« AnteriorContinuar »
CHAP.IV.' true ; but it is such a kind of falsehood as I must
• not name in its due epithets :' • Not a word of • truth :' • No such matter in that chapter, or the · whole book :' Blush, reader, for such a man :' Mr. Bagshaw is now quite overdone in the quality of untruths,' &c.
I produced in the Collection o a canon of a council of Carthage, wherein they decree what is to be done in reference to that question; whether they should admit to any office of the clergy those who in their infancy, before they could judge of the error, had been baptized by the Donatists, and afterward came over to the church. Cassander P and Mr. Cobbet I had brought this as a proof, that the Donatists, as well as catholics, baptized infants. This writer says ", that is but a supposition at best ' that they might do so.' But I doubt anyone else will take it for a plain supposition that they ordinarily did so.
That challenge of St. Austin, and confession of Pelagius, produced before", that they never knew nor heard of any heretics or schismatics that were against the baptizing of infants, must be an undeniable proof that neither of these two sects were so : since a considerable body of each of them were re
o Part i. chap. 16. §. 1, 2.
p (See Georgius Cassander, De Baptismo Infantium, 80. Colon. 1563. reprinted in his Opera Omnia, fol. Paris. 1616.]
9 (See • A just Vindication of the Covenant and Church-estate • of Children of Church-members; as also of their Right unto • Baptism. By Thomas Cobbet, teacher of the Church of Lyn
in New England.' 4". London, 1648. p. 296. The passage referred to occurs at p. 291.]
r Treat. of Baptism, part ii. chap. 7. s Part i. chap. 19. §. 17 and 30.
maining in those parts where these two men lived : CHAP.iv. and all their particular opinions were the subject of year after every day's disputations. And St. Austin, in his the apobook of Sects, wrote a particular of their tenets, as well as of all the rest. And yet since my last edition, an antipædobaptist writer, Mr. Davye", has printed over again what Danvers had said of the Britons, the Novatians, the Donatists, denying infant-baptism ; without having a word to say to the confutation of that pretence by Baxter, Wills, &c. or in my book; which yet he had seen. And hunting further for some antipædobaptists among the schismatics of those times, has laid a claim to the Pelagians: who, when they were expiring, left behind them (as I have shewn part i. ch. 19. and a little more fully in a Defence of this book) an eternal anathema against any that should deny infant-baptism, or say that they denied it.
III. The Arians are by some catholic writers styled anabaptists. These also made a considerable body of men in some part of our period of time, viz. of the first 300 years after the apostles. Espe- 240. cially in the time of the emperors, Constantius and 2 70. Valens; who took almost the same methods to force their subjects to turn Arians, or at least to hold communion with the Arians, as the French king does at this day to force his to turn papists, or go
If the writer whom we have been following for some time, had ever heard of, or lighted on,
t De Hæresibus, cap. 69. [Op. tom. viii. p. 21. ed. Benedict.]
a [Mr. Thomas Davye (of Leicester), in a book called, “The • Baptism of Adult Believers only vindicated.' 8vo. 1719.]
CHAP.IV. those places where the Arians are called anabapYear after tists; I am persuaded he would have increased the stles.
catalogue of his friends with one sect more. I would not have the antipædobaptists claim any acquaintance with so ill company: and therefore do give them an account of the reason why they had that name. It was not for that they had any thing to say against infant-baptism: but because they, as well as the Donatists before them, did use to baptize over again such as came from the catholic church to them ; not for that they had been baptized in infancy, (for if they had been baptized at man's age it was all one,) but for that they had received baptism from the catholics, whom the Arians did so hate, that they would not own any baptism given by them to be good. This is evident both from St. Austin, who recites their tenets“, and also from an oration of St. Ambrose, which I mentioned before, against Auxentius the Arian*: where he says, “Cur igitur rebaptizandos,' &c. •Why does • Auxentius say, that the faithful people, who have • been baptized in the name of the Trinity, must • be baptized again ?' And this is all that the word anabaptist signifies; 'one that baptizes over again • those that have been baptized already.' And therefore those of the antipædobaptists that know the signification of the word, do not own the name; they denying theirs to be rebaptizing.
The instance of the emperor Valens, that I gave before!, (whom St. Basil exhorted to have his child baptized by the catholic bishops, but he chose to CHAP.V. have it done by the Arians,) is a clear proof that year after Arians as well as catholics baptized infants.
u De Hæresibus, cap. 49. * [Apud Op. tom. ii. p. 874. sect. 37. edit. Benedict.] y Part i. chap. 12. sect. 9, 10.
CHAP. V. Of some heretics that denied all water-baptism. And of others that baptized the same person seceral times over. The dispute in the catholic church concerning rebaptizing. Of the Paulianists, whom the Nicene Fathers ordered to be baptized anew, if they would come into the church.
I. WHAT St. Austin and Pelagius said of all heretics (that they had ever heard of) allowing infant-baptism, must be understood of such as allowed any baptism at all. For otherwise, they knew there were some sects that renounced all use of it to any persons, infants or others. And St. Austin had himself been of one of them. And he does indeed express a limitation that is of the same effect, when he says, “ All that do receive the scriptures of the • Old and New Testament, do own infant-baptism . for the remission of sins? :' for those that denied all water-baptism did also generally renounce the scriptures.
It may be worth the while to gratify the Quakers with a short catalogue of all their ancient friends in that point of denying baptism, that were within our period.
The historians that have given us the tale of all the heresies they had heard of, have been much too liberal of that name. For they have given the name of heretics to some that deserved a worse, and
z See the words, part i. chap. 19. sect. 17.
CHAP.V. should have been called infidels ; and also to some Year after that deserved one not so bad, and should have gone
for distracted people.
Of the first sort were the Valentinians, who made use of the name of Christ only to mock and abuse the religion : their own religion being a mixture of idolatry, magic, and lascivious rites. They blasphemed the scriptures as falsea ; and the catholics as carnal; and both, as giving a wrong account of Jesus Christ, of whom they made quite another sort of being
Of these Irenæus reckons up several sorts, which had their several opinions concerning baptism. I gave a general account of them before), out of the 18th [21st of the Benedictine edition] chapter of Irenæus' first book : and here you shall have Irenæus' words.
' Having premised, that in this sect there are as many arodut púteis, redemptions, [or, ways of bap'tism,] as there are ringleaders,' he adds,
* Some of them dress up a bride-chamber, and ' perform mystical ceremonies with certain profane * words to those whom they initiate ; and call this
a "spiritual marriage,” which they say is made • according to the likeness of the “heavenly conju'gations."
• Others bring the party to the water, and as they are baptizing use these words: “ In the * name of the unknown Father of all things : in . • the truth the mother of all things : in him that • came down on JESUS: in the union and redemp• tion and communion of powers.” • Some, that they may amuse those whom they a Irenæus, lib. iii. cap. 2.
b Part i. chap. 21. §. 2.