« AnteriorContinuar »
'the right time: that you perform the office of bap-CHAP.IV.
tizing (by which we are regenerated unto God) Year after • according to the custom of the holy Roman church ' and the apostolic church ; and that you together ' with us do preach the word of the Lord to the
nation of the English : we will bear patiently, with all the other things which you practise contrary
to our customs. But they answered, that they * would do none of these things, nor own him for * their archbishop ,' &c.
This same passage is related by several others of our English historians in the after-ages, who taking it from Bede relate it to the same sense.
And among the rest, one Fabian ? (a sheriff or alderman of London in king Henry the Seventh's time, as I take it) wrote a Chronicle of the English history, in English. There are two editions of his 1400. book, which I have seen in the Oxford library. There may be more: in one of them (which is the first, I know not: I think the titlepage in one was torn) his words are to the same sense as Bede's, being these; at fol. 56. b. “Then he sayde to them, • Sen ye woll not assent to my hestes generally, as
sent ye to me specially in thre thynges : the firste • is, that ye kepe Esterday in due fourme and tyme * as it is ordeygned. The seconde that ye give
y Bedæ Eccl. Hist. lib. ii. c. 2.
by W. Rastell, in 1533. fol.
by J. Kyngston, in 1559. fol.
CHAP.IV.“ Cristendome to the children in the manner that is
used in the chyrche of Rome. And the thyrde, . that ye preche unto the Anglis the worde of God,' &c.
But in the other, these words in the manner that • is used in the chyrche of Rome' are omitted: so that the condition stands thus, that ye give Chris• tendom to the children.' And this last mentioned edition our author having lighted on, concluded that the British church before these times had not been used to give Christendom to, or baptize children.
But he should have considered, that the account of such a thing should be taken from Bede and the other ancient historians; and not from Fabian : especially since Fabian in his preface acknowledges, (as Mr. Wills says a, for I did not read that,) that what he relates of the ancient affairs, he has from Bede: and consequently his meaning must be to express Bede's sense: and so that edition first mentioned must be as he meant it, and the omission in the other must have been by mistake, of himself, or the printer.
Fox”, and other authors that have wrote since Fabian, recite the matter as Bede does.
This argument taken from Fabian is endeavoured to be confirmed by some other collateral ones : of which none is worth the mentioning, but that from Constantine's being born among the Britons, and yet not baptized in infancy. And that is not worth
* Infant-Baptism asserted, p. 124. [As Wills' book has the paging misplaced in a singular manner; the numbers running thus, 1--96; 1-40; 97—288 : 89—96; 37—159; observe that the passage referred to occurs on signature Iii 2.]
b Martyrology, at the year 600.
i neither; considering that very few nowadays be-CHAP.IV. liere that he was born in Britain, and none at all
Year after but this author, and one more, that his father was a Christian Pelagius was certainly born in Britain. And
1 since he owns, (as I have produced his words ,) that he never heard of any Christian, catholic, or * sectary, that denied infant-baptism;' it is certain his own countrymen did not.
The man brings this for one of his arguments to prove that the British church must have opposed the baptizing of infants; because they so fully prized and faithfully adhered to the scriptures, in 'the worship of God, and rejected human tradi*tions, especially all Romish innovations.' &c. If this be any argument, then for certain the pædobaptists' cause is in a bad case.
II. The Novatians and Donatists are also brought in by the same writer, as adversaries of pædobaptism. Though both these parties of men were sebismaties, and forsook the communion of the established churches in those times: get their differences having been rather in points of discipline than of faith, and they having been at some times of the eburch very numerous, and the time of their flourishing within our limited period of 400 years; an argument from their practice of keeping infants unbaptized would be considerable. But it would be withal a very strange discovery: since there are so many books extant, written at the same time by Cyprian, Eusebius, Optatus, Austin, &c., containing a ventilation of all the disputes between the catholies € See chap. ii. sect. 2. §. 2. d Part i. chap. 19. 5. 30. Danvers' Treatise, part ii. chap. 7. p. 228.] WALL, VOL. II.
CHAP.IV. and these men, in which nothing has ever been ob-
practice or opinion. For among all the reasons that
But the proofs brought for it do fail one's expectation. For as for those out of St. Austin against the Donatists, Osiander, Fuller, Bullinger, &c., they are all by Mr. Baxterf and Mr. Wills 8 shewn plainly to be nothing to the purpose.
And what he would prove out of Austin de Anima and Thomas Waldensis, that the dispute between Vincentius Victor and St. Austin was, whether infants ought to be baptized, will appear a great mistake, by reading what I have produced of the opinion of Vincentius in this collection h. For it was only whether infants that happened to die unbaptized, might ever enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Yet he quotes some writers, that do indeed say the thing that he would prove. But they are only Sebastian Frank', and one Twiskk. It is an artifice
f More Proofs of Infant-Baptism, part ii $. 2. chap. 4. [p. 240, &c.]
8 Infant-Baptism reasserted, p. 139.
[See an account of this author above, at p. 44.)
that may take with some very ignorant people, but CHAP.IV. I believe not approved by the more knowing or year after candid of his own opinion, to quote for some matter the capion
stles. of ancient history, an author that is but of yesterday, and of no note or credit. When a vulgar reader sees such a quotation, he thinks it as good as the best, because he knows not the author: but one of any reading slights it for that reason, because he knows him not. It is this man's way through all his book, to quote for the principal things that are in dispute concerning antiquity, such books as the foresaid Frank and Twisk, and one Melirning!, and a book that he calls Dutch Martyrology". They are all, as it seems, Dutch writers of late years, of the antipædobaptists' way: and if they say all that he quotes them for, they say things without any regard whether they be true or false. It is a known rule, that any modern writer affirming any thing of ancient history, without referring to some ancient author, is not at all to be heeded. These men might as well have quoted him, as he them; and it had been a like authority.
One shall not see Mr. Baxter in such a passion as he is in this place: to premise to the answers that he gives to the several quotations about these Novatians and Donatists, such sayings as", · l'tterly • false;' • False again :' . This is something, were it
(This book, so often quoted by Danvers, under the name of Jacob Herningus' (or Mehrning's) History of Baptism, I have not been able to find.)
Danvers cites this work as · The Dutch Martyrology, called * The bloody Theatre; a most elaborate and worthy Collection : * written in Dutch, by Th. J. Van Braght. I have never seen
. More Proofs, &c. p 249, &c. and 241, de.