Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
B21030
|
A rejoynder to Mr. Wills, his Vindiciæ wherein the antiquity for believers and novelty of infant baptism is further confirmed : as also his groundless appeal distinctly answer'd, and the forgeries and mistakes boasted of, still found to be his own : with an appeal to his conscience about the same / by H. Danvers.
|
Danvers, Henry, d. 1687.
|
1675
(1675)
|
Wing D227
|
48,348
|
89
|
of Scripture p. 95. And that out of Dr. Field That the grounds of it were taken out of Scripture p. 155 1. Ed. were also omitted from his own grounds aforesaid Because I there quoted both of them under the Head of Tradition they both with so much positiveness asserting Infants Baptism so to be yet you 'l find that when I speak to that Head of Consequences from Scripture I quote them boâ—h as Reply p. 74. Lastly Dr. Owens And lastly As to that of Dr. Owen p. 175. which with Estius Ainsworth and Ames I brought to prove the Seed of Abraham Gen. 17.7 respected the Spiritual Seed only viz. the Elect who were to partake of the Spiritual Promises and not the Carnal Seed as Paedo-baptists generally take it which the Dâ— doth so fully and at large evince And therefore that Clause he excepts against was by his own Rule well enough left out that speaks to another thing Though I confess had I suppos'd that the omitting it would have been any injury to the Dr. or just offence to any man or any wrong to truth I should have mentioned it and which I may well do without any prejudice to the cause I maintain For if I had been to prove that Circumcision thaâ— External Administration of the Covenant which the Jews had belonged to their Carnal Seed I should have mentioned that but in as much as the other was the matter in hand I know not that it was so hainous to omit it Mr. Wills in his own Case being Judge It is our belief that as the Dr. says the external Administration of the Covenant viz. Ciâ—cumcision did belong to Abraham and his Carnal Seed the Jews under the legal Administration yet it follows not therefore that Baptism belongs to his Carnal Seed under the Gospel Dispensation And therefore the omitting that Phrase which is not at all disputed betwixt us could not be from any injurious design And therefore I conceive I deserve not the severe rebuke he is pleased to give me for the same viz. That I am therein guilty of much dishonesty ☜ and that it is such an unworthy carriage that be never observed the like in any man Though truly if I should have put it in I know not what advantage Mr. Wills could make of it at another time except he concludes that the same â—ederal right to the Carnal Seed is continued under the Gospel as it was under the Law and gives the same right to claim the same priviledges now as that did to the Jews before If so surely John Baptist did greatly mistake himself when he forbad them Baptism upon that consideration bids them not to say within themselves that they were the Children of Abraham for that must not now serve their turns it being only Fruits meet for Repentance that that must qualifie them for the Baptism of Repentance and Gospel-Ordinances and Privileâ—ges and not their old Carnal Priviledge to be Abrahams fleshâ—y Seed in which they mainly boasted whereon â—hey bolsteâ—ed themselves And sutable heâ—eto doth Dr. Owen himself very excellently tell us in his 6. Exercit on the Heb. p. 56 Tom. 1. viz. That the misapprehension hereof was the main thing that confirmed the Jews in their obstinacy and unbelief that being only a peculiar Priviledge to that fleshly Seed for the bringing forth of the Messiah into the World and that when he was come that Priviledge fell and all Ordinances suited thereto expired and new Ordinances of Worship more suitable to the Gospel were appointed c. That whole Exercitation being written with so much Judgement and Spirituality I would earnestly recommend it to Mr. Wills and Mr. Whistons Considerations and all other of their minds who would upon like misapprehesions have Gospel-Ordinances and Priviledges still entailed upon the fleshly Seed upon that old federal right which was only Typical as well observed to us and done away having done its business when Christ came into the world that greater Priviledges and better Ordinances suited to the Gospel dispensation might take place Jesus Christ as the Dr. so well tells us in his Cat. p. 106. Requiring Regeneration as an indispensible condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom For his Temple is now to be built of Living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 viz. Men spiritually and savingly quickned from their Death in sin by the Holy Ghost whereof they are partakers made a meet Habitation for God Eph. 2.21 22. 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 pag. 103. God hath appointed Saints to be the seat and subject of all his Ordinances having granted the right of them to them alone 1 Tim. 3.15 But this by the By which may not be unseasonable upon this occasion Thus I have dispatch'd the first Head not doubting but I have given ample satisfaction therein II. His Second Complaint against me is for adding to Authors Adding to Authors without the Distinction of a different Character whereof he gives seven Instances Answered 1. Generally This is a Charge that I think may concern most Writers and 't is confess'd that many times it falls out that through the inadvertency of Writers or carelessness of Printers that Quotations out of Authors are not alwayes written in a different Character whereby the Reader is at a loss many times whether he reads his Author or another Man that he refers to And which is the fault as Mr. Wills knows of the Magdeburgs of the Bazil Impression and the fault of Mr. Wills his present Book which I could abundantly eviâ—ence if I would be Critical and troubâ—e the Reader with such Impertinencies And wherein any such omission has been in any of my Writings I can truly say they have not been wilful but my trouble to find and of which I shall be more careful for the future and so will I hope my Corrector But to be more particular to your 7 Instances viz. Those Two added to the Magdeburgs are truly their own 2. Particularly though not so immediately following in that Page That other of Chrysostom was purely my own and should have been distinguished That which he calls my adding to Jerom positively saying they are none of his words though I tell you that he saith it is is Mr. Wills his grofs mistake for he will find they are his own words in his Annot. upon Mat. 28. Tom. 9. Edit Paris Anno 1546. viz. Non enim potest fieri ut corpus Baptismi recipiat Sacramentum nisi ante anima fidei susceperit veritatem i. e. For it cannot be that the Body should receive that Sacrament of Baptism till the Soul hath before received the verity of Faith That to Lydia is not an adding to the Scripture but my own sense of the words concluding that only Believers in her Houshold were Baptized of which I speak at large in my Reply p. 184. That to Beza's is easily understood not to be his by any ordinary Reader And that to Ames
very plainly But what Injury done herein and what the obstinacy calling for an Appeal is left to all to judge Forgery III. The Third Complaint is For making Authors affirm one thing when they affirm the directly contrary yea contradicting my self Answered 1. About Estius 1. The first he mentions is that of Estius for Calvin heretofore owned by me which savours nothing of Ingenuity though in looking into my Book I find I am not altogether so tardy as I took my self to be for whoever pleases to look p. 176. in the end of that Quotation will find that I put Estius Ann. Gen. 17.7 and by what mistake Calvin came to be mentioned in the beginning of it I know not therefore how fair Mr. Wills was in that Cavil and since by his unmerciful inculcating the same is left to the Reader 2. Dr. Hamond on Joh. 13.10 2. The second is for mistaking as he saith a Quotation out of Dr. Hamond quite contrary to what he affirms with his remark upon it viz. No wonder Mr. D mistakes Latin Authors so often when he cannot rightly understand those that are in English But what cause there is for the same and that it ought rather to be turned upon himself will appear by the following Paralel Dan. Treat p. 194. Dr. Hamonds An. on Joh. 13.10 printed for R. Royston 1653 Mr. Wills saith that Dr. Hamond saith Dr. Hamond upon Joh. 13.10 tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion or washing the whole body and which answereth to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for dipping in the Old Testament The Heb. had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 washing of the whole body which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other of the hands or feet which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifying The Heb. had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the washing of the whole body which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other two that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the hands or feet And then has the confidence to say Mr. D. tells us the Dr. saith Baptismos signifies an Immersion or washing of the whole Body and answers to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas indeed he tells us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the washing of the whole Body and answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that this was exactly agreeable to the Drs. Writings elsewhere in the said Book as well as the truth the Reader is desired to peruse him upon Mark 7.4 p. 172. where he saith That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 3. which belongs to the hands or feet signifies the washing of the whole body Thus 't is said of Eupolis which wrote the Tragedy called Baptae against Alcibiades that being taken and thrown into the Sea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Baptisms of Cups c. in the end of this Verse is putting into water all over rincing them Two words there are used by the Hebrews for washing 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used for washing hands and feet onely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here And 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immersion of the whole body to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers And upon Mat. 3.1 p. 14. As the Jews call those Lakes wherein they wash themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so in the Christian Church the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vessel which contained the Baptismal Water is oft called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a swimming or diving place And further John in token of the resolved change of the Jews put them into the Water and dipt them all over and so took them out again And upon the sincerity of their change promised them remission of sins And now whether it be Mr. Wills or I that have abused Mr. Hamond is submitted to the unprejudiced Reader 3. About the Popes Name Deus dedit As to the Third I grant Deus dedit appearing to me two words and not the Name of a Man I rendred it Deo dans or Gods gift not considering as Mr. Wills observes that there had been a Pope of that Name which since I find in the Catalogue of Popes and therefore acknowledg it to be my error 4. Quotation out of VValden Fourthly as to the Quotation out of Walden I acknowledge Mr. Wills hath truly rectified to our advantage which confirms more fully that Wickliffe and his followers were against Infants Baptism in agreement with the Albegois and Sylvester in Scotland though different from Pelagius and Vicentius Victor which was my mistake who as it is said held Infants Baptism and thereby reproved himself for asserting the quite contrary viz. That Walden affirms That Wickliffe held Infants Baptism p. 45. of his Vind. The words of Walden relating to Wickliffe are Nostri Wiclivistae Baptismum Ecclesiasticum inutile judicant parvulis which parvulis Mr. Wills very unworthily leaves out to insinuate to his Reader that they rejected all Baptism whereas that term expresly limits it to little ones nor can I seriously conjecture but it s rather a lapsus mentis then error Calami or Typographi Nor does he take notice of the reason assigned there for their denying Infants Baptism which is the very same Mr. Wills and those of his mind produce for its practice viz. sufficienter eos aiunt esse mundatos sanctos quia de sanctis parentibus Christianis nascuntur i. e. They deem them sufficiently cleans'd and holy because they are born of Holy and Christian Parents And now whether Mr. Wills his Curtailing this Quotation or my harmless and unndesigned mistake of asserting Wickliffe to agree with Pelagius be the more blameable I humbly submit to consideration The Fifth is no contradiction 5. That of 1. Cor. 7.14 which is only an Allusion to those in Ezra's time that put away their strange Wives Similies not running of all four as Mr. Wills would stretch it The Sixth is no Contradiction 6. Quotation out of Frank. for Infants Baptism might be universally received and yet in many places little esteemed has it not been so heretofore here in England as to that as well as other things I could mention 1. Because persons may little esteem things they receive 2. By universal I explain my self to mean the Greek and Latin Churches which admitted of exception viz. Those that submitted to the Pope and those that were under the Patriarchs 7. An Assertion of my own The Seventh is no Contradiction which in the former Chapter I have so fully cleared there being Antiquity for Believers Baptism in the first Centuries but no Record for Infant Baptism as Mr. Baxter