Vindication of a Late Treatise on Infant Baptism, Chapter 3

Vindication of a Late Treatise on Infant Baptism · Chapter 3

p. 101CHAP. III.

Wherein Mr. Danvers endeavours to vindicate his Witnesses against my Exceptions, and the same examined and found insufficient.

1. HE begins with particular persons; but first minds me, with my penuriousness in my Preface to Infants-Baptism, where I allow him from the first Century to the end of the twelfth only two Persons against Infant-Baptism, viz. Adrianus, and Hincmarus. But what will he think of me now? for I have denied him those two also, as before; and have shewed the ground of the mistake why they have been looked upon under the notion of Antipedobaptists.

The first witness mentioned is Tertullian, who (saith Mr. Danvers) opposeth it in six Arguments. We shall inquire into them by and by. Mr. Danvers saith true, that I acknowledg Tertullian hath divers passages seemingly against Infants-Baptism: but, according to his humor, he is catching me up before I am down: for he calls upon the Reader to take notice, that his witness is owned by me. And is it not a very great owning indeed, to say, he hath divers passages that seem to be against it? But in the 38 page of my Infant Baptism, I give a Reason why it's more than probable that Tertullian was for Infant-Baptism; in the 41 page, That he was no more against their baptizing, than of grown persons baptizing; and in the 43 page, we shewed that the Reason why he would have Infants-Baptism delayed, p. 102was, not because he judged it unlawful, but inexpedient; for he was for it, rather than the Child should dye unbaptized. And now I tell Mr. Danvers further, that as for those seeming passages against Infant-Baptism, they are spoken in reference to the Children of Pagans, not Believers, according to the judgment of Estius and other Learned Men: for (as Mr. Marshal observes) Tertullian in that Book of his de Baptismo c. 18. speaks of the Baptism of such as were not born of Christian Parents, and therefore desires the Baptism of such Infants should be deferred till they come to years, and be able to make confession of their sins, and profession of Faith, their Parents being Infidels, and their Sponsors mortal. And that this is the meaning of the place, seemed evident to him, because in the 39 chap. of his Book de Anima, Tertullian acknowledgeth that the Children of Believers had a priviledg tam ex Seminis praerogativa, quam ex institutionis disciplina; a prerogative by their birth, besides that of their Education. And by this time me thinks Mr. Danvers should be sick of his Witness Tertullian, as Mr. Marshal said to Mr. Tombes in the same case.

As touching the Reasons which Tertullian urgeth for the delay of the Baptism of Infants, and which Mr. Danvers undertakes to Vindicate as proper and good, against those who would make those words, Suffer little children to come unto me, to be a coming to Baptism, I shall only remind him with two or three things.

1. With what we have from the Magdiburgs Cent. 3. c. 4. p. 83. Sentit Tertullianus in libro de Baptismo, mira opinione, pueros non tam cito baptizandos osse, at que ad illud Matthaei 19. Nolite parvulos prohibere p. 103&c. Tertullian (say they) is of a strange opinion to disswade the Baptizing of Children by such Reasons as he gives in his paraphrase upon the 19 of Matthew.

2. None that ever I heard of, have brought this Text of coming to Christ, as a full and direct proof for baptizing of Children, or have urged that the coming there was a coming to Christ for Baptism, who never Baptized any; nevertheless it proves two points, which lay a good foundation for Infants-Baptism. 1. That the Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as grown persons. 2. That Infancy is no Bar or exclusion of any from coming to Christ and receiving a Blessing. Infants are capable of receiving benefit by Christ, though they do not actually believe; though they cannot lay hold on Christ, yet Christ can lay hold on them, and bless them.

Object. But Baptism is not concerned in the Text, except it can be made out that Blessing was Baptizing.

To this I replyed in my former Answer, That it's true, Blessing is not Baptizing, but 'tis something more; and Christ in Blessing them, vouchsafed that to them, which usually was as an Ordinance administred after Baptism, and which is of an higher nature, and so we may argue from this to Baptism inclusively, or à majori, from the greater to the less. 2. And further, though Blessing be not Baptism, yet in as much as they were of the Kingdom of Heaven whom he blest [let it be meant if you will of the Kingdom of Glory, it supposeth that they must be first of the Kingdom of Grace, and were of the visible Church, and so it comes all to one] it follows, they were qualified Subjects for Baptism. For, grant to p. 104Children a Church relation (as I have proved it is their Right), and their right to Baptism will unavoidably follow upon it. Mr. Danvers might have done well to have shewn us the weakness of our arguings from this Text, as containing in it a good foundation for Infants-Baptism, instead of undertaking to vindicate Tertullian's Paraphrase thereon, grounded on a mistake, as if Pedobaptists made the word Come in the Text, to be a coming to Baptism. And for Tertullian's reasons against Childrens coming to Baptism, I shall not scruple upon second thoughts, to say they are childish ones, and the Magdeburgs wonder at their silliness.

For, 1. (saith he) Children cannot come till they are elder, till they know & are taught why they come; and may not the same be as well urged against the circumcising Children of old? Let them stay till they are older, till they can know what the Ordinance meaneth.

2. And then for the weightiness of the Ordinance, in which regard he would have them forbear; were there not also many deep Mysteries wrapt up in Circumcision? As that it was a seal of the Covenant. Did it not shadow forth the mortification of Sin, Regeneration, and Redemption by the blood of Christ? And was it not a ridiculous reason which he gave why young men, and those who were newly married, and young widows should delay Baptism? namely, That the lust of concupiscence should be first extinguisht. One would rather have supposed, that the Ordinance might have proved a Remedy against such violent passions as they were supposed to be subject to: for the more temptation any state is obnoxious to, the more need it hath of p. 105Helps, specially such as do not only lay ingagments, but contribute strength, as Mr. Geree speaks. Most of the rest of his reasons, as our Divines observe, do argue that his words for the putting off Infants-Baptism, are to be expounded of Aliens; as that about not giving holy things to dogs; and that of the Inconveniency by reason of the mortality of Sponsors, or Sureties, for in that Chapter he is speaking of Infidels as we have shewed before.

But Mr. Danvers being willing to make the most of a little, will not by any means part with this witness (such as it is) and therefore brings in Dr. Barlow to confirm it, that Tertullian disliked Infants-Baptism, as unwarrantable and irrational: but the Doctor having now declared his Judgment, I hope Mr. Danvers will for the future forbear quoting him as he hath done. Then we have Daille, Scultetus, and the Magdiburgs &c. But we have told you before, from learned men, that it is to be understood of the children of Pagans; to which we may add, the Judgment of Junius (that famous Expositor) concurring with them.

As for the Testimony he brings from B. Rhenanus of the ancient Custom of baptizing those of full growth, we have spoken to it already, and shewed how grosly Mr. Danvers did mistake him. And for the rest of his Regiment, Vincentius, Victor, Heribertus, Cresconius, Fulgentius, Regienses, Albanus, the Swermers, Arnoldus, Henricus, &c. We shall confer with him about these, or the most of them, very shortly; and when this is over, he wil have no need to complain of my silence (which he saith gives consent to the whole) or of my unfair and disingenuous dealing.

p. 106Lastly, he endeavours to clear himself from some exceptions, which I have made against some of his witnesses, saying they are frivolous; which whether it be so, I leave to the Reader to judg.

1. I tell him Berinus is nothing to his purpose: because it is evident that his Sayings have respect to Pagans: But that he conceives will not do, because Berinus saith, Baptism ought not to be administred to any without Instruction. But I must tell Mr. Danvers, that Bede saith no such thing, lib. 4. c. 16. nor anywhere else that I can find. Indeed l. 3. c. 7. Bede tells us of Berinus, that Britanniam perveniens, ac primum Genissorum gentem ingrediens, cum omnes ibidem Paganos inveniret, utilius esse ratus ibi potius Verbum Dei praedicare, quam ultra progrediens eos quibus praedicare deberet requirere: ita que evangelizante illo in prefata provincia, cum Rex ipse catechizatus fonte Baptismi cum sua gente ablueretur &c. But what is this to Mr. D's. purpose? Berinus herein did as all Pedobaptists would have done: and if Mr. D. can gather from hence that Berinus affirmed that Baptism ought not to be administred to any (be they within the Church or without) without Instruction, I think he will go far beyond either T. Aquinas or Mr. Baxter in the profoundness of his speculation, and subtilty of his distinction; there being none, I am confident besides himself, able to perform such an undertaking.

2. Next I blame him for bringing in Durandus for Believers Baptism in opposition to that of Infants, when he expresseth himself positively for Infants-Baptism, and most severely against the Anabaptists. For this he hath nothing to excuse himself, but that Durandus is in his Index, but he doth not know how, put in among the witnesses.

p. 1073. I charge him with another falshood, in b…inging in the Bishop of Apamen among his witnesses: because, though he were for Rebaptization of such as he conceived were not rightly baptized, yet was he not an Anabaptist, as the word is now taken, for being against Infants-Baptism. Of this he would excuse himself if he could, by telling us the late Century-Writers do call him so in a modern sense; which is notoriously untrue.

4. I charge him for abusing Peter Bruis, having nothing to evidence that he denyed Infants-Baptism but the lying Stories of Abbots: but he saith he produced three or four evidences more to prove it. But I can find only two, Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1. in the 290 page. The first is that of the Magdeburgs, Cent. 12. p. 843. where they tell us nothing but what they take from Cluniacensis, and so name his Hypotheses, or Opinions, quoting that Abbot for every thing: But withal manifest their suspicion that he wronged him with an utinam vero ipsius Petri scripta extarent, ex quibus multo rectius facere Judicium liceret, quam ex illis, qui in defensionem Pontificiarum abominationum conspirarunt: Would to God the writings of Peter Bruis were extant, for out of them we might give a truer Judgment, than from them who have conspired to defend the Popish Abominations. And then again (say they) non est certum &c. It is not certain, that they were for the rebaptization of Children baptiz'd in their Infancy, when they come to be of Age, nam malevoli quaedam commentiti sunt, p. 836. they feign some things, & then fasten them per vitiosas consequentias, by vicious consequences. The other is Osiander, & he takes it up at second hand from the Magdiburgs; & saith withal, that what Peter p. 108Bru… and others are charged with, 'tis from their Enemies; and 'tis uncertain whether they held those things: for the Papists did charge them with gross things, because they inveighed against their Idolatry; Osiander Cent. 12. L. 3. C. 3. And when I read these passages in the Century-writers, I could not but wonder Mr. Danvers should have no more Conscience of what he writes; and thus go about to delude the Reader, by telling him he quotes others besides those lying Abbots in this matter.

5. I accuse him for traducing Wickliff, he having no ground at all to say he denyed Infants-Baptism; and when I discoursed with Dr. Barlow, I told him this story that Mr. Danvers confidently reports that Wickliff was of their way: to which he presently said, I have Wickliff by me, and could never observe any such thing in him.

But how doth Mr. Danvers make good what he affirms of Wickliff? why, he tells us he hath produced much evidence to prove it pag. 283: even to 289 of his Treatise of Baptism Edit. 2. demonstrating not only that Believers were the only subjects of Baptism, but withal, that Children were not Sacramentally to be baptized.

To this I replyed in the Recapitulation at the end of my Answer, that the name of Wickliff being famous, Mr. Danvers would fain get somthing out of him for his turn. But I must tell Mr. D. that all that he hath produced to prove Wickliff against Infant-Baptism, is very insufficient to prove him so. His asserting, that there are only two Sacraments; and that Believers are to be baptized in pure water, thô they have received the Baptism of the Spirit, is very insignificant to his purpose. His 3d Assertion indeed p. 109is considerable, if Mr. Danvers can prove he ever said so, viz: That Believers are the only subjects of Baptism; as appears (sayes he) in his 11 Chap-Trial: where he saith, that persons are first to be baptized with that he calls the first or insensible Baptism, viz. in the blood of Christ, before they are baptized in water; without which their Baptism in water profits not. One would think this was certainly so, because Mr. Danvers is so free as to give us Wickliffs own words, which he subjoyns to his translation. But it thereby appears he hath so grosly perverted the sense, that I cannot conjecture the reason of his so doing, unless he presum'd his quoting the Original would satisfie the Reader he had rightly translated it, and so supersede any further examination. If that was his design 'twas boldly done; but the discovery doth not advance his Reputation. For Wickliff doth not say that persons are first to be baptized with the insensible Baptism, as Mr. D. would make us believe, but only this, that one without the other avails not to Salvation. And how doth this prove Believers the only subjects of Baptism? The rest of his proofs are just like these, that is, very insignificant; because indeed Wickliff was for Infant-Baptism, as I could plainly demonstrate from his own words. But Mr. Baxter hath saved me that labour, having done it so substantially already in his Answer to Mr. D. (see his More proofs for Infant-Baptism, lately printed) p. 354, &c. as must needs satisfie all impartial Readers, and convince Mr. D. himself of his mistake, if he is not resolved to stand out against the clearest evidences: To him therefore I refer them both. But suppose Wickliff had not been so very express in his words as to this point; p. 110yet his making an apparent difference between the children of Believers and others, in his saying, Quod definientes, not, desinentes (as Mr. D.) parvulos fidelium sine baptismo sacramentali, decedentes non fore salvandos in hoc presumptuosi et stolidi. And that ample Testimonial which the University of Oxford gave him, is enough (if we had no more) to confront Mr. D. although he had the confidence to print them both in his Treatise of Baptism, from whence the Reader hath ground enough to infer (unless he first supposes Wickliff considered not what he wrote, and the whole University were Anabaptists) that he was not against Infants-Baptism. And give Mr. D. as good ground to expunge Wickliff out of his Index of witnesses as Durandus.

In the last place, he complains of another piece of injurious dealing in me, and that is for fathering so notorious a Fallacy upon the Reader, and Abuse upon him; because I charge him for bringing in a great Bed-Roll of Witnesses against Infants-Baptism, when those men were so firmly for it, as Austin, Chrisostom, &c. And that Mr. Danvers is blame-worthy for so doing (nowithstanding his equivocation) appears by this: for though he would excuse himself, by saying they were not in his Catalogue, yet they are found in his 7th Chapter of his Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 1. which serves to prove that Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism; and that I do not wrong him, let the Reader Judg, when he hath lookt upon the Contents of the same just▪ after the Preface, as also the 56 Page of the first Edition Chap. 7.

p. 111His pretended Witnesses the Waldenses, found not to be against Infants-Baptism, but for it, and what is said to the Contrary, answered.

That the Waldenses were against Infants-Baptism he labours to prove by a four-fold Demonstration. (1) from their Confessions of Faith: (2) the Witness thereto by their most eminent men: (3) from the decrees of Councils, Popes, and Emperours, against the body of the people for the same: (4) from the footsteps thereof they have left in the several Regions, and Countries where they have been dispersed.

To which I replyed in the first place: (1) That there are no such Confessions to be found; Infants-Baptism Asserted p. 46. (2) That the quite contrary appears by their Confessions of Faith, witnessing how firmly they did assert Infants-Baptism, p. 40. and 64. of the same Book.

To both which Mr. Danvers makes reply, (viz) that it may be manifest to the Reader that their Confessions do exclude Infants from Baptism, and witha gives in a parallel betwixt what their Confessions say, and what (as he words it) I make them to say, and so leaves it to the Reader to judg, how fairly I have dealt therein; and truly 'tis my desire also that the Reader compare us with the Confessions, and see which of us hath dealt most fairly or foully with them.

There are five Confessions of the Waldenses, besides some passages out of a Treatise, to which Mr. Danvers hath recourse for information touching their Faith and Practice about Baptism.

There are two things, to be observed in US, in reference to these Confessions.

p. 1121. What Mr. Danvers picks out of them for his purpose as he conceives.

2. Whether I have offered any Violation, by mangling the Confessions, or leaving out any thing that is material against Infants-baptism, which I desire the Reader the more diligently to note, because this is another of his great charges against me in his Preface.

1. The first Confession that is quoted by Mr. Danvers in his Treatise of Baptism bears date 1220, of which this is the 13 Article (viz.) They say we acknowledg no other Sacraments but Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. I have not left out a word of this; and I told him in my answer, that to bring this Article, was rather a witness of his own weakness than against Infants-Baptism, and therefore upon second thoughts this is cashier'd, for we have it not in the Reply.

The next is the 28 Article of another Confession, That God doth not only instruct us by his Word, but has also ordained certain Sacraments to be joyn'd with it, as a means to unite unto, and to make us partakers of his benefits, and that there be only two. In my Answer, I left out the begining of this Article, that is, [that God instructs us by his Word] which I am sure containeth nothing in it against Infants-Baptism; and also the latter part of the Article, which runs thus [belonging in Common to all the Members of the Church, under the New-Testament (viz) Baptism and the Lords Supper.]

Another ancient Confession of Faith hath this, Artic. 7. We do believe that in the Sacrament of Baptism, Water is the visible and external sign, which represents unto us that (which by the invisible vertue p. 113of God operating) is within us, the Renovation of the Spirit, and mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ, by which also we are receiv'd into the holy Congregation of the people of God, there professing and declaring openly our Faith, and Amendment of Life. Here was left out a Parenthesis (viz) (by the invisible vertue of God operating) and the last Clause, by which also we are received into the Congregation &c. And with respect to this Article, I have this saying in my Answer, namely, that there is a Harmony between all the Protestant Churches in the World, and the Waldenses (in this Article.)

The next is out of Vigniers History, where the words are thus: They expresly declare, to receive the Canon of the Old and New Testament, and to reject all Doctrines which have not their foundations in it, or are in any thing contrary to it: therefore all the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome they condemn and abominate, saying she is a den of thieves, and the Apocalyptical Harlot. This Confession Mr. Danvers hath left out in his Reply, and I know not the reason, unless it be beeause I have every word of it exactly, and it would have hurt his Parallel if it had been set down.

In their Ancient Confession, Artic. 11. We esteem for an Abomination and Antichristian, all Humane inventions, as a trouble & prejudice to the liberty of the Spirit. And in their Ancient Catechism thus; When humane Traditions are observed for Gods Ordinances, then is he worshipped in vain, and which is done when Grace is attributed to the external Ceremonies, and persons enjoyned to partake of Sacraments, without faith and Truth. I have also set down every word of this, p. 114and made this Paraphrase on it in my Answer. This is a good Testimony against humane Traditions, but doth not in the least touch Infantsbaptism, as also against the Popish error, that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato, from the work done: for that's the meaning of attributing Grace to the external Ceremony here mentioned.

In their Ancient Treatise concerning Antichrist they say, that he attributes the regeneration of the Holy-Spirit unto the dead outward work of Baptizing Children into that Faith, [that Faith was omitted] and teaching that thereby Regeneration must be had: the words are, [Baptism and Regeneration, must be had] I left out [Baptism] because it seems to make it nonsense, as it is there placed.

Also the conclusion of the Sentence was pretermitted, which is [grounding therein all his Christianity, which is against the Holy-Spirit.] Upon this Article I have thus Paraphrased in my Answer. Here at last, by good hap, we have the word Children named, but not a jot serving Mr. Danvers his design, for they do not hereby except against Childrens-Baptism, but only against the corrupt ends that Antichrist hath in it; for whether it be in Children or grown Persons, it is an Antichristian, or Popish Tenent, to ascribe Regeneration to the dead outward work of Baptism; and this is that before mentioned, that Baptism confers Grace, ex opere operato. And because the Waldenses did deny that it did thus conser Grace, the Papists, did accuse them that they denied Gratiam Baptismi: And for refusing to have their Children Baptized with the superstitious Rites of Salt, Oyl Spittle, &c. they charg'd them with denying Insant-Baptism. This is the Judgment p. 115of Bishop Usher in his Succession of the Church, where he treats of the Waldenses, and their Faith at large. If I had been mistaken in my Paraphrases upon the above-mentioned Confessions, Mr. Danvers should have rectified me, and forborn the out-cry which he makes in his Preface, for abusing the Consessions of the Waldenses; and some that look no further into a Book than the Preface will suppose me to be guilty of a notorious Crime. But as to this also I freely submit my self to the Judgment of the Reader, and refer it to his consideration, whether Innocency and Truth be not by him rather abused, than vindicated. He chargeth me deeply of unfaithfulness in misrepresenting their Confessions in many material and considerable parts; but I perswade my self an impartial eye cannot discern it; but 'tis easily observed how unfaithful he is at the same time in misrepresenting my words, and fathering that on me, which is not mine, but his own Invention, on purpose, forsooth, that he might have a substratum for his following Queries; for he makes me to say, that there was a Harmony betwixt all the Protestant Churches in the World, (in those Articles) and the Waldenses, because all that are for Infants-Baptism believe the same. Had I said those words in reference to every Article, it had been truth; whereas I do only speak it with Respect to one of them, and that is to the third; and what is spoken by me, with respect to one of them, he represents as spoken of all, the better to Accommodate his Quibling Queries. It is sad to see how much he doth Abuse those Confessions, how he doth wire-draw them; as if they were Homogeneal with Anaxagoras his foreign upon p. 116Aristotle's Record; how he draws quidlibet ex quolibet, every thing out of any thing. Never was any Confessions in the world so prostituted to a corrupt fancy; for thus he begins:

1. Do all the Pedobaptists believe that Baptism and preaching the Word are joyn'd together to instruct the baptized parties, and that thereby they have union with Christ, and partake of his benefits? Observe how Mr. Danvers stumbles at the Threshold, how he preverts the Article. For look back upon the Article, and you will find it doth not say that Baptism and Preaching are joyned together to instruct the Baptized party; Baptism is not mentioned in the Article, though it be included in the word [Sacraments]; afterward the Article speaks thus, That we are instructed by the Word, and then that God hath ordained the Sacraments to be joyned with it, as a means to unite us to him.

2. Do they indeed, saith he, believe the Lord's Supper to belong in common with Baptism to all the Members of the Church? why then do not Infants partake of one as well as the other, since it belongs to them in Common, if Members of the Church? Why, if Mr. Danvers would know the reason, it is this, Because though the Child has a right as a Member to all the Ordinances, yet he is not in a capacity to enjoy his right, thus; That persons may have a right to Ordinances, and yet in no capacity to enjoy them, appears in such as are sick, or those that lose their Reason, that are Church-Members.

3. Do Paedo-baptists indeed with the Waldenses believe, that Water in Baptism is the usual sign, representing to the subjects thereof the invisible vertues p. 117of God operating in them, (viz.) The Renovation of the Spirit, and Mortification of their Members? and can it be truly said it is so to an Infant that is not capable to put forth any act of Faith, Repentance, or Mortification, or discern the least sign in the Water? Yes, it may be said, it is so to an Infant, very well, and that upon as good a ground, as Circumcision shadowed forth Mortification of Sin, Regeneration, though the Israelitish Babes understood none of this. But Mr. Danvers doth ill again in altering the Article, as you may perceive by looking back, for it is not as he represents it: the Article runs thus; We believe that in the Sacrament of Baptism, Water is the visible and external sign (which represents to us) [not representing to the Subjects] for unless I mistake, as it is so worded, it serveth more to his purpose.

4. We agree with the Waldenses in the 4th Article; for we have told Mr. Danvers formerly that Baptism it self is a real, though implicit, profession of Faith, and the express verbal Confession of the Parent is reputed by God to be the Childs, and so it was under the Law, when the Parents humbled themselves, and confessed their sins, and brought their little ones with them, even they also are said to be humbled before the Lord.

5. The 5th Query is precarious, taking that for granted, which we utterly deny, and that is, that the baptizing Children, is an Antichristian humane Invention.

6. Do they believe, saith Mr. Danvers, that Antichrist grounds all Christianity, and Religion in the baptizing of Children, attributing Regeneration to the outward Work done contrary to the Holy-Spirit, p. 118why then, saith he, do they baptize Children, which as acknowledged is the Basis and Foundation of the false Church, and contrary to the Spirit, and for which there is nothing but the Doctrine of Popes, and Antichristian Councils, to warrant it? Not to say any thing of these unworthy reflections, let the Reader once more take notice how he hath also perverted this Article, look back, and you will see what a foreign he makes of it, and Metamorphoseth the Article into another thing; for do but observe, (1.) They do not say Antichrist grounds all Christianity in Baptizing Children; but if they had spoken it, it had not been against Infants-Baptism, but against placing too much in it. (2.) They say Antichrist attributes Regeneration to the dead outward work of Baptizing Children, and that Regeneration must be had thereby, and herein they say, he grounds all Christianity. (3.) It is extreamly scandalous and false for Mr. Danvers to say, that there is nothing for Infants-Baptism, but the decrees of Popes and Antichristian Councils, when we have so fully proved the use of it some hundreds of years before the coming of the Pope, in the sense that the word is commonly taken, (viz.) for Oecumenical Bishop, challenging to himself, and usurping Authority over the whole Church: have we not before told him, of Cyprian, and Nazianzen, and Chrysostom, &c. and was there not a Canon for it in the Milevitan Council, and that before the Pope came in, or any of his Decrees?

So that now, upon consideration of the premises, I suppose the unprejudiced Reader may be confirmed that the Waldenses were for Infant-Baptism, by those very Confessions which Mr. Danvers cites against it▪ p. 119We shall now give you some account of some of their Confessions, which speak them expresly for it.

There is an ancient Confession that we meet with in Dr. Ushers Succession of the Church. c. 8. p. 242. made by the Waldenses about the year 1176. as he takes it from Jacobus Gretserus his proleg. in Script. Edit. contra Waldenses. c. 1. and Hovenden's Annal. fol. 329. the words are, Nos Credimus unum Deum trinum & unum patrem, & filium, & spiritum sanctum, &c. and in the body of the Confession there is this Article, Credimus parvulos salvari per Baptismum, we believe Children are saved by Baptism: which though it speak Error according to the darkness of those times, being about five hundred years since; yet it proves they were for Infant-Baptism, for Gretserus saith they were Waldenses that made this Confession, and not as is falsly suggested, that it was the Inquisitors Confession; for it was made before the Inquisitors, to purge themselves from the Arrian and Manichean Heresies, of which they were accused.

Another Confession, is that published by Balthazar Lydias, which was presented to Uladislaus King of Hungary, where after they have given an account of their Faith in other points, they come to that of Baptism, and having spoken of Adult Baptism, they add, professio ista nostra etiam in pueros extenditur, our Profession concerning Baptism extends also to Children,

But against this Mr. Danvers objects, That this Confession said to be made by the Waldenses in Bohemia to King Uladislaus, were not Waldenses, as they themselves acknowledg in the preamble. And further tells us out of Osiander, that they were a mixt p. 120People of Calextines that separated from Rome in the business of the Cup: Hussites that went further than they; Thaborites that were more thorow for Reformation, and under these were comprehended the Brethren, or Picards, many of whom did oppose Infants-Baptism, whereas Dr. Burigenus that writ their Apology speaks otherwise, and gives this title to it, Apologia verae Doctrinae eorum, qui vulgò appellantur Waldenses, vel Picardi, qui retinuerunt Johannis Hus Doctrinam; (i. e.) The Apology of the true Doctrine of those, who are commonly called Waldenses or Picards, who have retained the Doctrine of John Hus: so that this differs quite from the Tale which Mr. D. hath told us again and again. And whereas he speaks of the Title of the Confession, whereby it appears they disclaim'd the denomination of Waldenses, he might have done well to have quoted some Authour where we might find it: but in defect thereof, I shall bring you an Author, that gives the Title without any hint thereof, and that is Orthuinus Gratius in fasciculo rerum expetendarum, &c. Thus. Nos Homines depressi ac vestrae Majestati humiliter subjecti, contemptibili quoque nomine Amicti, &c.

Burigenus that translated into Latin their Confession from a Bohemian Copy, mentions this Article concerning Baptism, Iam Baptismus Christi aeque ad Pueros, qui ex fide illi offeruntur & consecrantur, atquè ad adultos attinet: The Baptism of Christ doth as well belong to Children, who are offer'd up in Faith, and consecrated to him, as unto grown Persons.

In the History of the Waldenses lib. 1. c. 4. p. 15. so Cent. 6. p. 43. the Waldenses purge themselves from p. 121the charge of denying Infants-Baptism, and shew the reason why for a long time they forbore it, namely, because they could not endure to have it done in the corrupt Popish way: and in the third part of the aforesaid History, we have their Doctrine set down thus; And whereas Baptism is Administred in a full Congregation, and for this cause it is that we present our Children in Baptism, which they ought to do to whom the Children are nearest, as Parents. But Mr. Danvers objects against the Confessions of Provence, so full to the point, that they were in a declining condition, that some of them went to Mass: what then? were they against Infant-Baptism before they declin'd? and did they take up the practice with the Mass? I believe Mr. Danvers doth not think it: and he knows very well they recovered out of this Apostacy, after they had received those godly Admonitions from Oecolampadius and Bucer, and were confirmed in the Truth, and gave proof thereof by their sufferings, in the violent persecution, which happened soon after, and was more raging than ever.

There is one Confession more which Mr. Danvers's Invention will not serve him to say any thing against, and therefore silently pretermits it, and it is that of Angrogne in the year 1535. where an Assembly of the Waldenses, from all the Valleys met, and there they signified what they understood of their Brethren of Provence and Dauphine, namely, that they sent into Germany their Pastors, to confer with Oecolampadius and Bucer touching the belief they had time out of mind, where saith Perin in his History of the Waldenses lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 57. when they had read certain Letters of encouragement sent from Oecolampadius to those of Provence, concluded on p. 122certain Articles as being conformable to the Doctrine which hath been taught from Father to Son for these many hundred years out of the Word of God: and Art. 17 is for Infants-Baptism, thus, Touching thematter of the Sacrament it hath been concluded by the H. Scriptures that we have two Sacramental Signs, the which Christ Jesus hath left unto us, the one is Baptism, the other the Eucharist, which we receive to shew what our perservance in the Faith is, as we have promised when we were baptized being little ones.

This expression, As we have promised when we were baptized being little ones, Mr. Danvers tells us, 2d Ed. pag. 313. is foisted into the Article, though impertinent and nonsensical, because an Infant is not capable to make a promise. But I don't judg Mr. Danvers the fittest in the World to determine what is impertinent and nonsensical. And as wise-men as he, or any of his party, have affirm'd the same, and therefore that doth not prove it to be foisted in. For Instance, The Assembly in their larger Catechism tell us, that, Baptism is a Sacrament, &c. whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible Church, and enter into an open and professed engagement, to be wholy and only the Lords. And in their very next Answer, tell us, the Infants of Believers are to be baptized. And Dr. Manton in the Supplement to the Morning Exercise Serm. 10. tells us, that Baptism is an open and real profession of Christ crucified, and that we must personally and solemnly own the Covenant made with God in Infancy. And many more I could produce, if need were, speaking▪ after this manner; that yet understood themselves as well as Mr. Danvers. And why may we not suppose these Waldenses to be guilty of as much Impertinency and p. 123Nonsensicalness as the Assembly and Dr. Manton?

2. His 2d. Demonstration (as he calls it) is from particular eminent persons amongst them, which he would have us believe deny'd Infants-Baptism. As Berengarius in the 11th. Cent. Peter Bruis, Henricus, and Arnoldus in the 12th.

1. For Berengarius he goes about to prove that he denied Infant-Baptism from Lanifrank, by Cassander out of Guitmond, by a Council called by H. 1. of France, and by Thuanus, and then saith, that I except against none of these, but have this only for a Reply, that there were several Councils in which Berengarius was persecuted for the Real Presence, but no mention made of his denying Infants-Baptism.

Seeing this general Reply doth not give Mr. Danvers Satisfaction, I shall now be more particular; and convince him he had better have taken that answer, than thus forced me to a more particular examination; by which I have made a further discovery of his guilt in abusing Authors. He begins with Launifrank to prove Beringarius against Infant-Baptism, and he tells us (2. Ed. p. 241, 242) out of the Magdeb. Cent. 11. cap. 5. p. 240, 243. [that Beringarius did publickly deny Transubstantiation, and Infant-Baptism under five heads; which Launifrank in his book called Scintillaris answered at large. And as for his denying Infant-Baptism, he answers (that is, Launifrank) by saying, he (that is, Beringarius) doth thereby oppose the general doctrine and universal consent of the Church.] And this is all Mr. Danvers hath from Launifrank to prove Beringarius against Infant-Baptism. But this is a shameful mistake, and the Magdeburgs say no such thing. They give us his Hypotheses de caenâ Domini: and his 6th Argument p. 124against Transubstantiation, and Launifrank's answers to each: and tell us that ad Quintum & Sextum, (that is to Beringarius his 5th and 6th Arguments against Transubstantiation, (not against Infant-Baptism) Launifrank answers, Opposuit doctrinam perpetuam & consentientem Ecclesiae Dei: So that this Authority is quite cashier'd; and Mr. Danvers must have an unparallel'd Confidence to attempt the retrieving him. The next is Cassander out of Guitmundus, who saith, that with the Real Presence, he denied Baptism to Little-Ones, though the latter not so publickly as the former: but Guitmund and Cassander say, quem tamen Errorem in publicum non produxit; that is, he never publickly denied Infant-Baptism. Mr. D. translates it not [so] publickly, because else it might be presently queried, how then could Guitmund tell? and rather than lay such a stumbling-block in the way, he thinks it expedient to make bold with his Authors, and abuse them, than by telling truth, undeceive his Reader. This might be a sufficient Answer; but to give Mr. D. fuller satisfaction, I shall make a more particular inquiry into this business. And as for Guitmundus the Magdeburgs tell us, Ait eum (Beringarium) de Baptismo Infan: & de conjugio non recte docuisse. Which proves him as much against Marriage as against Infant-Baptism. But Bp. Usher tells us in his book de successione, cap. 7. § 37. that Deoduinas Leodiensis, took it upon common fame that Bruno and Beringarius did quantum in ipsis erat baptismum parvulorum evertere. And adds, deinde ex Leodiensis fide refert Guitmundus, so that Guitmundus took it from Leodiensis, who had it from common fame; which indeed arose from their denying it to be necessary to Salvation. As clearly appears, p. 125by Walden, charging Wickliff to deny it, who yet was so positive in the point as Mr. Baxter hath proved. And Usher also tells us that, In tot Synodis adversus Beringarium habitis nullam de Anabaptismo litem illi intentatam invenimus. Which further proves it. And whereas Mr. Danvers insinuates (2 Ed. pag. 243, 244.) that Beringarius recants this opinion against Infant-Baptism, and then recanted his Recantation; there is not a word of Infant-Baptism in his Recantation. He produceth also Thuanus to prove Beringarius and his followers were great asserters of Baptism after Faith (2. Edit. pag. 73.) and in his Reply pag. 116. He quotes his preface to his History to prove that the Arch-Bishop of Triers did persecute the Beringarians for denying Infant-Baptism; It is true he tells us that the Arch-Bishop did eos diocesi sua expellere, because illius doctrinam populis disseminarent; but that Thuanus should say he did it because they denyed Infant-Baptism, is one of Mr. Danvers's mistakes, there being not the least syllable of any such thing in that Preface, or in the whole History that I can find.

His last evidence to prove it, is a Council called by H. 1. of France, to suppress the heresies of Bruno and Beringarius for denying Transubstantiation and Infant-Baptism: for which he quotes Bibliotheca Patrum pag. 432. But I can't find either in Bibl. Pat. or the Councils, or any where else, (but in Mr. Danvers's book) that that Council ever charged Beringarius with denying Infant-baptism. Let Mr. Danvers prove it if he can. And just after this rate doth he prove his matters.

But suppose these Authors had affirmed what Mr. D. would make us beleive they did, yet it falls short p. 129of sufficient proof because the same sort of men charged Luther and Calvin to be against Infants-Baptism, and this we have acknowledged from Mr. Danvers's own pen in his Innocency and Truth vindidicated, p. 127.

The next of his Witnesses are Peter Bruis, Henricus, Arnoldus; but of this I have spoken already that even the Magdiburgs and Osiander (who relates what Peter Cluniacensis and Bernard say of them) do question the Truth of what their wicked Adversaries lay to their charge, to which I refer the Reader, and shall only add what Mr. Marshall says to Mr. Tombes: The truth is, saith he, these two men did for 20 years together so much spread the Doctrine of the Waldenses, and so plague the Bishops Mitre, and the Monks Bellies, that I wonder not though they charged any thing upon them, that might make them odious to the people. He that reads the railing Book of Cluniacensis will find, that he acknowledgeth most of what he layeth to their charge to be upon the report of others: He lays this to their charge, that Children that die before they could actually believe were damn'd, and that they did not altogether believe the Apostles, Prophets, no nor Christ himself. By their corrupt consequences, say the Magdiburgs, they would make them hold any thing, as before; To deny Chrisme, and Oyl, and Spittle in the baptizing of Children was all one with them. And if Mr. Danvers believes Cluniacensis did slander them in the other things, he must excuse us if we believe he did also in this about Infant-Baptism: One thing I shall mind the Reader with, and so pass on, and that is, the good Intelligence Mr. Danvers holds,☜ since almost all the Testimonies that he brings p. 127through-out all his Book, are borrowed either from Monks, Abbots, Jesuits, Inquisitors, or some Cankered Popish Priests that make no Conscience of loading the professors of the Truth with all manner of Calumnies.

But, saith he, Cassander witnesseth the same in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleave (viz.) that Peter Bruis, and Henricus denyed Baptism to little ones, affirming that only the Adult should be baptized. 'Tis true, he saith so: and withal tells us [cum Baptismo & fide etiam salutem et regnum Dei Infantibus ademerunt, quod ad credentes tantum et baptizatos pertinere sensuerunt] with Baptism and Faith they took Salvation also from Infants, as judging it belonged only to Believers that were baptized: but how comes Cassander by this good intelligence? why, the Abbot of Cluni told him so; and if Mr. Danvers will not believe they damned all Infants, though the Abbot affirms it, why should we believe they denyed them Baptism for which he can produce no better proof? but if Cassander is a person of such credit with Mr. Danvers, I hope he will no longer reckon Peter Bruis and Henricus among the Waldensian Barbes; because he tells us in this very Epistle, that the Waldenses were for Infants-Baptism.

Dr. Prideaux is also introduced to confirm it, how that they were condemned in the second Lateran Council, for rejecting Infants-Baptism: it is Common for the Popish Councils to condemn men for that which they never held. But Mr. Baxter tells us there is not the least proof of any such matter medled with in that Council.

I let pass also Vice-comes, because he writes palpable lyes; how that Luther, Calvin, Beza, denyed p. 128Infants-Baptism; and why? because (as Mr. Danvers say's truly in his Reply, page 127) they did oppose and neglect to do it as the Church☜ of Rome ordained it, without the Ceremonies of their Church, which was all one to them, as if it was not practised at all. We are much engaged to Mr. Danvers for this, he hath as it were spoken all in a word, given us a key to open the Mystery of the business, and rightly to understand why Beringarius, Peter Bruis, Arnoldus, were charged for denying Infants-Baptism. I must now prepare my self with Patience, for Mr. Danvers is come to his Paroxysme, and would even move a Stoick. I perceive he is strangely transported with Passion, and makes Proclamation against me. Know, saith he, that hence you have a further discovery of his unfaithfulness, and want of Conscience, for daring thus to abuse the World with a Cheat, and that which he knows to be a mere forgery of his own—The Flame is not yet extinguished, but spreads into two pages more, and is rather increased. He hath injuriously belyed Osiander, belyed Cluniacensis, belyed Peter Bruis, belyed the Truth, which by this forgery he would cover; abused the World, belyed and abused me, and much to be feared his own Conscience, by this piece of Folly and Falshood.

Now what shall I say to all this? shall I implore an Increpation from above, foreign? Jude 14. Or shall I bespeak Mr. Danvers in the Language of Craesus to Solon in Lucian's Dialogues foreign good words O man? would any one have expected such polluted feet of Clay, with which he kicks at me, should be attendants to that head of Gold, I mean those Christian words in Mr. p. 129Danvers's Preface, I will not render railing for railing, it being ever judg'd the sign of a bad cause, for persons to betake themselves to such courses, and thereby supply the want of matter with, Rage, Clamour and Noise. Who would not have judg'd Mr. D. by those lines a person able to command his Passion, yea a second Moses? Parsons the Jesuit, notwithstanding he wanted nothing but a Glass to view the Effigies of a Railer, yet he censureth the practice as unworthy.

But to speak something for Vindication from these foul, and shamefully-invective accusations: First, I confess my inadvertency in mistaking the Century, and from hence it was that I related things, charged upon the Albigenses of the 12 Cent. and applyed them to Peter Bruis, and Henricus of the 11th (though I find all of them joyned together by the Magdiburgs under Cent. 12th.)

The occasion of this mistake was a cursory reading of Dr. Homes his Answer to Mr. Tombes (the Book being lent only for a day or two) where the said Doctor reckons up about 20 errors charg'd upon the Albigenses, as he hath it from Osiander. I profess, that I speak the truth, I had no design to misrepresent Mr. Danvers's pretended witnesses, and to cast a slur upon it; and I hope this is enough to satisfie the Ingenuous Reader, and may also work some Conviction in Mr. Danvers of his uncharitableness of Spirit, and the intemperancy of his Pen in such frequent Judgings of my Heart and Conscience, that I did knowingly and out of design, go about to deceive the Reader: and what should tempt me hereunto? was it to cast Dirt on his Witness? How blind a thing is Prejudice! Mr. Danvers is p. 130not Ignorant, that if that▪ had been my Aim, I might have furnished my self with sufficiency of that nature even from Cluniacensis and Bernard: But he saith, I did it knowingly and went on purpose to deceive; why so? because I picked only five particulars out of those twenty Articles that were laid to the Charge of the Albigenses: a Convincing Argument! no doubt, though no body can fathom the Mystery of the Policy in so doing, unless I open it, which plainly is this. The reason why I transcribed no more out of Dr. Homes was, because I do not judg it commendable to write whole Pages and more out of Authors, and to conceal their Names, as Mr. Danvers useth to do (2) It was done out of design, as he saith, because I knew Osiander saith, these things are not reported by Cluniacensis and Bernard, but by others; whereas I never read those things in Osiander, until Mr. Danvers's Reply came forth. (3) It must be so he concludes, because I neither mention Century, Book Chapter, or Page (for the greater blind no doubt) as he saith I use to do in other Quotations out of Osiander; whereas I have not mentioned, so much as one Chapter or Page out of Osiander in all my Answer to him.

Thus Reader, thou see'st what this mighty Charge amounts to, and which is one of these heinous Crimes I have committed, mentioned in the Preface to work prejudice against me: and if I were now given to Revenge, I could presently ballance accounts. He knows I have Advantage enough against him for that shameful mistake of his in saying Calvin interprets that Promise Gen. 17. 7. to be understood of the spiritual Seed of Abraham, p. 131when it was Estius the Jesuit, and Calvin doth most expresly say the contrary (viz) that 'tis meant of the fleshly and natural Seed; and Estius declares his judgment against him. And if I were addicted to such Billings-gate language, I could retort upon him; He belyes Calvin, he belyes the Truth, which by that Forgery he would cover and hide, he abuseth the World with a Cheat, and much more fear his own Conscience by this piece of Folly and Falshood.

3. As for his 3d Demonstration, that the Waldenses were against Infants-Baptism, fetcht from the Catholique Emperours, and Popes Councils, and the rest of the Tribe that follows, Monkes, Abbots, Inquisitors, I shall believe it as much as that of Vice-comes, who saith not only Peter Bruis &c. was against Infants-Baptism, but also Calvin, Luther; nor will that serve Mr. Danvers turn to tell us that they were so reputed, because they did oppose, and neglect to Baptize Children as the Church of Rome ordained and practised, unless he can give us some assurance that the Waldenses were not accused and condemned by these Councils upon the same account.

Moreover he tells us, Rainerius the Inquisitor in his Book Contra Waldenses, saith, de Baptismo dicunt quod ablutio quae datur infantibus nihil prosit, &c. Concerning Baptism they say that that which is given to little ones profits nothing. And this Evidence Mr. Danvers would have noted, because I do positively deny, that Rainerius in the Catalogue of their Errors gives the least hint of any such thing, that they denyed Infants-Baptism. This is another of his great Charges against me in his Preface, where he p. 132saith Rainerius tells us totidem verbis (i e) in so many words they denyed it.

For Vindication of my self, let the Reader (1) know, That in my Infants-Baptism Asserted p. 96. I quote Dr. Featly's Roma ruens for what I have said; who gives us a Catalogue of the Errors which Rainerius charged the Waldenses with in his Book Contra Waldenses, Chap. 4. and this of denying Infants-Baptism is not amongst those which he recites. (2) I must tell Mr. Danvers that the words he quotes don't prove, Rainerius charges them with denying Infants Baptism, for by nihil prosit, they intend only ad Salutem. But can Mr. Danvers find any-where in Rainerius where he positively saith, the Waldenses were against the practice of baptizing Infants? this I confess would be something to his purpose; but till then I perswade my self the impartial Reader will acquit me from having abused this Author, though Mr. Danvers will not.

Next he brings Favin the French-Chronologer testifying that in those times (viz) 12 and 13 Centuries the Albigenses did deny Infants-Baptism esteeming it superstitionus; no doubt as we have often made appear, their refusing those superstitious Additions of Chrism, Oyle, Spittle, annexed to the Sacrament by the Papists, is the ground why they are by all Popish Writers represented to deny Infants-Baptism. Those two Abbots Cluniacensis and Bernard of the 12 Cent. gave Favin this information; but Osiander says well, Hi autem Articuli Petro Bruis ab adversariis adscribuntur; the Articles were charged by Adversaries: And then he adds, whether those Tenents were theirs, or no, non satis Certum est, it is not enough certain.

p. 133We are now come to another of Mr. Danvers's Charges, which will appear to be a strange mistake; so that I may truly say of him, if he cannot find a hole he will make one, to his own shame. In his Calumniating Preface he falsly represents me to have quoted Vice-comes, to prove that the Doctrine of opposing the Baptizing Infants of Believers, was no ancienter than the Anabaptists of Germany, and to make this good, he (with great Confidence) turns the Reader to page 60. of my Infants-Baptism Asserted, as if he should be sure to find it there: whereas any body that will but peruse the page shall see, I quote Vice-comes to shew what a false account he gives of Luther, Calvin, Beza, as if they denied Infants-Baptism; and besides, his Name is only in one place, in the Margent of my Book, and that borrowed from Mr. Marshal, who also quotes him for the same end, as is signified (viz.) to shew what little credit is to be given to Proofs from Popish-Writers against the Waldenses for denying Infants-Baptism, when they are so impudent, as to charge Luther, and Calvin with the same; who, (saith he) did in a special manner oppose this Error, and then he concludes thus: Unless some one dothout of their own Confessions give better evidence, I shall believe that this Doctrine of opposing of the Baptizing of the Infants of Believers is an Innovation no ancienter than the Anabaptists of Germany. And now let any man judge whether Mr. Danvers doth not deal very unworthily, in accusing me, that I have abused the Reader by a Quotation from Vice-comes.

But how can the opposing the Baptizing the Infants of Believers be an Innovation no ancienter than the Anabaptists of Germany when we are p. 134otherwise informed by Vice-comes in the same place where he accuseth Luther, Calvin, Beza, for being Anabaptists. For Vincentius, Victor (two Witnesses made of one Mans name) Hincmarus of Laudum, the Henerici and Apostolici (in Bernard and Cluniacensis time) John Wickliff in his 4th Book of Trialog. Walfrid, Strabo, (another Dichotomic making two of one Man, an excellent way to encrease the number of Mr. Danvers's Witnesses) Ludovicus Vives witnessed against it.

In answer to these; as for Vincentius Victor I shall presently shew when I speak of the Donatists, that he was not against Infants-Baptism. For Hincmarus of Laudum, we have more than once vindicated him from this blot: the same we have done in the behalf of the Henricians, or Waldenses. And for Wickliff we have brought sufficient evidence to satisfie any rational Man, that he is so far from speaking a word in derogation of Infants-Baptism, that he is expresly for it. As for Strabo he was highly for Infant-Baptism, and therefore when he saith none were anciently Baptized, but those who could profess their Faith, he intended only none that were Adult: But however we have given sufficient reason, why his word is not to be taken, being a false Historian and a heedless Writer, condemned by Vossius, and others. Lastly, for Ludovicus Vives, who is yoked to the former, hear what Mr. Marshal speaks of them both. Must we (saith he) take the bare word of Vives, a Man of yesterday, or of Strabo in matters of Fact, in things done so many hundred years before they were born? and that against the express witness of so many worthy men, who lived a hundred years before them? and I conceive he speaks to the p. 135purpose. For any indifferent Man will acknowledg, that Austin (who saith the Church always had, and always held Infant-Baptism) was more likely to know what was done in the Primitive times, than Strabo, who lived 400 years remoter from them, or than Ludovicus Vives that was above a thousand years further off from the times of which he witnesseth, than that ancient Father was.

4. In the last place he attempts to prove the Waldenses denyed Infants-Baptism, by the foot-steps found thereof, in those respective Regions and places where they had heretofore imprinted it, as Germany, Switzerland, Flanders, Holland, Bohemia, Hungaria, Transylvania, Poland, England, &c.

But as to this, I said in my Infants-Baptism Asserted, that for Mr. Danvers to tell us that the Opposers of Infants-Baptism, in upper and lower Germany, (and in those other Countries) were the remains of those the Waldenses had before instructed, was his own private Conceit, forreign to all History and hath no foundation in Reason or Truth; and whether I have not ground for that Assertion, let the Reader judg, when he hath perused what I have written in my Book from page 69, to 112. To most of which Mr. Danvers saith nothing at all, and therefore I conceive he is drain'd dry; only 'tis true he persists in his former endeavours to palliate the horrid actings of the German Anabaptists, and asperseth me for my Reflections upon the story of Thomas Munzer, and John of Leyden.

Lastly he presents us with further Testimony from a novel peice the Dutch Martyrology, that the Waldenses and Albigenses, were against Infants-Baptism; concerning which I only say:

p. 1361. That herein Mr. Danvers produceth more Testimony than the University of Oxford doth afford; For this Book is not to be found in the Publick or private Libraries, or the Booksellers Shops.

2. It being it seems not yet translated into the English-tongue, though he hopes it may be in good time; if I could have met with it, I should not have understood, whether he relates things truly for want of an interpreter.

3. Therefore we must take Mr. Danvers's word for all; both that there is such a Book, and that the passages he presents us with from thence, are truly translated.

4. We dare not say of it, as the Papists do of Mr. Foxe's Book of Martyrs, that it is a Book of lyes; but this we say with Confidence, that divers of those Testimonies Mr. Danvers takes from thence, are notorious untruths; and that Jacob Merning and Sebastian Franck, are not to be credited having abused the World with such palpable falsehoods: neither is Twisk (another of them) found to be a true Chronologer, all which we shall suddenly make appear, when we come to shew their aberrations.

5. Yea, some are of opinion that this Dutch Martyrologie wherein we have such a Collection of pretended Martyrs for Anabaptism, is designedly calculated for the Meridian of Anabaptistery, which whether it be probable, I leave to the Reader to judge, when he hath pondred the meaning of one passage, which Mr. Danvers hath quoted in his Treatise of Baptism, Edit. 2. p. 232. (viz.) Sebastian Frank (one of the Principal Authors frequently p. 137named in the Martyrologie) saith, that about the year 610 Childrens-Baptism was held in many places, of little esteem, by the learned endeavours of Adrianus, and others, and therefore the Popes set themselves to uphold it by the Braceren-Council: That the vanity and falshood hereof may appear, let it be considered.

1. That there is nothing of Adrianus extant against Infants-Baptism, in the Century-Writers; but only the Magdeburgs say, he was complained against by Gregory, to John Bishop of Larissa, That he turned away young Children from Baptism: But we have shewn before, that he was not against their Baptism, but only remiss in looking after the same in his Diocess; so that many Children died unbaptized, which was then judged dangerous, and from hence he was reported to have turned them away from Baptism.

2. There is none else in this Age, so much as suspected against the Baptism of Children, mentioned by the Century-Writers; and how grosly then is it said, of Sebastian Frank, that the practice thereof was of little esteem in this Century?

3. How weakly and falsly, is that said that the Popes set themselves to uphold Infant-Baptism in the Braceren Council [in the 7th Century] because it was of so little esteem when the Magdeburgs make mention of so many for it in this Century? As Maxentius Gregory, and Bishop of Larissa; else Gregory would not have complained to him about Adrianus: And besides particular persons they mention the Council of Matiscons, 3 Canon for it, Cent. 6. c. 9. p. 613. And by this we see what a false Historian Sebastian Frank is, and Jacob Merning, whom Mr. p. 138Danvers brings as avouching the same, quoting the 204 pag. of the Dutch Martryology for it.

And as for Sebastian Frank, Osiander Cent. 16 p. 121. tells us in plain terms, he was a ringleader of the Anabaptists, from whom his followers were called Frankists; and they taught, Omnia in sacris literis incerta, dubia, & contradictoria esse; that is, all things in the Holy Scriptures are uncertain, doubtful, and contradictory, which is a most horrid blaspheming of the Holy Scriptures; but may be true when applyed to his own History.

Having thus found these Dutch Authors so tardy, we shall leave them for the present, and conclude with what we find related from our own Country-Man, the famous Bishop Usher, in his Succession of the Church, Chap. 7. Sect. 23. p. 196. being a saying of Windelstinus, Qui hodie dicuntur Protestantes, Novi sunt Waldenses; They who at this day, are called Protestants, are new Waldenses, which is confirmed by another saying of Poplinerus, who tells us, That Albigensium Religionem parum admodum ab ea discrepasse, quam hodie profitentur Protestantes, &c. the Religion of the Albigenses doth very little differ from that which the Protestants at this day profess; as appears by the Fragments and Monuments of History written in their ancient Language; and then he further saith, that it appears by very ancient Manuscripts, that their Articles of Faith are Doctrinae Protestantium usquequaque conformes. Tout conformez a ceux des Protestans, altogether agreeing with the Protestants, Usher Succession, chap. 10. Sect. 19. p. 308.

p. 139Mr. Danvers's pretended witness born by the Donatists against Infants-Baptism Confuted.

Mr. Danvers is full of Complaints of the great injuries he hath received; and amongst others this is one, that I tell him he hath nothing in his Treatise of Baptism, to prove that the Donatists were against Infants-Baptism, but his ipse dixit; whereas he saith he hath given us divers Authorities for it. And the Reason of my saying so, was, because the Magdeburgs that do in a particular manner set before us what the Donatists held from point to point, do not charge them with Antipedobaptism; nor do any of the Church-Historians, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, or Evagrius, mention it. Neither do any of our modern Writers give any hint of it. Further I told him in my answer that Danaeus (who gives us the sum of their Tenents, and of all Austin's Disputes with them, in his Opusculum) mentions not one word of their denying Infants-Baptism. Neither doth Zanchy who treats of them, and shews what they held in divers places of his Works, nor Mr Fox in his Act. and Mon. nor Mr. Clark in his Martyrology (where there's a great story of them) speak any thing of their being against Infants-Baptism; no nor any other that ever I could hear of, but only Mr. Danvers, and therefore I said as I did. And if our Antagonist had not been extremely tenacious of his Opinion, this had been (as is conceived) enough to have taken him off from his mistaken conceit. But all the thanks I have p. 140for endeavouring to rectifie him, is still more and more Reproaches. Mr. Wills, saith he, deals according to his wonted manner very disingenuously with me; but wherein I pray?

1. That I, saith he, having given so many Authorities and of such Antiquity to prove it, he yet tells me [as before.]

To which I answer; I must needs say the same still, being not in the least convinced by Mr. Danvers's Reply. For whereas he saith he hath given many Authorities and of great Antiquity, to prove it; most of them mentioned not only in the Treatise but Reply, are but of yesterday. viz. Seb. Frank, Jac. Merning, and Twisk, (if I mistake not, three German Anabaptists) Vicecomes, Spanhemius, Osiander, Fuller, and Bullinger. As for the three first, it is sufficient to say concerning them, Istis Authoribus non stamus, we own them not; because they speak falsly in many things, and that which none of the ancient Writers do affirm. As for Instance, Mr. Danvers tells us, Seb. Frank, and Twisk, affirm that Donatus taught that no Infant should be baptized, but only those that believed and desired it, which is false; and neither they nor Mr. Danvers can prove it out of Austin or any ancient Writer. But suppose Donatus himself had been against Infant-Baptism; yet Una Hirundo non facit Ver; One Swallow doth not make a Spring; It will not follow that the rest of the Donatists were so likewise; no more than because Mr. Tombes the Head of the Anabaptists doth conform, therefore all the Anabaptists of England do conform. Again, Jac. Merning saith, that Cresconius opposed Austin in that point, viz. of Infants-Baptism. But in the p. 141whole dispute between Austin and Cresconius, I can find nothing like it. And Vicecomes is as false as them; for he tells us, Luther, Calvin, Beza, &c. were all of them against Infants-Baptism; and that Fulgentius a learned Donatist did deny, (if Mr. Danvers mistakes him not) Infants-Baptism, and asserts only that which was after Faith. Whereas Fulgentius himself (de fide ad Petrum cap. 30.) expresly tells us, that Baptism is sufficient to take away Original Sin from Infants; and Mr. Danvers hath so branded Spanhemius (in his Reply,) as a very partial and unfaithful Writer, one guilty of lying fictions and Chimeras, that 'tis strange to me he should produce him. And what do Osiander, Fuller and Bullinger say? why, that the Donatists and our modern Anabaptists were all one. But do they say in all things? I have already told Mr. Danvers that they were one in regard of their concurrence in very many things, and drew the Paralel between them. And we say Denominatio sumitur a majori. And indeed the rigid Anabaptist does Symbolize with the Donvtists in nothing more than in confining the Church of Christ to their Party, so no true Church out of Mr. Danvers's Party. And if we will not renounce Infants-Baptism and be dipt after their way, he bids defiance to all overtures of Union and Communion; for he saith in his Preface to his Treatise of Baptism, that whilst such a Foundation of Antichrist is held fast, all Exhortations to Union, viz. in Church-fellowship and Communion, will signifie little.

His other Authorities I confess are more significant to wit; Austin, Tho. Walden, Eckbertus and Emerieus; and therefore I shall a little examine his Quotations p. 142out of them. (1) He tells us, Reply 134 [that Austin against the Donatists, Tom. 7. l. 3, 4. c. 23. doth with much zeal and fury manage the Argument for Infants-baptism against them, bitterly cursing them that oppose it.] But I cannot find that Austin takes the least notice of Infant-baptism throughout the whole 3d Book; wherein yet (if Mr. D. may be believed) he manages that Argument with much Zeal and Fury: Nor in the 4th Book, till he comes to the 23d Chap. And there (as Mr. Baxter hath already informed him) he is so far from controverting Infants-baptism with the Donatists, that he makes use of it as a medium in his arguing against them. (2.) He tells us, that Austin in his Epistle to Marcellus (it should be Marcellinus) Tom. 7. c. 6. p. 724. opposed himself against them (the Donatists) for denying Infants-baptism. A great mistake! for all he saith of Marcellinus there as touthing Infant-baptism, is this, viz. Octavum Errorem fuisse de Infantibus, qui priusquam renascantur in Christo praeveniuntur occiduo, Scriptum esse, raptus est ne malitia illius intellectum mutaret. Sap. 4. That is, His eight Error was concerning Infants that dye before they were Baptized, that they were taken away lest malice should change [corrupt] their Understanding, quoting the 4. Wisdom in the Apochrypha for it. And let the Reader judg whether this is to deny Infant-Baptism. (3.) He tells us that Austin and Walden do both affirm, that Vincentius Victor a Donatist, denied Baptism to little ones: Austin in his third Book de Anima c. 14. And Walden in his Book de Sacrament. Tit. 5. c. 33. fol. 118. As for Austin, there is not the least Syllable to be found of any such matter in that 14 Chap. Nay, so far is Austin from p. 143charging Vin. Victor with denying Infant-baptism, that in the preceding Chapter he tells you, his Opinion was that only those Infants that dyed Baptized went immediately to Heaven; and as for others, they continued in Paradise till the last Resurrection, and were not till then admitted to the happiness of Heaven. Haec verba tua sunt (saith Austin to Vincentius) ubi te confiteris consentire dicenti, quibusdam non baptizatis sic temporarie collatum esse Paradisum ut supersit illis in resurrectione praemium regni caelorum, contra sententiam principalem, qua constitutum est non intraturum in illud regnum qui non renatus fuerit ex aqua & Spiritu sancto. Quam sententiam principalem timens violare Pelagius, nec illos sine baptismo in regnum caelorum credidit intraturos quos non credidit reos. Tu autem & originalis peccati reos parvulos confiteris, & tamen eos sine lavacro regenerationis absolvis, & in paradisum mittis, & postea etiam regnum caelorum intrare permittis. And Walden (in the place Mr. D. quotes) saith the same directly. Vincentius dixit eos (scil. Infantes) trahere originale peceatum, sine baptismo tamen duci posse in regnum caelorum in resurrectione finali.

As for Eckbertus the Monk and Emericus, I can find no such matter in the Magdeb. that they likned the Waldenses in the 12 Cent. to the Donatists. And yet I deny not, but it might be so, because, as Perin saith, the Popish Priests did reproach them with the odious name of Cathari, because they prest after Purity; by which name the Donatists were heretofore called, because they held a sinless state of Perfection attainable in this Life. And this may serve as a sufficient answer also to Mr. D's. last Argument to prove the Donatists against Infant-baptism, because p. 144they and the Novatians were the same in Principle with the Waldenses. It being only a foul Aspersion cast upon them by their malicious Adversaries. Posterior aetas (saith Danaeus) ad praegravandam bonam Evangelii causam, homines vere evangelicos infami Catharorum nomine calumniata est.

Thus Reader, it is left to thy judgment (as Mr. Danvers speaks) whether he hath sufficiently justified his sixfold Testimony, that the Donatists did deny Infants-Baptism. I hope (whatever Mr. Danvers may say to the contrary) I have sufficiently invalidated all that he hath brougat for that end, and that thou wilt acquit me from the charge of disingenuity in condemning his Witnesses without cause. So we are come to his last Witnesses the Ancient Britains; which may well be called his, because no Man ever before him affirmed they were against Infants-Baptism.

Of the Witness pretended to be born against Infants-Baptism by the Ancient Britains.

MR. Danvers is singular in his Opinion; for never did any Anabaptist that I have read of hit upon this Topick, to prove the Antiquity of their way; no not Mr. Tombes (whose invention is admirable for Arguments, in that part of his Anti-paedobaptism which I have lying by me, which consists of above 260 pages in Quarto being part of the 1500 which Mr. Danvers says in his Preface was never yet replyed to. And 'tis no wonder that no body hath undertaken it; for as the Author of the History p. 145of the Popes Nephews speaks, the Jesuits are Politick in writing large Volumns, on purpose to discourage the Protestants from answering them.

Mr. Danvers gives four Arguments that the Ancient Britains that inhabited Wales, when Austin the Monk was sent by Pope Gregory into this Island to preach the Gospel about the year 604. did bear their Testimony against Infants-Baptism.

1. Because Mr. Fox out of Bede tells us, they refused to Baptize after the manner of Rome, which Fabian particularly explains to be in the point of Infants-Baptism.

In answer to this I did (in my Infants-Baptism Asserted) 1. except against Fabian's Paraphrase upon the words, which Bede gives us from Austin; and that for these Reasons, 1. Because in the Preface to Fabian, we there read that what he relates of these matters is taken from Bede's Ecclesiastical History, in which there is no mention of the Britains denying to give Christendom to Children, for all that he saith is in his second Book, and the words are,—In as much as you do contrary to our custom, yea to the custom of the universal Church, nevertheless if you will obey me only in these three things, soil. That you keep your Easter in its proper time; administer Baptism, whereby we are born again to God, after the manner of the Holy Church of Rome; and the Apostolical Church, and preach the Word of God together with us unto the English Nation, we will patiently bear all other things which you do, although contrary to our customs. But they answered they would do none of these. Mr. Fox relates it thus, That they would not agree, refusing to leave the custom which they so long time had continued without the Assent p. 146of them all which used the same. Fox. Act. Mon. 1. Book, p. 107.

2. Because Fabian is not lookt upon as a Faithful Historian, and therefore Mr. Fox in the aforesaid Book suspecteth him of divers mistakes, and follows not his relation of giving Christendom to Children in this story, as it is set down by him; for he gives us it in the words of Bede, viz. That they refused to baptize after the manner of Rome.

3. None of the other Ancient Historians, as Cretensis in Polychron. Huntington, &c. mention their refusing to give Christendom to Children; they only speak generally of refusing to baptize after the manner of Rome. Some other reasons were given which I let pass, having already said enough to shew on what a sandy foundation Mr. Danvers builds this his peculiar Assertion, that the Ancient Britains denyed Infants-baptism, he having nothing for it but Fabians conjecture, wherein he differs from all other Historians in the World.

But saith Mr. Danvers, Fabian hath fully hit Bede's meaning: why? 1. Because Austin tells the Brittish Christians, that among many things, wherein they were contrary to the custom of Rome, and to the Universal Church, one was in this particular of Baptism; and this he conceives must needs be in their refusing to Baptize Children: and his Reasons are;

1. Because as to the Baptizing the Adult they were not contrary to the Church of Rome. I answer, though they were not contrary to them, as to the Subject of Baptism, viz. the Adult; yet they might be, and were so (if so pure as Mr. Danvers represents them) in regard of the Adjuncts which the p. 147Church of Rome annext to Baptism, viz. those Superstitious additions of Chrysm, Oyl, &c. They both baptized the Adult, but not after the same manner: and this was that which Austin stood upon, he would have had them Baptize after their manner: But Mr. Danvers objects,

2. It could not respect the Mode of Baptism, that's strange; for doth he not tell us just before, p. 38. of his Reply, from Mr. Fox, who takes it from Bede, That they refused to baptize after the manner of Rome; and can he tell wherein the difference lies between Mode and Manner. But let us weigh his Reasons (which are as light as a Feather) why it could not respect the Mode of Baptism. His first is, Because the custom of the Church of Rome was not Universal, but opposed by the Greeks and Eastern Churches, & not at all to be made out to be Apostolical. He says true indeed, though it be not ad Rhombum, and though the Church of Rome was not so universal, neither could be made out to be Apostolical; yet they are so proud as to term it so, and say what we can to the contrary, they do still arrogate as much to this day.

3. Therefore, saith he, it must needs respect Infants-baptism; whether this be intended as an Argument, or a Conclusion, who can tell? it is brought in as a third Argument, and then it is idem per idem: It must needs respect Infants-baptism, because it must needs. But he wheels about again after a confused manner, and comes in with five other Arguments. 1. Because the Church of Rome had particularly enjoyned, and imposed it to beget Infants to Regeneration, and therefore must intend the substance and not the Ceremony. To which I reply; p. 1481. It is very strange, that Mr. Danvers's mind should thus run altogether upon Childrens Baptism, when the work which Austin would have had them gone upon, was to Baptize the Adult Pagans, such as the Saxons then were, and to Preach the Gospel to them, and we reade not (unless I mistake) of any Children that he baptized at all, nor any of his company, although he sent to Gregory to know how long the baptizing of a Child might be deferr'd, there being no danger of Death. 2. How came the Canon of the Church of Rome into Mr. Danvers's mind, of Childrens being born of God by Regeneration? for Austin spake not of this; but only exhorts the Britains to administer Baptism, whereby, saith he, we are born again, as holding that grown Persons are born again to God as well as Children, according to the Judgment of the Church of Rome, as well as the ancient Fathers. Doth not Just in Martyr say the same, speaking of the manner how the Christians were baptized: they go (saith he) to the Water and are regenerated, as we our selves were regenerated, &c. So that these are but childish Cavils against Childrens-Baptism. 2. He urge… another, and that is, Because Infants-Baptism was universally received in this seventh Age, in other parts of the World for this end. This is such an Argument that I know not well what to say to it, unless it be that since Infants-Baptism was so universally received in other parts of the World, it's altogether improbable it should be shut out of Wales. The third and fourth Arguments make but one, which is, because Infant-Baptism was received, and enjoyned as an Apostolical practice, and it had been childish and ridiculous to have said Baptism in general p. 149was Apostolical. Mr. Danvers says true, It had been indeed ridiculous for Austin to have said Baptism in general was Apostolical, and therefore he speaks of the manner of Baptizing, which he would have the Britains observe as they did, that is, to do it in that superstitious way with Chrysm, Oyl, &c. which is held by the Church of Rome to be Apostolical.

And whereas I say the Britains did no more reject Infants-Baptism, than they did Preaching to the Saxons. He thus replys; True, having as much reason to reject the one, as the other. A strange Assertion! For though Infants-Baptism be in his account unlawful, yet the Preaching of the Gospel, one would think, should be lawful, and more reason there is to Preach the Gospel, than to Baptize either the Adult or Infants. But what makes Mr. Danvers judg otherwise as to these Britains? It is because he conceives, by Preaching here must be understood Authoritatively, by being ordained by them, and not as a company of Lay-men, or Mechanicks. It seems than this Gentle-man is for Mechanicks Preaching; but that which is remarkable is, to see how much he hath overshot himself in the heat of Disputation: For the Britains, to whom Austin addrest his Speech, were not Lay-men or Mechanicks, but seven Bishops and an Arch-Bishop, as Mr. Fox informs us, Act. Mon. 1. Book, p. 107. Although 'tis true they admitted not Romes Supremacy over them, which was the main quarrel, as Mr. Fox tells us out of Cluniacensi, who gives this Reason why they would not comply with Austin, because they would not admit of the Bishop of Romes Supremacy over them, Ex Pet. Cluniacensi ad Bernardum. Reader, p. 150thou must know that Mr. Danvers gave five other Reasons in his Treatise of Baptism to confirm his former Position; and because I said in my Answer they were trifles, he tells me in his Reply that that is an excellent way of Answering, & next to Bellarmin, thou lyest. But I must tell Mr. Danvers, I did not only say they were trifles, but proved them such. And because he doth so cunningly insinuate the contrary, I shall now repeat my Answer to his Reasons, adding a little, and submit it to judgment.

1. His first Argument, that the Britains were against Infant-Baptism, was, Because they kept themselves both in Discipline and Doctrine expresly to the Scripture. Before I speak to this, know, that he hath altered his note; for his first Argument in both his Treatises of Baptism was this, Because the Britains received the Christian Faith, Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick Churches, who had no such thing as Baptizing Children. Now this being more than he can tell, and a Negative Argument as to matter of Fact, is not valid, as I told him in my Answer: and besides, I minded him with that of the Magdeburgs, who expresly tell us that Infants-Baptism was in use in the Asiatick Churches, Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 124. He is so ingenious as to wave that Argument. But to the 1st, as it is here in the Reply, which is, because they kept themselves in Discipline and Doctrine expresly to the Word. This he thinks will effectually do the business, that is, casheer Infants-Baptism from them. To this I answer. 1. To say they kept themselves expresly in Discipline and Doctrine to the Word, is more than Mr. Danvers can prove, and it is more than Jeffery Monmouth speaks, p. 151from whom he hath his intelligence. This therefore, that they keep to the express Word is his own Dictate. 2. It is not true what he saith, nor can I apprehend how Mr. Danvers should believe himself; for no Anabaptist believes Episcopal Government to be so expresly set down in the Word, and Mr. Fox tells us as before, that no less than seven Bishops and an Arch-Bishop came out of Wales at Austin's Summons; who were also so proud, that wanting some ceremonious Observance at their first coming to Austin they took such offence, that in disdain and great displeasure they went away. And observe, Reader, the sense of Mr. Fox upon this their carriage; I profess, saith he, I cannot see but both Austin and them were to be blamed, who so much neglected their Spiritual Duties in revenging their Temporal injuries, that they denied to joyn their helping hand to turn the Idolatrous Saxons to the way of Life and Salvation, in which respect all private respects ought to give place, and be forgotten, and for which cause he conceived the stroke of God's Punishment did light upon them afterward. The business of Infants-Baptism never entered into this good-mans mind, as if they refused to comply with Austin on that account, nor is it like that ever the Britains thought of it.

2. His next Argument is, Because they were zealous Impugners of Tradition. But by the story we find no such Zeal unless it was against Austin for not honouring them: and besides, this Argument of Mr. Danvers is altogether precarious; for we have shewed before that though Austin held Infants-Baptism a Tradition, yet withal it was in his opinion grounded on Circumcision, and the Papists (as Bellarmine) affirm the warrantableness of it may be collected p. 152from Scripture. But to make short work with it, I deny that they were such Impugners of Tradition, if the Discpline of Arch-Bishops, and the observation of Easter be Traditions (as Mr. Danvers judgeth them to be;) for as the difference between Austin and them was not about the Subject of Baptism, but the Ceremony; so they differed not about keeping Easter, but only as to the circumstance of time, when it was to be kept. That the Britains and Picts kept Easter, though not at the same time as the Romish Church did, see Mr. Fox Act. Mon. page 111. where mention is made of a Synod in which the controversie about keeping Easter was debated before King Oswie, Alfrid's Father; and 'tis said Coleman then Bishop of Northumberland, followed not the custom of Rome, nor of the Saxons, but the Picts and Britains in celebrating Easter from the 14th day of the first month, till the 28th of the same, against whom Wilfrid replied,—The Easter we keep, we have seen at Rome,—the same is used in Italy and France, and finally all the World over, save only by these here present, with their accomplices the Picts and Britains.

3. Reason is, Because Constantine the son of Christian Parents was not Baptized till aged, so in his Treatise of Baptism; but in his Reply, 'tis, not baptized in this Island. But we have shewn Constantius his Father was no Christian at Constantine's Birth, and in all likelyhood lived and dyed a Pagan, though he had much respect for Christians; and even Constantine himself was a Pagan for sometime after he was Emperor.

4. Another of his Reasons is, Because the custom of the Britains was to baptize after Confession of Faith, being in Union and Communion therein with the French p. 153Christians; And I told him this was a good Argument to prove they were for Infants-Baptism, because the French Christians afterward called Waldenses were for it, and had used it so many hundred years; witness the Confession at Angrogne.

Nor will Mr. Danvers his Old Salvo serve his turn, which is, That the ancient Waldenses were against Infants-baptism, though he cannot but grant the more modern were for it. For we have met with something of late that must needs convince him, and that is, that Infants-baptism was practised in the Country where the Waldenses do inhabit, near twelve hundred years since.

For the Famous French Historian, John de Serres, in his History of France translated into English, tells us, p. 12. That Anno Christi 500, Clovis the great King of France, then an Heathen, desired to marry Clotilde Daughter of Chilperic Brother of Gondebault, King of the Burgundians, (whose Seat was then at Arles in Provence) Gondebault denyed Clovis, because of the difference of Religion: Clovis to remove this, promised her liberty of Conscience, so the marriage was concluded. And (saith the Author) although Clovis were a Pagan, yet he was no enemy to the Christians, sitting himself to the humour of the Gauloys, who generally followed the Christian Religion: He suffered his Wife likewise to baptize her Children. So it's plain the Burgundians (from whence the Waldenses sprang) were for baptizing Infants; and belike it was also at that time the universal practice of the Gauls.

5. The last of Mr. Danvers's Arguments, that the Britains were against Infants-baptism, is, because p. 154Austin himself was so raw and ignorant in the Rite, that when he came into Britain, and the question was here put to him (I know not by whom) how long a Child that was in danger of Death might stay unbaptized? he was fain to send to Rome for Solution. This is so raw an Argument indeed to prove the Britains were against Infants-Baptism, that instead of an Answer, it deserves to be laught at. For at this very day wherein Infants-Baptism is so generally practised, some take a liberty to delay longer than others who are for the speedy administration thereof. And if this Argument doth import any thing, it is, that Austin himself was not so well studied as he ought to have been as to the time when Children should be baptized. What in the last place he speaks of Hilary, that none were baptized in the Western Churches but the Adult, is confronted in the beginning, where we have shewn that he hath no such saying in lib. de Trinitate, the Book referr'd to, and how he himself was for Infants-Baptism from his 2d Epistle to Austin.

As for his other witnesses, Munzer and John of Leyden, with the rest of that Faction, though he doth pertinaciously persist against the clearest evidences, in palliating or rather denying the horrid crimes laid to their charge, and withal (very disingenuously) reflects dishonour upon those of the Reformation, I shall not be at so much expence of time and Paper as to expose his gross aberrations herein, but quietly permit him to injoy the comfort and honour of such witnesses.

FINIS.

End of the text · Obadiah Wills, Vindication of a Late Treatise on Infant Baptism (1675)