The plea of the children of believing-parents for their interest in Abraham's covenant, their right to church-member-ship with their parents, and consequently their title to baptism. The cause of publishing this discourse after so many learned men have laboured in this province, is declared in the preface to the reader. By Giles Firmin.

SECT. II.

As to the Book it self, who ever was the Author, I charged it with falshood in the Historical part: When I sent to borrow it again, a second Edition was sent me, then I saw the Letter was true, which assured me Colonel Danvers was the Author; and a∣bundance of Authors more added than were in the first: A whole Regiment is drawn up, to the admiration of the Igno∣rant Anabaptists that now cry Victoria, if he doth not abuse his Authors, and the Ana∣baptists too, which he hath most grosly.

For the ancient Fathers, several of them I had read, and knew them to be contrary to his Opinion: But to follow Authors in particular, I thought it a vain thing on the Lords-Day, and that in a Country Congre∣gation. His quoting of the old Britains, and the Waldenses, as being Enemies to In∣fant-Baptism, I took notice of, answered that and no more. Of which a little af∣terwards.

As to the numerous company of Au∣thors he hath quoted, I shall say but two things.

First, I desire my Author to tell us if a∣mongst them all he can find, who was the Author of Infant-Baptism, if it be an Er∣rour; as we can tell him who first oppo∣sed

Infant-Baptism, Hereticks not of the low∣er rank.

The Lord Brooks, is a person whom the Anabaptists would perswade us, was one of their Sect, because of some Lines of his, with which I accord: But he tells us what prevailed with him on the contrary; his words are these.

For ought I could ever learn, it was the constant custom of the purest and most primi∣tive Church, [mark Sir, not mystical Ba∣bylon then] to baptize the Infants of believing Parents: For I could never find the begin∣ning and first Rise of this Practice; where as it is very easie to tract Heresies to their first rising up and seting foot in the Church.

This agrees with what I am upon, why then do you quote him as if he were yours? As for what he saith about Schismaticks, Sir, you are the Schismatick, for I have kept Communion with a godly Anabaptist; but one tells me, that he desired Communion with one of your Churches, but they would not admit him to Communion, because he would not be dipped.

I see my Author hath named Master D. Rogers, as if he did favour his Opi∣nion, when as living in the next Town to him, and having intimate acquaintance with him, I knew him to be a smart Ene∣my to the Anabaptists.

2. The second thing I would say to them, is this, That ancient Father, pious, hum∣ble, and learned Austin flourished above twelve hundred years before my Author, or any Anabaptist in England was born; then he lived so many years nearer the Primi∣tive Churches, than my Author, or a∣ny of our Anabaptists: Whether then B. Austin, or those Anabaptists should best know the practice of the Primitive Chur∣ches as to Baptizing of Infants, let a∣ny sober man judge: He being a per∣son so learned and so famous, no question had all those Authors which my Author quotes, that wrote before him, if not ma∣ny more which we have not: And did not that learned pious Father understand them as well as my Author, or any Anabaptist now in England? And though he was no Christian himself, yet was not he acquaint∣ed with the practice of the Greek Churches in his time better than our Anabaptists? Now he saith, the practice of Infant-baptism was so universal in the Church, * 1.1 that it could not but come from the Apostles. Ecclesia semper habuit, &c. The Church ever heard it, saith he.

Had not Austin spoke true, there was one did watch him [Pelagius]

who would have told him of it to pur∣pose, for that Practice stood in Pelagius's way, but Pelagius did not deny it.

And whereas my Author doth not re∣gard the Writers as to this Controver∣sie, that wrote after the Third Centuary; I am very confident there is no Author that wrote in the three first Centuaries, that have any thing in them to oppose the bapti∣zing of the Infants of believing Parents; but on the contrary, some of them speak for it.

They that read the most ancient Wri∣ters next the Apostles, may see the sub∣ject matter they treated upon, did not give them any occasion to speak of Infant-Baptism, they had other Points in hand.

As to the old Britains, I was a little start∣led to read them brought against Infant-Baptism, the Proof my Author brings out of Fabianus, I did read in him, but I much question the truth of Fabianus, because Mr. Fox, giving us an account what Austin the Monk required of the British Bishops when he came into England; tells us,

He re∣quired that they should Preach the Gos∣pel to the English-men, and that they should among themselves reform certain Rites and usages in their Church, spe∣cially for keeping Eastertide, and Bapti∣zing after the manner of Rome.

Mr. Fox quotes several Authors besides Fabianus, for this: But that passage, That they should give Christendom to children, which Fabianus reports, he doth not mention.

To Baptize after the manner of Rome, to use their Ceremonies in Baptism, and to baptize Children; differ much. I searched what Ceremonies were then used in Rome in Gregory's time, and no wonder though the British Bishops rejected them.

But that the old Britains were against In∣fant-Baptism, is very false, w^ch I thus prove.

What year God first sent the Gospel in∣to England, the Learned do not agree; there seem to be strong grounds to believe, that it was before King Lucius sent to Eleu∣therius B. of Rome; some say it was, An. 156, others 169, others 170, others 180. The Contest between Austin and Pelagius, was a∣bout 417, in the 63 year of Austins life, as Bucolcerus gathers. Pelagius denied Origi∣nal Sin; upon that denied Infant-Baptism as being superfluous: not because Infants cannot believe, which is the sole Argument of our Anabaptists, Pelagius a learned man would have slighted such an Argument as this. Austin proves Infants to be guilty of Original Sin, from the universal practice of the Church to take away Original Sin, they did baptize Infants: Now this Infant-baptism

saith Austin, The Church ever had it, ever held it, * 1.2 they re∣ceived this from the faith of their Ancestors, and this will it keep with perseverance to the end. Let Pela∣gius who was a Britain, answer this: Brita∣ny had received the Gospel 240 years be∣fore this Contest. Pelagius knew the pra∣ctice of his own Country, and if it had been true, that the old Britains did not bap∣tize Infants, as my Author saith, why did not Pelagius Confute Austin, charge him with falshood; the Britains do not baptize Infants, ergo, it is not the practice of the Universal Church: This being an Argu∣ment Austin did so urge, and put so much stress upon it, Pelagius would have remo∣ved it if he could.

But so far was Pelagius and his followers from denying what Austin affirmed, that Celestius a Pelagian, in a Book which he put ••orth at Rome, hath these words, which Au∣stin quotes out of it; We do confess that In∣fants ought to be baptized for remission of sins, according to the rule of the Ʋniversal Church, and according to the sentence of the Gospel, ••hough Caelestius do not mention the Text, ••et by the following words, we may plain∣••y see he means, John 3.5. Except a man be ••orn again of Water and of the Spirit. So that

according to this Pelagian, here is Scrip∣ture ground, and the Rule of the Ʋniversal Church for Infant-Baptism.

So then for the old Britains, they were not against Infant-baptism: Now then for the Waldenses, were I to charge any Opi∣nion or practice upon other Churches, I should first look to the Confession of their Faith, then I may boldly charge them or not. As we have a few Anabaptistical Wri∣ters in England, should their Books a hun∣dred years hence fall into the hands of A∣nabaptists in foreign parts, should they then assirm that the Church of England, [or the Churches in England] were Ana∣baptists, would not this be false, and take it as a wrong done unto us? View the Con∣fession of Faith of the Church of England, of the Assembly of Divines, of the Inde∣pendents in England, in New England, all their Confessions declare for Infant-baptism. Thus should my Author have done, if he would deal honestly with the Waldenses, produce their Confession of Faith, and the Article in which they condemn Infant-bap∣tism. In the Articles which I have read o∣ver, I find no such thing, but that Bap∣tism ought to be Administred only with pure Water, without any mixture of hallowed Oyl.

The Ministers in the Vallies of Piemont, in the year 1532, when the Anabaptists in Germany were risen up, in the 17th Article of their Confession, declare for Infant-bap∣tism: The Churches in those Vallies, kept chaste to Christ from the Apostles times, and were long before the Waldenses were named; they were called Waldenses, but this was a Nick-name put upon them by their Adversaries, to make the World be∣lieve, that their Religion was but a No∣velty. [Morland. p. 12.]

In the Confession of the Faith of the Wal∣denses in Bohemia, (so Vergerius three times calls them) the 12th Article Declares for Infant-baptism, Anno 1535. As the Ana∣baptists rose up, so the Churches drew up their Confessions against them: The Mi∣nisters in their Preface to their Confession, write,

That some malicious Spirits, be∣cause they would cast all the Odium up∣on them that they could, did reckon them amongst the Anabaptists. But they answer, Nos ex factione Anabaptistarum non esse, nemini ignotum est. All men know they were none of that Faction, nor had any thing to do with the Anabaptists. The Doctrine they confessed in their Church∣es, they held and owned, before the name of the Anabaptists was so much as heard of.

So that my Author hath plainly abused both the old Britains, and the Waldenses.

Observing how my Author and Mrs. Tombs insulted over Mr. Baxter, and he that gave me the Challenge to Print, tel∣ling me, All my Party were silent, and I li∣ving in a Country small Town, and not hearing what Books came forth, I could not tell what to think of it; but when I wrote my Copy for the Press, I left here a space, till I wrote to Mr. Baxter, to know whether he had met with any Arguments to change his thought. I thank him, he sent me down his Book in answer to them both. Then one lent me Mr. Wills. I heard also of Mr. Whitston, but I saw none of these Authors till my Copy was written, but I see they have answered Mr. Danvers to purpose, discovered his gross falshood and forgery. Another Divine I met with that knows Mr. Danvers, though he hath not written against him, yet he hath so traced him, that he told me, never did Jesuites abuse Authors in their Quotations, more than he hath done.

That the Jesuites practice lies this way, we may see in Bellarmine, who quotes Ten of the Fathers to justifie his Doctrine of Christs preaching to the Spirits in prison, 1 Pet. 3.19. when as Six of them (I may

say, Eight of them) give that Interpreta∣tion of the Text, which Bellarmine himself condemns. See (saith that pious and learn∣ed Reignolds) With what Conscience these Jesuites handle the Controversies of Religion; which may well be applyed to Mr. Danvers, abusing so many Authors as he hath done. [Reignold. Praelec. 86. de lib. Apochr. p. 1044. See him again, p. 1083.]

Notes

• * 1.1

  Austin. l. 1. de peccat. mer. & renis. c. 26. De baptis. contra. Denat. l. 2. c. 7. & l. 4. c. 24.
• * 1.2

  De verb. Apo. Ser. 10.