title of Dr. of the Chair in Oxon) and cite (as they say) a printed Letter of mine, wherein I declare my Judgment against Infant-Baptism.

You desire to know of me, (who should best know my own Opinion) whether or (how far) those things are true which they say, and cite in my name? And therefore out of that respect, which is due, and I owe to Truth and you; and that I may undeceive others, and give you that satisfaction which you so civilly desire, I shall crave leave to tell you (and all whom it may concern) these few things.

1st. That 'tis a great mistake, to call me Doctor of the Chair in Oxon, when it cannot be unknown to any who know that University, that a very Reverend p. 88and far more worthy **Dr. Richard Allestree, the worthy Provost of Eaton-Colledg.Person possesseth, and (with great Learning and general Approbation of all) performs the Duties of that great place.

2dly. That never any thing of mine was printed (by any knowledg or Permission of mine) against the received Doctrine or Practice of Paedo-Baptism, as it is warranted and approved by the Church of England.

3dly. That (about twenty years ago) Mr. Tombes writ to a then Reverend (since a Right-Reverend) person of the University, desiring himꝰ to examine, and give him the true meaning of certain places in Tertullian, and some of the Ancient Fathers, which were usually produced for Infant-Baptism. That Reverend Person, whom I was bound (for many Reasons) to obey, commanded me (who had more time, though less ability) to examine those Quotations, and return an Answer to Mr. Tombes: which I did, in a Letter then sent him: and (as Mr. Baxter ††In his Book entit. More proofs of Infants Church-membership, pag. 343.truly sayes) this is that secret Letter which they are pleased to cite.

4. I acknowledg that such words as are cited by Mr. **In his Treatise of Baptism. London, 1674. pag. 65, 66.Danvers (and such others, spoke and Writ then, with more Confidence than Judgment or Discretion) are in that Letter, which had been secret still, if some had not betrayed that trust which was reposed in them.

5. Lastly, It is to be considered, that that Letter was ††Anno. 1656.writ about twenty years ago, p. 89(when I talk't more, and understood less) and yet what-ever Doubts or Objections I had then against Infant-Baptism; I never thought them so considerable, as to warrant any Division, or Schismatical disturbance of the Peace of my Mother the Church of England: And therefore I did then, and since, and (when I have a just call, God willing) ever shall Baptize Infants, according to that Form and those Rites, which our Church has prescribed in her Sacred Office for Infant-Baptism. In short, Mr. Baxter's candid and charitable **Pag. 343. of his Book before cited.Answer for me, [That 'tis not likely that I, who have subscribed the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England, will be against Infant-Baptism] I shall endeavour to make good. I have (with Assent and Consent) Subscribed our Liturgie and Articles: and (God willing) never shall practise, or print, or say any thing in contempt of, or contradiction to the Doctrine, or those innocent Ceremonies contained in them.

foreign. T. B. Oxon Apr. 13. 1675.

Our 3d testimony is Origen, who in divers places of his Works, as in his Homilies upon Rom. 6. saith, The Church received a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism to little Children: the same we have again in his Homilies and Luke 14.

To this Mr. Danvers Objects.

p. 901. That of Dr. Taylor, That Origen is but one single Testimony.

2. That his Writings are notoriously corrupt, and particularly in the point of Baptism.

3. Many of his works, and particularly those that treat of Baptism, fell into ill hands.

In answer to the first; Let Dr. Taylor in his later Discourse of the consideration of the Church in Baptizing the Children of Believers, answer Dr. Taylor in his former Book of the Liberty of Prophesy, where he saith, that Origen is but one single Testimony. In his later Discourse (put out since) he cites Justin and Irenaeus, saying positively, That the Tradition of Baptizing Infants passed through Irenaeus his hands. So then he, by this acknowledgeth that we have more than the single Testimony of Origen: and if he hath put forth any thing else since in contradiction to it, I may say his words are not much to be credited, for we know not where to find him.

2. Origen's Writings (saith he) are corrupt: who denies it in some things? So are Tertullian's, so are all the Fathers. To which Mr. Danvers vauntingly replyes, Let both Origen and Tertullian go together, only I shall thereby have the better bargain; for Mr. Wills in parting with Origen parts with all, but I have many more to witness for me besides.

To which I only say, I wish I could see them, or if it were possible to speak with them face to face, as I lately did with Dr. Barlow, 'tis very like I should have the same account of their Judgments, as I had of his; And let Mr. Danvers know, that one word of solid Reason, hath more weight in it, and is more taking with the judicious, than all his Thrasonical p. 91Boasts and calumniating reflections?

3. His Works fell into ill hands; which is true of some, yet not all of those that treat of Baptism: for I tell him in Infant-Baptism Asserted p. 135. that Origen's Homilies on the Romans and Luke, are translated by Jerom, and to be esteemed Authentick, quoting Erasmus for it: and for this Mr. Danvers falls foul on me, this being another of his great charges in his Preface, that I abuse Erasmus, who saith quite contrary to what he saith I father on him. As 1. That the Translation of the Homilies on the Romans appeared to him to be Ruffinus's and not Jeroms. 2. That the Preface to the Translation which represents it as Jerom's was a cheat of the Bookseller, as Erasmus notes.

To this I answer, 1st. That Erasmus doth not say that the Homilies upon the Romans, set forth as translated by Jerom, were Ruffinus's Homilies, and not Origen's. 2. The Magdeburgs reckoning up the legitimate Works of Jerom in the story of his Life, do mention that of translating Origen on the Romans to be one, and that according to the Judgment of Erasmus, Cent. 4. Cap. 10. p. 1218. Extant inter Origenis Opera Latinè facta quaedam quorum interpres fuit Hieronimus, Erasmi judicio: that is, among the works of Origen, some are translated into Latin by Jerom, in the Judgment of Erasmus; and then they nam which they are, as follows. As the Homilies upon Jeremy, which have Jerom's Preface to them, the Homilies upon Ezekiel, the 39. Homilies upon Luke cum Praefatione Hieronymi, with Jeroms Preface, and ten Books of Origen's Comments upon the Romans. [there's that which will clear me against all Mr. Danver's reproaches] cum ejusdem praefatione, with p. 92Jerom's Preface. I appeal now to the Reader, whether I had not good Authority for what I said, That according to Erasmus's judgment Jerom translated Origen on the Romans. You see from whence I had mine information, The Magdeburgs affirm that both Translation and Preface too were Jerom's, and Mr. Danvers knew it to be so, for in my Answer I directed him to the Century and page in the Magdeburgensian History, from whence I had it. And therefore 'tis a sorry trick, of him to slur me as he hath done in this thing, and make such an Exclamation against me. What credit is to be given unto Mr. Wills let all men judg! he might rather have said what credit is to be given to the Magdeburgs (and their excellent History as Mr. D. calls it) let all men judg! for if I was deceived, they deceived me. 3. I have yet further to say, and that is that I have another to speak on my behalf, Dr. Hammond (of no small note for his knowledg in Antiquity, and perhaps not inferior to Erasmus) who tells us in his Letters of Resolution, p. 215. that though we have not Origen upon the Romans in Greek, yet being translated by Jerom, and so owned by him in his Epistle to Heraclius, prefixt before the Commentary, we have his Authority to secure us that the words [about Infant-Baptism] were Origens. And let it be supposed that Jerom did not translate those on the Romans, and that the Homilies themselves are spurious, and none of Origens; Yet those on Luke pass for current without controul, and there the point of Infant-Baptism is as fully asserted, as in the other place on the Romans.

Against this also Mr. Danvers hath borrowed a scrap from Mr. Tombes (who finding nothing in Erasmus Censures) hath yet by good hap hit upon a p. 93word in Erasmus Comment on Luke 1. 3. The words of Erasmus are [For so he seems to think, whosoever he was, whose Commentaries are extant upon Luke under the title of Admantius] which shews (saith Mr. Tombes) that Erasmus took them not to be Origens, or at least doubted thereof.

It is very remarkable that Mr Tombes should spy out this passage, much more that he should comment thus upon it. For what Erasmus speaks of Origen upon Luke, might as well be said of every Book; nor can any man say posatively these are the Books written by Justin Martyr, or Tertullian; so that to interpret that passage of Erasmus for a doubt is but a meer Cavil.

But that he doubted not that Jerom translated Origen on Luke, take his own clear word for it in his Censure, Homil. In Lucam, Dubium non est quin 39 Homilias in Lucam verterit Hieronimus, quod ipse palam in praefatione profitetur. There is no doubt to be made of it, saith he, that Jerom translated the 39 Homilies on Luke: And if Jerom translated them (as there is no doubt according to Erasmus) then we need not doubt but he did it from the Original Copy of Origen.

Judg now Reader what Mr. D. hath got in this Business, notwithstanding all the Clutter he hath kept with his boastings and defamings: we see by what is said, That we have Infants-Baptism owned as from the Apostles by Origen on Luke [whatever becomes of that on the Romans,] and translated by Jerom, of which Erasmus doth not in the least doubt; so that the Fabrick stands yet upright never like to be demolisht by Mr. Danvers, what-ever great exploits he hath done heretofore in the days of his Colonelship.

p. 94Our last Testimony is from Cyprian against whom also he hath something to say, though methinks that of Vossius is enough to silence all☞ Cavils, viz. That the Testimony of Cyprian, for Infants-Baptism both in his time and before, is beyond all exception. And Grotius speaks to the same purpose, viz. That the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus maks the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infants-Baptism.

Against this he gives in three Exceptions,☞ in his Treatise of Baptism, presented again in his Reply; as First, Infants-Baptism is not urged by Cyprian for an Apostolical Tradition, nor upon any Authority of Scripture, but upon his Own, and Bishops Arguments; though if he should have said it was an Apostolical Tradition, his word, he saith, would have no more been taken than when he tells us Chrysm was so. To which I replyed, in my Answer, That though Cyprian did not say it was Apostolical; yet it follows not he did not own it as such: yea, to put it out of doubt, the Magdeburgs tell us he did own it as Apostolical, Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 6. p. 496. But what though the Magdiburgs tell us so (saith he) that's no more than if Mr. Wills had said it: Strange! that such venerable persons as those famous Divines were, that have written such an excellent History, as Mr. Danvers else-where terms it, should be of no more credit with him than my self, whom he so much vilifieth? But hath he not forgotten what he speaks just before, That Cpyrian held Chrysin to be an Apostolical Tradition? and is it not strange! that he should not hold the same of Pedobaptism? But whether he did or not, is not material to the point which is now before us; p. 95for we are inquiring de facto, what was done in Cyprian's time, as to the Baptizing Children; not de jure, upon what ground they did it, or whether 'twas esteemed Apostolical: if the practice was owned 'tis as much as we need to put by Mr. Danvers's Cavil; and that it was so, Mr. Tombes his great Tutor, had never the face to deny, but confesseth plainly, That it was a truth, that Cyprian assured Fidus, that by the unanimous consent of sixty-six Bishops gathered together in a Council, Baptism was to be administred to Infants, as well as grown men. Tombes Examen, page 11. And since Cyprian flourished in 250 according to Perkins, and Usher placeth him in 240, what is become of Mr. Danvers proposition, That Believers Baptism was the only true Baptism for near 300 years after Christ, page. 3. of his Reply? Mr. Tombes himself doth lend us his helping hand to pluck down this rotten fabrick. I am not willing to let any thing pass, that may blind the weaker sort of Readers, and therefore shall go on with him: If Cyprian (saith he) should have said Infants-Baptism had been an Apostolical Tradition, his word would have been no sooner taken, than when he tells us, Chrysm was so. This crambe we had in effect long since by Mr. Tombes in his Exercitation: There were many other things (saith he) went under the name of a Tradition, which were but meer humane Inventions: What then? Ergo Infant-Baptism, which went under the name of a Tradition, is also human Invention. Shall I shew (saith Mr. Marshal) the natural face of this Argument in a glass? such and such men, who went under the name of honest men, were knaves, Ergo all that go under the name of honest men, are p. 96knaves: 'Tis true (saith he) many things in those days went under the name of Apostolical Tradition which were but humane Inventions; and 'tis as true, [as before is fully shewn] that many points of faith went in the same ages, under the name of Tradition. But to proceed,

His second Exception is, because it is questionable, whether there were ever such a Council. This is to lay the Ax to the root of the tree. But to this I answer:

1. The Magdiburgs do not question it, but own it as authentick, as any of the rest of the Councils, Cent. 3. C. 9. p. 203.

2. Mr. Tombes was so wise as never to question it, in all the contest he had with Mr. Marshall, and others that ever I observed. But why should we question it? Why? because (saith he,) there is no place mentioned where that Council was kept. What if I say 'twas at Carthage? no doubt Mr. Danvers would then give me the lye: and yet Dr. Featly calls it the Council of Carthage; and well he might, because Cyprian was Bishop of that place. And for his further satisfaction, that he might not cavil against the being of this Council, I reckon up in my Infants-Baptism divers of the Ancients that make mention of it with high Esteem; as Nazianzen, Crysostom, [Greek Fathers] Ambrose, Austin, Jerom, of the Latines. So that I conceive Mr. Danvers is very perverse to question it. And as much weakness follows, in that he saith; It was no Argument, it was a Decree of such a Council, because so many had a good esteem of it, for the same Fathers esteemed very well of Chrysm, &c. But when I speak of an esteem of it, my meaning is, That they did not judg it a fictitious Council, but a real one, p. 97which is obvious. I wonder Mr. Danvers should not apprehend it. But since he is not a man of that Sagacity as I thought him, but runs on upon a falle scent, I shall leave him. A second Reason of his doubt, is because the grounds brought by Cyprian for Infant-Baptism are weak: and because I gave no answer thereto in my Infant-Baptism, Mr. D. taxeth me, and it is one of the Charges in his Preface to the Reply, That I am notoriously partial in my Answers all the Book through, replying to what I judg weak, and leaving other unanswered. Whenas I profess, I let many things pass because of their weakness, and have even wearied my self out with making answers to his Impertinencies. I could have given him the same answer, which Mr. Marshall did to Mr. Tombes near 30 years since, when he objected the weakness of Cyprian's grounds, viz. If what Cyprian spake was weighed in the Ballance of his judgment, it would not be found light: and even Mr. Tombes himself confesseth, that Jerom and Austin, relyed upon that Epistle for the proving of Baptizing Infants: which acknowledgment (saith Mr. Marshall) strengthens my opinion of the worth of Cyprians grounds; for two such eminent men would not have relyed on that which had no weight in it. But what are the weak grounds which Mr. Danvers mentions?

1. Because he and his Council held, that Baptism was simply necessary to Salvation. But is not this more than Mr. Danvers can prove? I do not find the Magdiburgs mention it; although Mr. Tombes saith, Tossanus notes it for Cyprian's Error, That Infants should be baptized ne pereant, lest they perish.

2. That it washeth away original sin, so as it is never to be imputed. This is the judgment of many p. 98learned Protestant Divines, especially the famous Dr. Davenant in his Epistle speaks positively, Omnes Infantes baptizati, ab originalis peccati reatu absolvuntur. Others are not so general, but conceive it to be a truth with respect to Elect Infants: and they judg they have good reason to conclude, that since they must be discharged from the guilt of Original sin, or cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, God doth apply the Blood of his Son to them, in the use of that Ordinance of Baptism.

3. Because the Grace of God is to be tendred to all, therefore all Children should be Baptized. I see no such weakness in this; for though it be laid down in such general terms, that Grace is to be tendred to all, and none hindred from coming to Christ; yet, as Mr. Marshal observes, what he saith, ought to be understood of the Church, because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed, or purified; and 'twas concerning such, that Fidus stood in need to be informed, as to the time of Baptizing; and the Magdeburgs conjecture, that Fidus Episcopus ad Cyprianum scripserat, he had written to Cyprian about it.

4. Because Children have lesser sins than others. This is harsh: but you must know, this is Mr. Danvers's dress. The Magdeburgs express it otherwise, thus; Si quid hominem impedire a baptismo, potius adultos, peccata sua arcere deberent, quam Infantes, qui nihil peccaverunt, nisi quod ex peccato Originis vitia trahant; which is to this effect: Grown Persons should rather keep off from Baptism by reason of their Sins, than Infants, which have contracted no guilt but that which is Original. I hope there is no great hurt in this.

5. Because in their first birth they do nothing but pray, crying, and weeping. Well said Mr. Danvers! p. 99the words are these; Because in their first beginning (or birth) crying and weeping, they can do nothing but call for Mercy: which (what ever ignorant people may think of it) is a high strain of Rhetorick in Cyprian, importing only, that Children are objects of Mercy.

6. Because the Soul that is not baptized is lost. This is to the same purpose with the first: but the Magdeburgs have it not, nor Dr. Taylor, who translates the Epistle to Fidus out of the Greek, at the end of his Consideration of the practice of the Church of Baptizing Infants. Therefore Mr. Danvers must find it elsewhere, or else he split the first Reason into two; cujus est dar…, ejus est disponere.

There are two other things which he brings as reasons why he questions this Council, which are very frivolous; as That Tertullian, Cyprian's Master, was against Infants-Baptism; which is not so absolutely, for he was for it in danger of Death: and the other is, That many things were fathered on Cyprian which were none of his. If I should let but this one pass, Mr. Danvers would cry out against me for partiality. But, why should he fancy that this of Infants-Baptism, was one of those things fathered upon Cyprian? when the Council is owned by the Magdeburgs, the Fathers Greek and Latine, and even by Mr. Tombes himself, as before.

His third Reason I have spoken to already, being co-incident with the latter part of his first.

One thing I had almost forgotten, and that is; whereas in my Infant-Baptism Asserted, I tell Mr. Danvers, that his pretended Witness Tertullian was as corrupt as Cyprian, and that the Magdeburgs inform us that he was the first inventor of Chrysm, p. 100and that Cyprian belike took it up from him; he retorts in his Reply thus, That if Tertullian was the first inventor of Chrysm, which Cyprian calls an Apostolical Tradition, what credit then (saith he) is to be given to his Testimony that dare to avouch so fearful a Lye? A rude speech! altogether unfit to be uttered against so glorious a Martyr as Cyprian was; but any thing is good enough to be spoken in contempt of those who are for Infant-Baptism. But I assure the Reader, that as there is no good Manners, so neither is there truth in that passage of Mr. D's: for I cannot find that Cyprian held Chrysm an Apostolical Tradition; it being not reckon'd amongst his Naevi, which after the Magdeburg's account are six, and the last is, Sumpsit Ceremonias, ex Traditionibus Montani a Tertulliano, consecrationem & unctionem post Baptismum; That is, he took up the Ceremonies, viz. Consecration and Unction, (that is, Chrism) from Tertullian out of the Traditions of Montanus. Here's nothing of Apostolical Tradition. And Hamelmannus shews what Traditions Cyprian held, that he took up the Ceremonies of Consecration and Unction from Tertullian, but not a word of calling it an Apostolical Tradition.

There is nothing in this Section more, but only that Mr. Danvers doth endeavour to vindicate himself from a mistake about Austin's words, which I charged upon him; but it is so intricate and dark, that I do not very well understand him. Also there is some disparagement cast by him upon that blessed Martyr of Jesus Christ, Mr. Philpot, and a fling against the New-England way of baptizing the Children only of In-Churched Parents, with some other Reflections which I let pass as futilous, having no mind to spend time in such small matters.