upon it as p. 110. 4. By abusing his Reader with a supposititious Testimony of Athanasius when the Author from whom he brings it owns it to be forged p. 37 38 39. c. 5. His egregious unfaithfullness in that notorious abuse he puts upon Osiander pretending that he certifies several things out of Peter Clumacenses against Peter Bruis belâ—nging to the 12. Cent. when he knew them to be the Lying slanders of the Monks inquisitors against the Albegois in the 13. Cent. and of which he picks only 5. particulars out of 20. as p. 118. to 123. 6. His abusing and mistranslating a passage out of Cassander quite contrary to what he expresseth falsly thereby accusing the Minis's for the very crime therein he acquits them p. 160. to 163. 7. His abusing Erasmus telling us that he testifyes in his Censure before Origens Homelyes on the Romans that it was Jeroms Version and not Ruffinus's and that Jeroms Preface was prefixed thereto Whereas Erasmus saith the quite contrary in both viz. First that it did appear to be Ruffinus 's and not Jeroms and 2ly that the said Preface was a cheat of the Book sellers and none of Jeroms as p. 86. 8. His abusing his Reader by a Quotation from Vicecomes as though he testify'd that till Luthers time none deny'd Infants Baptism when he doth the quite contrary in the same place giving an Account of so many before Luther that did it viz. Vincentius Victor Hinemarus the Henrici and Apostolici Wickliff Strabo Vives c. as p. 127. 9. By further abusing the Reader in telling him that Rainarius in his Catalogue of the Waldensian errors gives not in their denying of Infants Baptism as a great Argument they were for it being one of the Monks inquisitors imployed to that end when he doth it expresly in Totidem verbis as p. 125. 10. His double dealing about Dr. Taylors Arguments against Infants Baptism in his Liberty of Prophecy suggesting as though Dr. Taylor himself and Dr. Hammond had refuted them whereas they suppose most of them to remain good against those common pleas for Infants Baptism but do not undertake to answer them because many of those Arguments usually brought by Paedobaptists are not good in themselves p. 52. Fourthly Fearful ositanacy or heedlesness repeating my words truly in one place and yet afterwards Fathering the quite contrary upon me as p. 32. Fifthly Notoriously partial in his Answers all the Book through replying to some things he judges weak and leaving others unanswered and yet vaunting over the whole as for instance in the 4. Cent. I give the sayings of 10 Fathers for adult Baptisme he replys only to 4. of them saith not a word to the rest and yet concludes against them all as p. 6. c. So in like manner as to the 10. Instances given from the most eminent men not baptized till aged though the children of Christian Parents replys only to 4. and not a word to the other 6. and yet concludes against them all as though he had particularly answered to them as p. 11. to 15. though his reply as you 'l finde is as insignificant in both as his silence And further I produce 3. Councils in the 4. Cent. for the same to which he weakly replyes he can produce 3 times ten Councells for Infants Baptism viz. in after centuryes when by Popish Counclls it was injoind and imposed as p. 10. And again I quote Spanhaemius and Osiander to prove a thing he takes notice only of Spanhaemius that speaks to part but not to Osiander that speaks to the whole and yet reproves me for my mistake as p. 148. c. And further he allows but two witnesses for Beleevers Baptism only viz Boemus and Srabo and yet leaves multitudes of them unexcepted against unreplyd to as p. 2. c. In like manner excepts against but 6. of above 40. particular witnesses against Infants Baptisme and yet allows but 2. viz. Hincâ—â—arus and Adrianus as p. 104 105. And again I quote eleven several Churches denying Infants Baptism he exceps only against 3 saith nothing to all the rest yet owns none of them p. 17. Sixthly the inveteracy of spirit testified all along both against the professors and profession it self of Beleivers Baptism only especially in his railing and false accusations from p. 145. to 171. As for my Epitomizing and repeating some of Mr Tombes s Arguments and not alwayes mentioning his name which he calls Plaigiarisme I do confess in that my collection I have not so punctually mentioned all our own party from Book to book wherein except in the Historical part I do little more then bring to remembrance in a new Method for the benefit of the present age what has heretofore in large Treatises been writ upon this subject which I think is usual in Polemical writings if I mistake not Mr Sydnham doth the same thing without mentioning of names from whom the arguments are brought which may be endless And if I have been thereby injurious to any I beg their pardon I am sure I have not been so to the truth But herein I conceive Mr Will 's hath not dealt fairly 1st to reprove me for the same thing he doth himself for I could draw paralells too upon him if I would be troublesome and impertinent and 2ly to avoid answering the force of the Arguments upon pretence they are anothers not my own which I conceive savours little of ingenuity and will scarse go for current pay It is true it must be owned that Mr Tombes how much soever slighted by M. Will 's though in some things very different from most that own this way hath done very worthily in this controversy was an eminent instrument that God raised up amongst the learned to plead and defend that despised truth whose learned labours and unanswered Books do witness for him in the gate though M. Will 's is pleased so ignorantly to vaunt it tell us in his Epistle that the Arguments for believers against Infants Baptisme are a parcel of Trite overworn things a nauseous crambe or repitition of old routed Arguments that had been in effect trampled upon and confuted again and again though his Anti-paedobaptism in 3 parts containing neer as I judge 1500. pages in quarto replying to what had been written by above 20 several persons are all of them if I am not misinformed unreplied to to this day And further I must inform the Reader that had any modest endeavours prevailed these things had more privately without this troubleing the world been rectifyd between Mr Will 's and me But he having as he tells us received from the learned his Album calculum or approbation would not by any means be stopt in his career for the supposed victory and glory And how far he has merrited that high Encomium given by his Imprimatur M. B. in his Epistle Recommendatory is to be considered who tells us that much thanks is due to him the
saith he is false for he himself added the word Only as is shewn he saith ch 7. part 1. p. 2. 3. Falshood charged Where he again repeates it saying that the Magdeburgs in Century 1. l. 2. c. 6. p. 496. do not say that the Apostles Baptised only the Adult And again in his pag. 38. mentioning my Repetition of that aforesaid saying of the Magdeburgs gives the following return Very good Sir Now you have learned to set down things right but why did you say in the 56. of the first Impressions that the Magdeburg as to the Subjects of Baptisme tell us That in this age they only Baptised the Adult was this saith he Lapsus calami aut mentis The slip of the tongue or the mind Answer ∣ ed. 1 To which I say that it is most manifest that this injurious man doth charge a Falshood of his own making upon me three several times for he can find no such words in my Book My words are expresly thus viz. As to the Subjects of Baptisme they viz. the Magdeburgs tell us That in this Age they finde they baptised only the Adult or Aged c. I do not say that they tell us that in this Age they baptised only the Adult these are his words But that they tell us they find they baptised only the Adult for so they tell us they find Examples for the one not for the other And if I have not guessed right let any sober Man in his sences judge they tell us in these words Bapt zatos esse Adultos tum Judaeos tum Geâ—tâ—s exempla pâ—obunt Act. 2.8 10 16 19. De Infantibus Baptizatis quidem anotata nom leguntur That Examples testify from the aforesaid Scriptures that the Adult both Jews and Gentiles were baptised But of the baptizing of Infants they read not of one Example upon Record So that if they find many Examples for the one and none for the other well it may be said they find Examples only for the one viz. for the Adultâ— Answer ∣ ed. 2 For they are not my Translation of the words and therefore I add not the word Only to them as he faâ—sly suggested but my fence upon those their words and no other then I presume every one will give And wherein his shameful Oscitancy as he calls it or heedlessness is the more to be remark'd for he himself in his first words of the 7. chap. 1. part doth repeat my words as I express them viz. that they find only the Adult or Aged whether Jews or Gentiles baptised in that Century And afterwards charges me three times over with the saying an other thing inculcating it with many agrivating circumstances and as worthy of the greatest observation puts it in the Van of the Falshoods And it was one of the first things that I met with from a Friend that was in his Book-sellers Shop where some Ministers were heard to say upon the reading thereof that I wanted morallity in so dealing with Authors Though truly if I had said the word I do no know where such a hainous crime had lain So that this is plain to you that first I neither said those words Nor secondly did I add the word only to the Author In the next place in his Preface he tells us of two other misrepresentations viz. That I say the Magdeburgs tell us that the Custom of dipping the whole Body in water was changed into sprinkling a little water in the face in the first Century Whereas there is not as he saith the least hint of this matter in this Century nor the following but the contrary for they tell us as pag. 4. part 1. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies abluo luo viz. to wash and that the Christian Baptisme was taken from the Jewish washings of which the Apostle speaks Heb. 9 10. divers Baptismes And so saith he the Author fathers that upon the Century Writers which they speaks not Wherein these two Falshoods are charged upon me First in bringing the Magâ—eburgs 3. Falshood charged to assert the Ceremony of Baptisme to be by dipping which they do not but the contrary Secondly In affirmiâ—g that they say 4. Falshood charged the rite was changed in that Century from dipping to sprinkling when there is not the least hint either in this or the following Century of any such thing Answer ∣ ed. 3 To the first that I am not mistaken when I tell you that they do assert the Rite of Baptizing to be by dipping let their own words determine the substance whereof I before gave you who having told us viz. the Magdeburgs Century 1. chap. 6. p. 148. That as to the place of Baptisme it was as occasion was offred in Rivers and Fountains c. And that the manner of it was by dipping in these words viz. Ministrum Baptismi in aquam baptizandos immersisse seu lavasse in nomine Patri Filii Spiritus Sancti probat verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod immersionem in aquam significat quod Paulus immersionem illam allegorice de mortificatione resurrectione exponit Rom. 6. Col. 2. Et Phrases ille quibus Baptismus Lavacrum dicitur Eph. 5 Titus 3. Et quod Ananias jubet Paulum abluere peccatum Act. 22. c. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying an Immersion or dipping in water proves that the Minister of Baptisme did dip or immerge the Baptised washing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit and that Paul did expound this immersion by the Alligorical Death and Resurrection Rom. 6. and Col. 2. And therefore Baptisme is called the Lavar or washing of Regeneration Ephes 5. and Tit. 3. And that Ananias commanded Paul to wash away his sins The truth hereof Master Wills could not but know and no other then I did before in substance declare and therefore for him to say that they do not say this but the contrary is to me wonderful strange Neither do they mention any thing of all those ten Lines of his said to be in this place as though they took the word to signifie Washing in opposition to Dipping and if in any other part of the Book they do say so it will but discover a contradiction to themselves but especially to the truth that with so much evidence they have here demonstrated therefore what apparent injury this is let all men judge Answer ∣ ed. 4 And as to the other it is as Notorious as this for I do not say That the Magdeburgs tell us that the custom of dipping the whole Body was changed into sprinkling c. This Century as he fathers upon me All that I say is this and they are my own words not theirs after I had mentioned their understanding of that Rite and Ceremony from the nature of the word and usage thereof in Scripture viz. Which said custom of dipping the whole Body in water was changed into sprinkling a little water
of their own party Magd. against sureties The Magdeburgs Century 1. p. 497. Do tell us that God-Fathers or Fidejussors for Infants or others they find nothing of in the Scriptures that in the second of the Acts they offred themselves to Baptisme that it would be very ridiculous to think the Apostles would baptise none without Sureties And Doctor Tayler pag. 84. I know saith he Dr. Taylor against sureties and his Reasons God might if he would have appointed God-Fathers to give answer in the behalf of Children and to be Fidejussors for them but we cannot find any Authority or Ground that he hath and if he had that it is to be supposed he would have given them Commission to have transacted the solemnity with better circumstances and have given answers with more truth for the Question is askt of Believing in the present and if the God-Father answer in the name of the Child I do believe it is notorious they speak false and ridiculous for the Infant is not capable of Believing and if it were he were also capable of dissenting and how then do they know his mind and therefore saith he Tertullian and Gregory Nazienzen gave advice that the Baptisme of Infants shall be deferred till they could give an account of their own Faith If you would be further satisfied about these Sureties or Gossips why and for what use viz. for Bells and Churches and grown Persons as Infants read pag. 84. 100. 128 129 and 141. Object 2 But if you will not admit of God-Fathers what do you say to Fathers why may not they Repent and Believe for the Child and so answer the Commission especially being a believing Parent and in Covenant according to what Mr. Wills repeates from Mr. Calvin p. Answer To which I say that if you betake to that you quit all your Antient Authorities that depend upon sureties where the Parent is expresly forbidden that Rite none being permitted to undertake for his Child neither Father nor Mother as Vicecomes tells us at large from the Decrees of the Councels ch 33. p. 92. Mr. Baxter owning it against the Canon-Law also Neither will you find one syllabe in all the New Testament to relieve you and therefore must either find out a New Commission for baptizing Perâ—ons without personal Repentance Faith or renownce the practice of sprinkling Infants that are so uncapable to do any thing thereof And which case you have very fully and honestly put by Master Baxter in his Christian Directory pag. 817. And how well resolved you have it remarkt pag. 217. and worthy of your perusal upon this point especially it being brought herein into such a narrow compass for if no Scripture ground to baptize an Infant by a Gossio or Parents Faith and Confession then Infants Baptisme is certainly a nullity and out of doors by their own grants And therefore till Mr. Baxter or some Body else give us a better solution in that case of Conscience we may say in his own words That for Persons to be baptised without a profess'd Contract â— is a Baptisme not of Christs appointment and that being done without Repentance and Faith is a prophanation saith Mr. Baxter and ridiculous saith Calvin Now therefore upon the whole let the Reader judge whether my severall proofs are not full proper and pertinent And whether Mr. Wills upon the closing of his seventh Chapter respecting my proofs upon the Centuries hath spoken like a judicious sober considerate Person in saying That besides Jo. Boemus and Strabo he may truly say that from the beginning of the Century to the end this Vnfaithful Man hath perverted the sayings of all Authors which he hath quoted and upon consideration of his carriage herein I am confident of those two things First that never any Writer did more prevaricate and shew more Falshood then he hath done Secondly that he would certainly have forborn if he had thought any man would have been at the trouble to examine and search whether he saith truth or no. I say it is referred to judgement My Appeal upon the proofs and the Prevarication charged whether any sober man can judge Mr. Wills has read the Book he so contems vehemently asperses and inveighs against Or secondly if he hath whether he did consider what was either writen by the Author or by himself in answer And thirdly If so whether he ought not to be esteemed a Person extreamly void of Reason or Conscience and that prejudice did more prevail with him then impartial judgement Secondly concerning the Falshoods he charges me with 2. The Falshoods BUt in the next place if it be supposed the Authorities aforesaid are full and proper and that I am acquit of the Prevaricatione yet what do I say to so many Falshoods charged upon me in the egregious abuse put upon so many Authors in leaving out and curtailing some of their sayings and adding to otâ—ers pretending they say that which they do not and so making Authorities of my own the chapter and page being so punctually given in against me Answer 1 To which I say First it seems to carry much weight in it and the rather because it proceeds from one that professes himself a solid grave Person a Minister of the Gospel and Master of Arts and a learned man and one that besides hath spent so much time lately as he tells us in the Vniversity Library at Oxford to trace these Quotations and to detect their errors deliver'd them with so much certainty that nothing as in that confident boast he expresseth it but an Index Expurgatorius can Relieve me and which is not to be had in England Answer 2 And secondly I must needs grant that if I acquit not my self herein I may very well be esteemed the unworthy Person that he would indeed render me to be that is guilty of so much Prevarication Forgery and Falshood Answer 3 But then thirdly I hope it will be granted on the other hand that if all these proove forgeries of his own and no truth in any one of them that then such a Stratagem bespeaks no less malignity to my Person then to the truth witnessed by me and that he hath justly contracted to himself the Odium and infamy he would Reflect upon me according to the equal decision given us in the Case Deut. 19.16 17 18 19 20 21. Prov. 19.15 Therefore to the Examination of the charge I freely joyn issue with him in order to the spâ—edy trial at whose door the Falshoods lye for one of us it must be agreed on all hands is notoriously guilty and so we shall proceed to the particulars as we find them in order The first whereof he thus begins with 1. Falshood charged in his Preface c. He hath much injured the famous History of the Magdeburgenses in very many places by misrepresenting what they say As that they tell us that in the first Century the Apostles Baptised only the aged which
perfect invention wherein these Fathers did so much abound only that sprinkling was not the rite and that dipping was owned to be the custome in these first times which Mr. Wills will not admit Secondly 7. Falshood charged he charges me to pervert the saying of Athanasius as when speaking for Adult Baptisme he might not be for Infants Baptisme also Whereas he meant by the former only Pagans and Infidels who according to Christs Commission must first be taught then baptised Athanasius saith he was for Infants Baptisme and it was practised in his dayes as appears by the 114 Question to Antiochus Where he resolves a doubt that might arise from the death of Infants whether they go to Heaven or no Seeing the Lord saith suffer little Children to come to me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven And the Apostle saith Now your Children are holy it is manifest that the Infants of Believers which are baptised do as unspotted and faithful enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Where saith he mark again how unworthly Antipaedobatists abuse the Fathers in saying their strongest Argument for Childrens Baptisme is from Tradition which they fly too for want of Scripture Implying here are two Scriptures for Infants Baptisme improved by this Father one Mat. 19.14 of such is the Kingdom of Heaven and the other because the Infants of Believers are baptised they are therefore holy alluring to holiness of Children mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.14 as though that was obtained by Baptisme and which was the opinion of some of the Ancients also Answer ∣ ed. 7 To which I say is not this excellently remark'd from this famous instance and Anabaptists unworthyness too in taking no more regard how well they proved Infants Baptisme of old from the Scripture But now this Book of Questions fathered upon Athanasius proving such an other Fable as that goodly piece that was fathered upon Dionysius It will only serve further to discover what inventions the Father of Lyes had by the working of the Mystery of Iniquity not only to beget and usher in but to nurish and strengthen this Illegetimate Birth but the artifice also he had to time the several forgeries viz Dionysius for the first the Popes Decretals and Justin Martyrs Responses for the second Origen's Storyes for the third these Questions of Athanasius for the fourth Age. And how ready and willing Persons are to this very time to catch up any of these lying Fables to strengthen themselves in deceits Nay there is good ground to believe that they know them so to be that so abuse the World therewith For how can Mr. Wills that is so well read in the Magdeburgs be ignorant how notably they have detected this Cheat and the reasons and grounds they give of its Spuriousness and therefore it must needs be so much worse in him to impose this falacy a fresh and so to improve it too as though it was a piece of Gospel Know therefore besides what Merningus and Montanus say of its forgery of which I gave you a hint pag. 57. whereof Mr. Wills would take no notice And what Scultetus as Mr. Tombes tells us in his Medul Pat. p. 2. l. 1. c. 42. saith of it also The Magdeburgs do give us this account which I presume Mr. Wills can tell you as well as my self being so considerable a Remark in the History of Athanasius his life as you have it Century 4. cap. 10. p. 1032 in these words speaking of his works Quartus tomâ—â— quaedam habet a diversis translata interpretibus ut Libellum de variis Quaestionibus Sacrae Scripturae ad Antiochum Principem interprete Valentino Ampelandio quem Librum Athanasii non esse indeliquet quod ab ejus Authore Athanasius citatur Quaestion vigesima tertia hoc modo haec quidem multum valens in Divina Scriptura Magnus Athanasius nos vero qui ab ipso sumus illuminati c. Accidit huc quod multos videre est in eo scripto navâ—s atque opiniones ab Athanasio alienas The fourth Tome hath some things translated by diverse Interpreters as for instance the Book of various Questions of the holy Scriptures to Prince Antiochus Valentinus Ampelandius being the In-Interpreter which Book that it is not Athanasius's is thence manifested because Athanasius is cited by the Author thereof in the 23. Question in this manner And these things indeed saith the great Athanasius who was mighty in the Scriptures bâ—â— we who are inlightned by him c. And hereto it may be added say they that one may see in that Writer many errors and opinions that are far from Athanasius's By which you may see the design of this wicked cheat by fathering this false thing upon this maâ— of name to wit to bring some Reputation upon Infants Baptisme as though owned and practised by the great Athanasius in this Age and which our Antagonist falls in with and improves to the utmost First in the severe check he is pleased to give me for perverting as he calls it the Testimony given by him for Adult against his judgement and practice of Infants Baptisme as appears by these two Questions urged Secondly for our so little regarding what the Fathers say when they urge Scripture as well as Tradition for Infants Baptisme witness those two pertinent Scriptures urged by this eminent Father Thirdly for drawing the injurious conclusion that Infants Baptisme was not practised in Affrica in this Age from his Testimony for Adult Baptisme when the contrary so manifestly appears from those Questions But now this goodly story proving a lye doth not the contrary to all these naturally Revert upon himself And fully discover that till we have better evidence to the contrary that however Athanasius plaid the Bishop and baptised his School-fellow when a Boy in sport that when he came to better understanding he gave continuance to no other Baptisme then to that of the Adult only according to Christs Commission The next piece of fraud and injustice he charges upon me 8. Falshood charged is the curtailing and leaving out part of a Sentence quoted out of Bazil pag. 65. mentioned by him chap. 7. 1. part pag. 13. and hinted at also in his Preface The Quotation is to prove as he Remarks that Adult Baptisme was then only practised in the Eastern Churches which are two sayings out of Bazil One out of his 3. Book against Eunomius viz. must the faithful be sealed with Baptisme Faith must needs precede and go before And in his Exhortation to Baptisme that none were to be baptised but the Catechumens and those that were duly instructed in the Faith Upon which he saith Now this is sufficient to impose a fallacy upon any Reader that hath no Aquaintance with that Father and understand not in what sence he speaks who would not think that this Ancient Doctor was against Infants Baptisme and that no such thing was owned in the Church in his dayes very true
Practise of the Church in Baptizing Infants of Believiâ—g Parents And withall that though h mselâ— had not anâ—wered those Arguments in his Libertâ— of Prâ—pâ—eâ—y which some thought stood in need of an wering Yet D ctoâ— Hamond hâ—d effectually done the same in his Letter of Resolution to six Qâ—eryes pag. 35 36 c. To which I reply Answ That as to those Arguments of Dâ—ctor Taylers I have already in the Prâ—face of both my Books said to this purpose That what ever was his ju gement or end in writing those things yet it was meet to remark them to the World that the Wisdom and Power of God might more appear if an Eâ—emy to bring â—orth such convincing Aâ—guments and Reaâ—ons from his own mouth to witness to his dispised reproached truth Yet truly Reasons why the pâ—ea for Anabaptists was Dr. Taylers own sence 1. Reason for what as yet appears to the contrary the Doctor seems to have spoken therein his own as well as ur apprehension in the greatest part of those Arguments and that for these following Demonstrations First Because the Doctor having spoken to all the usual Arguments brought by the Protestaâ—ts for Infants Baptisme and answered them distinctly doth in the conclusion speaking his own words say these two things very considerable First that through the weakness of the Paedobaptists Arguments which are nâ—t good in thâ—mselves those other Argâ—ments in plea for the Aâ—abaptists are good in â—pposing them and so they are accidentally strenght ed in their errour as he calls it by the weâ—â—ness and coâ—fiâ—ence of weak oppâ—sition And it is to be observed thâ—t those Arguments which he so reproves as weak and with so much Demonstration hath Baffled are these that fâ—llow summed up bre slâ— in his own words Paedobaptiâ—â—s Argumeâ—tâ— by 〈◊〉 â—aylâ—r Liberty of Prophecy p. 228 First tâ—e Aâ—gumeâ—ts pleaded from the instâ—â—â—tioâ— of the Type viz. Circumcisiâ—n Gen. 17. Secondly From the action of Christ calling little Children to come to him to bless them Matth. 19.14 Thirdly From the Title Infants have to Heaven Fourthly From the Gospel Instruction and Precept Joh. 3 5. Fifthly From the energy of the promise Acts 2.38 39. Sixthly From the Reasonableness of the thing 1 Cor. 7. Seventhly From the infinite necessity on the Childrens part Eightly From the Apostolical practice who having Commission to teach all Nations baptizing them did Baptize whole Housholds Infants being part of Nations and Housholds Tenthly From the universal practise of the Church and Gossips to answer for them to supply incapacity made good by Tradition The Answer he gives hereto These are the Arguments that he answers distinctly which first in the Anabaptists plea he saith pretend fairly and signify nothing some of these Alligaeions being false some impertinent and all the rest insufficient And all which agreeable hereto in his own words after he had replyed to every one of them he was pleased to pronounce weak and insuffiicient and which had therefore given so much strength and confirmation to the Anabaptists way 2. Reason And Secondly concludes all with these words That there is much more truth then evidence oâ— their side and giving no better or other Argument to aemonstrate that truth was with them Now I appeal to all Men of understanding whether any but a Person that disponded the goodness of his Cause and designed wholy to give it up could say that the evidence demonstration or proof was on his Adversaries side all his own pleas brought forth being removed and taken away himself being Judge But 't is said Objection That though he mentioned no other Arguments then yet he afterwards did in that which Mr. Wills calls his Excellent piece for Infants Baptisme Wills p. 36. It is true Answer about six years after he had writen his Liberty of Prophecy that being writ 1647. he did Anno 1653. being much laid at by many of his Friends and having given such general offence to his whole party thereby take himself concerned to say something Being a 3. Reason to perswade the World he was of an other mind though when he had said it it amounts to just nothing to any considering Person and which may appear to you from these Reasons following First Because he undertakes not to answer 1. D. Tayler Answers none of those Arguments or invalidate one of those Arguments whereby he had on the Anabaptists behalf overthrown all those weak Arguments before mentioned and that though some judged they stood in need of answering and that he had thoughts to have done it yet he forbore it upon some considerations which Master Wills repeates from him p. 36. Secondly 2. Repeats only some of the old Baffled Arguments Because what he saith in that Treatise which Mr. Wills so boasts off is not any new thing but some of the very same Arguments he had before juâ—ged so weak and insuffiicient and had so substantially answered and baffled As first that from Circumcisioâ— Secondly From Children right to the Kingdom of Heaven Thirdly To adopt them into the Coverant Fourthly From Apostolical tradition Only adds two or three more savoring more grosly of Popery viz. from the use and necessity of Baptisme to pardon thiir sin Regenerate and save them 3. Because in othâ—r Books he confirmed the truth of them And Thirdly it also appears that he spoke his own mind and sense therein because in those two Books he wrote so many years after viz. in his Diâ—wasive against Popery second part and in his Rule of Conscience he hath spoken so much agreeable hereto as before hath been observed to you viz. That there was no Apostolâ—cal Tradition for Infants Baptiâ—me That it was nâ—t practised fill the third nor judged necessary till the fourth Century That there was no Scriptural proof for Infants Bâ—ptisme That the Children of Christian Parents were not Bâ—ptisme till they came to understanding for the first Ages And that dipping and not sprinkling was the usage of Christ and his Apostles and constant Doctrine and practâ—â—e of the the Ancients for maâ—y hundred years And which I conceive are substantial Arguments to prove the Doctor sâ—oâ—e his owns as well as our judgement therein and which I must stand by till I see better Reason to the contrary Oâ—jection But 't is said one Reason Doctor Tayler gives why he did not answer those Arguâ—ents was because his worthy Frâ—end Doctor Hamond had in charity and humility descended to answer that Collectiâ—n Answer It is true indeed Doctor Hamond in that piece called his Letter of Râ—solutoin to six Queries bound up now in his first volume in Folio p. 481 doth therein pretend to reply thereto as being as he confesseth the most diligent Collection that he ever met with wherein the Arguments of the Adversaries are so inforced that he knew not where to furnish himself with so exact a scheame But how far he hath performed that Task and answered those Arguments
practise of Infants Baptisme fails none proving it higher by any approved Author then the fourth or fifth Century And then no other Baptisme then hath been renounced by most Protestants as corrupt and erroneus And that however the Papists and those that go their way may prove Antiquity as high as the fourth or fifth Century Yet that Mr. Wills can go no higher for his then New England or at the furthest then Luther CHAP. III. Wherein the Witnesses against Infants Baptisme are vindicated from Mr. Wills Exceptions THe Witnesses produced by me against Infants Baptisme were either particuler Persons or Churches as you have them at large mentioned in the seventh Chapter And first as to the evidence from particuler Persons Mr. Wills in his Preface tells us 1. From particuler Persons That notwithstanding all the flourishes Mr. D. makes and the numerous Quotations he hath fetcht from the Magdeburgensian History in his seventh Chapter from the first Century to the end of the twelfeth there are but two Persons to be found against Infants Baptisme viz. Adrianus and Hincmarus Mr. Wills ownes bâ—t two in the whole which is just the same Number he was pleased to allow me before for Believers Baptisme But whether these and their fellows may not speed as well as the former shall be put to as fair a trial and so submitted to judgement The first of my Witnesses urged against Infants Baptisme was Tertullian who doth Tertullian thc first witness as expressed pag. 221. eminently oppose it in six Arguments First from the mistaken Scripture Matt. 19.14 suffer little Children c. by which it seems some would have introduced such a practise which could not as he saith be properly applyed to Infants Baptisme for several Reasons urged from their incapacaties Secondly from the weigthiness of that Ordinanee which required Caution and consideration and no such haste Thirdly from the sinfulness of such a practice by Prophaning an Ordinance and partaking of others sins Fourthly from the absurdety of such a practise in refusing to intrust them with Earthly things and yet commit Spiritual things to their trust Fifthly from the Folly of exposing witnesses propounded it seems to supply the want of capacity in them and to undertake for them Sixthly from the consideration that the Adult upon many considerations were the only proper Subjects of Baptisme And to which we may add a Seventh which he is pleased so falsly to say I purposly and subtilly omitted there being no cause for it that I know viz. From the insignificancy of the end propounded for the same viz. To take away sin from Children Mr. Wills owns Tertullians wit To which testimony in the First place he gives us this acknowledgement pag. 96. viz. That it is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church hath divers passages seemingly against Infants Baptisme but yet withal it must be considered that his Testimony such as it is is but the testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church Where by the way we may take notice that our witness is owned by him but the general custom of the Church he speaks of is yet to be proved as utterly disowned by us and for which there is not the least colour of truth as yet produced And again pag. 6. he doth grant That the Magdeburgs do indeed tell us that Tertullian in this third Age opposed himself to some that asserted Infants Baptisme affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects of Baptisme Charges him witâ— corruption and weakness But what a corrupt Person he was and how weakly he had Reasoned he endeavors with much keeness to demonstrate In answer whereto I say that his witness being allowed and to be such a Doctor of Note too in the Latin Church it is sufficient and I think we need say nothing to those cavils of corruption and weakness the evidence being acknowledged the main thing intended and which will be endless to answer in every Authority that may be urged pro and con But yet in as much as he is our first witness and speaks so much Reason and truth and so much to the purpose And to make Mr. Wills his unreasonable opposition the better to appear we shall give some distinct reply to his Exceptions against this our witness whom he areignes for so much corruption in Doctrine and folly in this his particuler witness And first for that great corruption in Doctrine 1. The corrupt Doctrine he charges Tertullian with he charges him with about Chrysme Exorcisme c. I presume there are none of his ancient Doctors comes short of him and who were as much Montanists as he therein viz. Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Austin c. only herein Tertullian was more Orthodox holding none of those to be Jure Divino whilest they took them to be Apostolical Traditions and essential to Baptisme Magdeb. Century 3. chap. 10. pag. 240. compard 82. 225. 248. And for those evil sentiments of God and Christ it is certain that Origen did far exceed him as you will find at large in his Naevi pag. 261. c. and which argues a very partial mina to be so quick sighted in the one and so stark blind in the other And as to his being a Montanist before he wrote his Book of Baptisme which Mr. Wills affirms I see it not confirmed by any good Authority the Magdeburgs tell us that from Carthage he went to Rome Tertullian no Montanist before he wrote foâ— Baptisme and lived long there where he wrote against the Montanist and wrote his Book of Prescriptions as Helvicus saith the fifth of Severus which Mr. Wills ownes to be about the fortyth year of his age And the said Helvicus tells us that it was twenty years after before he wrote fore the Montanists And he that writes the lives of the Primative Fathers pag. 82. tells us that in the eleventh year of Severus Tertullian wrote his Book of Baptisme against Quiâ—tila in his third Tome next to his Prescriptions and in the fivetenth year his Book of the Resurrection c. But if he was turned Montanist before the matter is not much for it must be owned that a Man that is erroneous in one thing mâ—y be Orthodox enough in another The business is whether as to matter of fact he spoke these things against Infants Baptisme and that is not denyed And in the next place whether he spoke not reason and truth in that his testimony which in the next place we shall examine Therefore Secondly as to the weakness of his Argument which he renders so contemptible and ridiculous and guilty of so much dotage I make the following particuler reply to each exception viz. First as to his first Argument 1. He abused not the Text Mat. 19.14 from the mistaken Scripture he saith he abuseth the Text by his Paraphrases But second thoughts will I presume tell him it
Congregation of the People of God their professing and declaring openly our faith and amendement of life We esteem for an abomination and Anti-Christian all humane inventions as a trouble and prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit When humane Traditions are observed for Gods Ordinances then is he worshiped in vain as Es 19. Matth. 15. And which is done when grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies and persons enjoined to partake of Sacraments without faith and truth That Anti-Christ attributes the Regeneration of the holy Spirit unto the dead outward work of baptizing Children into that Faith and teacheth that thereby Baptisme and Regeneration must be had grounding therein all his Christianity which is against the holy Spirit What he makes their Confessions to be p. 45 c. God hath ordained certain Sacraments to be joined with the word as a means to unite us unto and to make us partakers of his benefits And that there are only two of them We do believe that in the Sacrament of Baptisme water is the visible and external sign which represents unto us That which is within viz. Renovation of the Spirit and Mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ We esteem for an abomination and Anti-Christian all humane inventions as a trouble and prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit When humane Traditions are observed for Gods ordinances then is he worshiped in vain as Es 19. Mat. 15. And which is done when grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies and persons enjoined to partake of Sacraments without faith and truth That Anti-Christ attributes the Regeneration of the holy Spirit unto the dead outward work of baptizing Children and teacheth that thereby Regeneration must be had Whereby you have demonstrated his great unfaithfulness in misrepresenting their Confessions by leaving out so many material and considerable parts thereof that make against him and then so unfairly and untruly to say That there was a Harmony betwixt all the Protestants Churhes in the World in those Articles and the Waldenses because all that are for Infants Baptisme believe the same But whether it be so indeed let us examine the particulers 1. Infants not capable to hear the Word First Do all the Paedobaptists believe That Baptisme and preaching the Word are joined together to instruct the Baptised partyes and that thereby they have union with Christ and partake of his benefits Pray how is that to be made good in any Infant that has no actual knowledge Faith or understanding 2. Nor of the Lords Supper Secondly Do they indeed believe the Lords Supper to belong in Common with Baptisme to all the Members of the Church why then do not Infants partake of one as well as the other since it belonges to them in Common if Members of the Church as Mr. Wills saith they are 3. Nor to understand the Symbole thereof Thirdly Do Paedobaptists with the Waldenses believe as you say That water in Baptisme is the usual sign representing to the Subjects thereof the invisible vertue of God operating in them viz. 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 any the least sign in the water of any such things signified thereby Fourthly 4. Nor to make Confession of Faith before it Have they indeed a Harmony with the Waldenses in what further they confess concerning this Ordinance viz. That by it tâ—ey are received into the holy Congregation of the People of God there professing and declaring openly their Faith and amendement of life But how is the Infant capable with the Waldensian Christiaâ—s not Pagan converts to profess and declare openly their Faith and Repentance and so to be received into the Congregation thereby Fifthly Do Paedobaptists indeed believe with them That humane Traditions and Inventions 5. That Infants Baptâ—sme is a humane Tradition and why are to be esteemed Anti-Christian â—bâ—mâ—na ions and vain worship and that that worship is vain and Traditional when Persons are enjoined to it without Faith and truth Why then are Infants baptised by them that have no Faith or knowledge of truth and for which there is neither Precept or Example in Gods word and by themselves owned to be an unwriten Tradition Sixthly Do they believe 6. Anti-Christ groundsall Religion in it That Anti-Christ Grounds all Châ—istianity and Religion in the Baptisme of Childreâ— attributing Regeneration to that outward work done contrary to the holy Spirit Why then do they baptise Children which as acknowledged is the basis and Foundation of the false Church and so contrary to the Spirit and for which there is nothing but the Decrees of Popes and Anti Christian Councels to warrant it Whereby you see that Infants are manifestly excluded Baptismâ—â— in these six particulers in these Coâ—fessâ—â—â—s and that Paedobaptists cannot assert the same without evident contradiction to themselves Objections to the contrary Confessions But in the next place if these Confessions be good as you say against Infants Bâ—ptisme yet what do you say to those contrary Confessions that own the Baptizing of Infâ—nts as Master Wills hath given them from Perin p. 62 63 65. Answer To which I say it is to me matter of the greatest admiration that I having with that exactness especially in the last Edition given you such a particuler Account of all tâ—ose Confessions word for word both of that of Bohemia and that of Provence and proved to you by such ample Dâ—moastration the following particulers viz. First That none of them were extant till the sixteenth Century whereas the other are upon Record in the eleventh or twelfeth Centuries so many hundred years before Secondly That that Confession said to be made by the Waldenses in Bohemia to King Ladislaus were not Waldenses as they themselves acknowledge in the preambule thereof Thirdly Have given an account how and by what means and when those of Provence came to introduce that Custom so contrary to what their ancient Barbes had instructed them in How sadly they had â—eclined even to going to Mass And how contradictious that practice was to other parts of the Confessions into which it was foisted And that these Waldenses of Provence that made these Confessions were inconsiderable to the Body of that People that was dispersed into so many parts of the World that held the contrary Yet Mr. Wills should take so little notice of what I have said and Mr. Blind-man that has written since who has also transcribed the said contrary Confessions without the least notice to what I have said in answer thereto which I think is such an abuse as was never offred by any pretending to answer Books and therefore I must refer them and all others that desire satisfaction therein to what I have so fully and as I humbly conceave unanswerably spoken to each Confession The Second Demonstration
dixit only I shall give them briefly to you with what I have since met with to confirm the same which are as followeth viz. First From what is mentioned of Donatus himself Donatus himself who as Sebastian Frank in his Chronicle saith did teach that no Infant should be baptised but only those that believed and desired it p. 222. Donatists his followersr viz. Secondly from what we find mentioned of his Followers viz. Cresconius 1. Cresconius who did oppose Austin in that point as saith Jacob Merning p. 230 who was a Donatist as say the Magdeb. Cent. 5. p. 631. Fulgentius 2. Fulgentius another learned Donatist as the Magdeb. tell us Cent. 5. p. 631. did deny Infants Baptisme and assert only that Baptisme that was after Faith Vicecom L. 3. c. 3. p. 66. Vincentius 3 Vincentius Victor another who denyed Infants Baptisme as saith Vicom L. 1. c. 2. out of Austin Lib. 3. c. 14. de Anima Thirdly It doth appear from what we find in Austin Austin 3. and 4. Books Tom. 7. c. 23. p. 433. written against the Donatists wherein with so much zeal and fury he manageth the Argument for Infants Baptisme against them bitterly cursing those that oppose it p. 123. Also in his Epistle to Marcellus Tom. 7. c. 6. p. 724. he opposeth himself against them for denying Infants Baptisme Fourthly Eckberius and Emericus Eckbertus Emericus learned Writers in the twelfeth Century contending against the Waldenses or Catheri for denying Infants Baptisme do say that the new Catheri viz. the Waldenses then did in that point conform to the old Catheri the Donatists and Novations p. 224. Thomas Walden Tho. Walden that wrote against Wickliff in Henry the fourth's time tells us that Vincentius Victor with whom Austin contended did deny Baptisme to little ones De Sacram. Tit. 5. ch 53. fol. 118. Osiandeâ— Fuller Bullinger Fifthly Our latter Writers do also agree herein that the Donatists and modern Anabaptists were all one so saith Osiander Cent. 16. p. 176. And Fuller in his Eccles Histor lib. 5. pag. 229. And Bullinger Lib. 5. sol 216 222. of Baptisme Spanhemius Spanhem also saith that the Donanists deny Infants Baptisme as appears saith he Austin 6. Book against the Donatists c. 23 24 25. Spanh ch 4. p. 45. Sixthly Because the Donatists and Novatians both one in Doctrine were acknowledged to be the same in Principle with the Waldenses and that the Novatians banished by Innocent the third out of Rome as saith Socrat. L. 7 c. 9. did dwell in Italy and Dâ—lmatia and were called by the same name with the Walâ—enses viz. Cathari and Fratricilli in so much as Perin judges they were the same People and Osiander confesseth that the Albigoâ—s came from Rome Cent. 13. l. 1. ch 4. p. 329. Therefore it is left to the judicious Reader whether I am not sufficiently justifyed by this six fold testimony in my affirming that the Donatists did deny Infants Baptisme and that they may well be reckon'd amongst the number of my witnesses and against whom Mr. Wills has made no just Exception But in the next place Mr. Wills tells us Mr. Wills slanders 〈◊〉 the Donatists that if it be taken for granted they were against Infants Baptisme they being as he confesseth in many things so like Anabaptists yet by what appears from Mr. Fox as he tells us out of Eusebius and fâ—om Austins works as say the Magdebuâ—gs that I have no reason to boast of my Authority for both Novations and Donatists were viâ—e Persons and alwayes counted for Hereticks To which I say Answered that if I should acknowledge them as corrupt as Origen Cyprian Austin and Chrysostom and others of his great witnesses that held for Chrysme Excorcisme and other Superstitions and that Regeneration was effected in the very act of Baptisme and th t without Baâ—tisme and the Eucharist no Child could be saved yet their witness as to matter of fact is to be owned which is all I produce them for not undertaking to defend them in all the Tenets fathered upon them more then Mr. Wills doth those that are so undenyably charged upon his witnesses yet this he must give me leave to say in vindication of the Donatists and Novatious viz. First For the Nâ—vations that what Mr. Fox speaks of them from Eusebius an Author of no great fame is the less to be regarded because he was a great friend to the Arians and the Novations great Impugners of them and upon that score it was he spoke very maliciously of them though Socrates an Author of better Account speaks very honourably of them And Albaspanaeus upon Optat. Milevitan bespeaks them a very worthy People in his 20. Observation Magd. say no mentiâ—n in old â—riters of â—â—eir Doâ—â—â—es And as for the Donatists the Magdeburgs tell us that they wonder that there is no more mention of them by the Ecclesiastical Writers of this Age either by Sozamus or others and that only The doret in his Heretical Fables gives some hints of them And that the Hypothoses of their Dogmes they gathered not from any of their writings which were not extent but out of Austins works their great Opposer Câ—nt 4. c. 5. p. 376 377. and from whom it is â—hat Mr. Wills takes his scheame But how any can take a good meaâ—ure from â—ir sevearst Enemy to make a judgement aâ—â—st them and condemn them for Hereticks 〈◊〉 not for may you not from Calvins writâ— pick as great a charge against the Lutheâ— and as great against the Sacramentarians out of Luthers writings Alas what a sad People doth Mr. Edwards make the Independents and what a dismal black line do the Prelates draw upon the Presbyterians and the Papists again upon them and what a sad generation are Anabaptists if Mr. Wills may be believed Schisme being in all the incensing crime which draws forth all the gall and wormwood and just so it was betwixt Austin who was so Catholick in his Communion and the Donatists that prest for more purity in their separations and from whence it was that all that durt was flung upon them and they put into such Bears skins as Mr. Wills puts his Opposites in And for those Decrees of Councels that past upon them for Hereticks is no good ground to conclude against them for so they judge the purest Doctrine and holyest walking in many Ages witness our Saviour himself who was censured for a Blasphemer and the Apostles and Saints in every Age ever since and who more censured for Heresy then the Waldenses Lollards and Wickliffians their Followers and Disciples that were so truly Orthodox The Witness said to be born against Infants Baptisme by the Antient Britains defended THe last witness he opposeth is that born by the Antient Britains Antient Brittains and that they denyed Infants Baptisme I gave the following Arguments and which you have at large p. 226. First Why they deny'd