Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	authority_n	church_n	council_n	1,729	5	6.6396	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66526	Vindiciæ vindiciarum, or, A vindication of a late treatise, entituled, Infant-baptism asserted and vindicated by Scripture and antiquity in answer to Mr. Hen. D'Anvers his reply : to which is annexed, the Right Reverend Dr. Barlow (now Bishop-elect of Lincoln) his apologetical-letter : also An appeal to the Baptists (so called) against Mr. Danvers, for his strange forgeries, and misrepresentations of divers councils and authors, both antient and modern / by Obed Wills.	Wills, Obed.; Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691. Appeal to the Baptists against Henry D'Anvers, Esq.	1675 (1675)	Wing W2868; ESTC R38662	92,093	163

consideration That in this Century Tertullian perswading to defer both the Baptism of Children and others who are of age doth thereby intimate that it was the custom of the Church at that time to Baptize the one as well as the other otherwise there was no reason why he should desire that they would defer the one as well as the other Concerning Tradition which Mr. Danvers saith is the principal ground that hath been urged for Infants-Baptism with an answer thereto Sect. 2. To make out this he quotes Austin who calls it an Apostolical Tradition to which I said in my Answer that anciently the greatest points of Faith were by the Fathers named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so they are called by the Apostle 2 Thes. 2. 15. which is all one with Divine Doctrines or Ordinances for so the word is rendered 1 Cor. 11. 2. And to make this more fully appear the Magdiburgs tell us that Bazil calls the manner of Baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost a Tradition by which he means the Doctrine of the Lord Christ. Magd. Cent. 4. c. 4. p. 235. Egregie Basilius hâc de re scribit lib. 3. contra Eunomium Baptismus noster est secundum Traditionem Domini in nomine Patris c. that is our Baptism is according to the Tradition of the Lord in the name of the Father c. Again Bazil in his Book de Spiritu sancto by Tradition means the Scripture as Hermannus Hamelmannus observes de Tradit Apost tacitis p. 355. Certum est quod Basilius per vocabulum Traditionis aliquando Scripturam intelligit it is certain that Bazil doth sometimes understand by the word Tradition the Scripture for so he speaks to Amphilochius in his 10th Chapter of the above-mentioned Book of the Holy-Spirit Hanc Traditionem quae me perduxit ad lucem ac Dei cognitionem largita est c. If Austin then means the same that Bazil doth by Tradition viz. the Scripture he says true when he tells us that Infants-Baptism were not to be believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition and although he intends the word otherwise in that famous speech of his in his 4th Book against the Donatists Chap. 24. which Mr. Danvers doth ill in curtailing namely That if any do inquire for a Divine Authority for the Baptizing Children let them know What the Universal Churh holds nor was instituted in Councils but always retained is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other than by Apostolical Authority to which this is added in the next words Tamen veraciter conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulis Baptismi Sacramentum ex circumcisione Carnis quam prior populus accepit that is Nevertheless we may conjecture how much the Sacrament of Baptism is available to Children by the Circumcision of the Flesh which the former people received His next instance is from Bellarmin that it is an Apostolical Tradition c. But Mr. Danvers is not ignorant that Bellarmin saith Satis aperte Coll●gitur ex scripturis to which purpose we have him Tom. 3. lib. 1. c. 8. de Sacrament It is clearly gathered from Scripture A third passage Mr. Danvers brings from Dr. Field in his Book of the Church Chap 20. Where speaking of the several sences in which the word Tradition is taken he saith That Infants-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition because it is not delivered in the Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or that they should do so And is it fair dealing for Mr. Danvers to stop here when the following words would have cleared the point which are these yet is not this received by bare and naked Tradition but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it lib. 4. p. 375. and the more inexcusable is our Antagonist being formerly minded of this unfaithfulness in our Infant-Baptism Asserted c. And when I shewed to a Friend that hath a great respect for the Anabaptists how he had served Dr. Field the said person presently said certainly Mr. Danvers is either weak or wicked The last instance is from the Convocation at Oxford and he deals unfairly with them likewise by altering and disordering their words For he quotes them thus That without the Consentaneous judgment and practice of the universal Church they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof in the point of Infant-Baptism whereas they are expressed in another strain and less advantageous to Mr. Danvers's purpose being thus That the Consentient judgment and practice of the universal Church is the best interpreter of Scripture in things not clearly exprest and then they say that without it they should be at a loss in sundry points of Faith and manners believed and practiced when by Socinians and Anabaptists they are called upon for proofs instancing in the Trinity and Coequality of persons in the Godhead baptizing Infants ●●e observation of the Lords day and even the Canon of the Scripture it self c. Mr. Danvers having as he thinks cleared his Position proceeds to draw a parallel between Papists and Protestants to shew that there is no great difference between them after the manner as I have represented the Protestant sentiments in the point To which I reply 1. That the Papists hold many things that are Orthodox and sound especially in Doctrinals but are very corrupt in Discipline and abominably unsound in the point of Tradition for they equal it with Scripture and the Council of Trent determined that Tradition was to be entertained pari pietatis affectu with the like affection as the Scripture c. The Protestants abhor this as may be seen at large in the afore-mentioned Author Hamelmannus in his Book of Traditions where disputing against Staphilus and Cassander and speaking particularly of Infants-Baptism p. 818. he saith non nobis satisfaeceret nisi peteretur probatio paedobaptismi ex Scripturis Tradition would not satisfie us unless we had Scripture-proof for it Now for his Parallel 1. Do the Papists saith he maintain that the Ecclesiastical Tradition of Infants-Baptism as it is gathered from the Scripture and appointed by the Church is of equal Authority with Scripture it self so saith he doth Mr. Wills assert for Protestant Doctrine That the Tradition of Infants-Baptism proved by Consequential Arguments from the Scripture ought to be esteemed as firm and good as the Scripture it self and to prove that I say so Mr. Danvers refers the Reader to p. 117. of my Book where there is nothing spoken of Tradition but only a position quoted from Mr. Baxter's Scripture-proof viz. That evident consequences or Arguments drawn by Reason from Scripture are as true proof as the very words of a Text. And is there any hurt in this can any man that is rational deny it doth not Dr. Owen positively assert it Nay doth not Mr. Danvers himself tell us We admit of plain consequences Reply p. 69. though he will not

Vindiciae Vindiciarum OR A VINDICATION of a late TREATISE entituled Infant-Baptism Asserted and Vindicated by Scripture and Antiquity In Answer to Mr. HEN. D'ANVERS his REPLY To which is annexed The Right Reverend Dr. Barlow now Bishop-Elect of Lincoln his Apologetical-Letter ALSO An Appeal to the Baptists so called against Mr. Danvers for his strange Forgeries and Misrepresentations of divers Councils and Authors both Antient and Modern By Obed Wills M. A. He that is first in his own cause seemeth just but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him Prov. 18. 17. London Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden-Lion in St. Pauls Church-yard 1675. The Preface THe Wise Man tells us Pro. 17. 14. that the beginning of strife is as when one setteth out Water therefore leave off saith he contention before it be medled with The Original is big with an Emphasis and is rendred by Arius Montanus Aquas aperiens or qui aperit aquam that is to say Opening the Bay or making a gap in the Banks for the water to run out so that at first though the matter may seem inconsiderable yet the Waters widening their passage become impetuous grow stronger and stronger carry all before it drown the Country and cause great Devastations In like manner from small beginings of Controversy Breaches are enlarged Animosities fomented the World filled with Variance Noise and Clamour so that he that first starteth the same without being compell'd thereunto especially if it be about Theological points and those Circumstantials and Punctilio's shews himself to be a man of little judgment and less affection to the Churches Peace For though disputes about Religion are sometimes Necessary yet are they alwayes Dangerous too often emptying the heart of Christian Charity and filling it with Carnal Zeal and Passion upon which account few there are to be found who are fitly qualified to manage such undertakings which are usually carried on with more heat than any other Subject For that besides Reason Learning Reputation Confidence of Verity and Interest which warm men in other Polemical encounters they are in this inflamed with a Zeal for God and the Impulse of Conscience to appear in his Cause and for his Truth impugned The Concurrence of all which or some of them have perhaps induced Mr. Danvers to appear once more upon the Stage and thereby given the Ansa or occasion of another Duel between him and me who both being of no great Strength might well have given place to others as fitter Champions for the Truth on which side so ever it be I must therefore acquaint thee Reader that my Antagonist having formerly published a Treatise for the Baptism of Believers only I presumed to declare my Dissent from him and in my Preface to the Answer have expressed the Reasons that obliged me thereunto And besides my endeavours to refute all his Arguments against Infant-baptism I did more especially detect his failings in the Historical part of his Discourse and how extreamly culpable he was in his Collections and in perverting the sense of Authors contrary to their intentions And though some thought it was impossible for him not to be convinced of the offence he had done Antiquity yet instead thereof and an ingenuous acknowledgment of his Aberrations he hath attempted to vindicate himself and by all Artifices imaginable to cover or guild over his Defects and for a pretext to hide them hath as much as in him lies insinuated a disesteem of my labours making use of the politick Engine of Repercussion retorting and bandying back the charges which I bring against him with a sufficient Talio and large requital Herein much resembling Verres who when Tully framed an Oration against him for Thievery he knew no better way to discountenance the same than by accusing Tully a true man that he was a Thief But this will prove but a poor Salvo for when the Vanity and Injustice of such a procedure appears will not his face be covered with redoubled Shame I am sorry he hath obliged me to consume more precious time with him and am not willing to say any thing that may disturb the tranquillity of his Soul and that because he is deeply touch'd at what is past for however he pretends to Patience and Suffering 't is easy to observe in him the marks of a great Animosity and Discomposure And can any man blame him since he as he tells us had formed his Treatise in a new Method for the Benefit of this Age and consequently might expect it should have been a Standing-book for the whole Nation to be universally received without contradiction But instead thereof to have the Mummery discovered the Mask and Vizard pluckt off to have his darling Child his first born in this kind Anatomized it 's unsoundness and rotten parts laid open and exposed to Shame Censure and Loathing this must needs exasperate a great Spirit This was such a Provocation that his fancy hath been more busily imployed in inventing Charges against me then in clearing himself He hath mainly improved his Study in conjunction with what help he could get from the Wits of his Party to disparage my Book vilify my Person and to render both odious and to be suspected And what a noise doth he make in the Preface with the remarkable exaggerations of my Curtilations Misquotations Mistranslations Misapplications when all this while he looks upon what I have written through the Multiplying-glass of prejudice taking Mole-Hills for Mountains and Peccadillo's and little escapes for unpardonable Crimes and what is wanting in Weight he makes up in Number Never did any Momus more industriously set himself to carp and some of his Accusations are so trivial that they may be brought against the exactest Writer living And yet after all these Exclamations having compared notes with him and examined Quotations I find my self little more concerned then in the mistake of a Name a Century and a passage of Cassander And since my Antagonist hath the confidence to refer matters in debate between us to the Tribunal of the Reader I willingly joyn issue with him not doubting if he hath Honesty and Ability to judg but that he will find me Innocent and this Accuser a Delinquent There is no way to try our metal but to bring it to the Touch-stone of the Original Authors from whom we pretend our Authorities There are some things in debate that they who understand only their Mother tongue cannot possibly be competent Judges of which side the Truth lieth some other things are obvious to the unlearned and they that have read only P. Perin in English and Mr. Foxes Book of Martyrs have wondred at Mr. Danvers errors In respect of these I have the less need to vindicate my self from some of his charges And truly if the satisfying some mens importunity that I would endeavour to disabuse credulous Souls had not been more important than any fear of suffering my reputation by this Satyrist I should have been altogether

baptized it is not material since he owned their Baptism in some case which is sufficient if we had no more to overthrow Mr. Danvers's Position That the Baptism of Adult persons was the only Baptism owned in this Age and it is excentrical to the question to talk of the Consideration on which they were baptized But to give Mr. D'anvers full measure pressed down and running over we shall acquaint him with some other place of Nazianzen where he is for the Baptizing Children absolutely without respect to dying state and that is in his 4th Oration p. 648. Edit Lutetiae Par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. It belongeth to all degrees of Ages to all Kinds and Manners of Life Wherefore it should be carried through all Art thou a young-Man Then 't is of use against the turbulent motions of the soul So he speaks of its conveniency for old Age. Then he comes to Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Hast thou an Infant let him be sanctified baptized from his Infancy let him be dedicated to the Spirit lest wickedness should take occasion c. And then he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Art thou afraid of the Seal Mr. D'anvers will not have Baptism to be a Seal because of the tenderness of his nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou art a pusillanimous Mother and of a weak Faith As for that jeer with which he concludes that we may as well bring Protogenes for an Authority that pretended to Baptize Children in this Age to cure Diseases as Gregory Nazianzen to save their Souls I shall retort what I find in his Friend Haggar in his Book called The foundation of the Font discover'd pag. 94. Where he thus speaks I can boldly say with a good conscience in the presence of God to his Glory I have known many weak and sickly before that have recovered health and strength afterwards that is after being dipt and some immediately in a few days yea and that when they have been so ill that all Doctors have given them over A good encouragement to proselyte credulous souls to their way and to augment their Churches apace for if Dipping prove usually so medicinal and succesful even in desperate cases it will undoubtedly impair if not render altogether useless the Practice of Physick But whether this story of Haggar be not as fabulous as that of Protogenes I leave to the Reader to judge 2. Mr. Danvers in the next place comes to the Decrees of the three Councils to prove that it was the universal practice of this Age to Baptize upon the profession of Faith To which I gave this Answer 1st That we have ten-times three for Infants-Baptism and if we must go by number of Councils we shall carry it 2. I told him that the 3 Councils which he mentions for Adult Baptism had respect only to Pagans To which he gives this answer It is granted I think as I have made it ready to his hand he may quote the Canons of thirty Councils for Infants-Baptism in the following Ages and a stout Argument no doubt for it But what are such Decrees saith he to this 4th Century which are for Believers-Baptism on profession and free choice and 't is impossible to produce one for Infants-Baptism till after this Century To this I reply 1st Mr. Danvers boasts too much in saying he made the 30 Councils ready to my hand for Infants-Baptism and he is too vain-glorious to confess who made them ready to his hand but without disparagement to his reading I think verily 't was Baronius or Vossius or some other 2dly He confesseth that we have 30 Councils for Infants-Baptism what then is become of his stout Assertion in his Treatise of Baptism Chapt. 7. p. 56. That not only Scripture but Antiquity it self which saith he hath been so much boasted of is altogether for Believers and not for Infants-Baptism 3dly Let it be further noted that we can produce 30 for it and he not one against it but he tells us 't is impossible for us to produce one for Infants-Baptism till after the 4th Century But 4thly Mr. Danvers hath forgotten himself for we have an African Council about an Age before his three Councils consisting of 66 Bishops where Cyprian was present that flourished in the year 250 who determined that Children might ought to be baptized before the eight day Cent. 3. Cap. 9. p. 205. Synodus Africana de infantibus baptizandis and to which Synod Jerom refers for the Antiquity of Infants-baptism mentioning Cyprians Epistle to Fidus as the Magdiburgs have it Cent. 4. c. 5. p. 239. nor is that to be slighted which Austin speaks concerning this Synod Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans c. Cyprian was not devising any new Decree but followed the most sure Faith of the Church Aug. Epist. 28. ad Hieronimum But if Infant-Baptism was owned in the 4th Century why is it not mentioned in any of those three Eminent Councils which were then held the Carthaginian the Laodicean and Neocesarean They speak not a word of it but positively decree that Teaching Confession Faith and free choice ought to preceed Baptism I answer That as it is certain that almost all the Canons of those Councils are taken up about Discipline and have hardly any thing of Doctrine in them so it is to be observed that Councils do not mention all things controverted in one Age but rather are concerned in resolving the doubts which troubled the Church when such Councils were convened since therefore there is no Canon in those three Councils before-specified for Infants-Baptism it may well be thought the reason was because in those dayes none did scruple it which we may the rather believe because it was in practice before those Councils and in the same Century also as is before fully shewn But since Mr. Danvers glories so much in these Councils and prefers them before all those many ones that follow after it will not be amiss to examin what they are that he stands so much upon for certainly if we must give them the preheminence it must be upon account of their purity whereas truly we shall find if they are not altogether as corrupt as those that follow yet certainly in some things as gross for Error and Superstition as the Popish Councils themselves The 4th Council of Carthage which is that Mr. Danvers intends and it is the 85th Article Those who are to be baptized must give in their Names and Abstain for a long time from Wine and flesh and after often examination may receive Baptism The 7 and 90 Canons owneth Exorcism or conjuring out the Devil Though if Mr. Danvers is to be believed Exorcism was added to the former filthy customs in the 9 Cent. as he tells us in his 2d Ed. p. 11 7. The 74 75 76 Canons are for Penance Also the 76 Canon is for pouring in the Eucharist into mens

his people the Children were taken into Covenant with the Fathers As the nation of the Jews were first taught and then they and their Infants being Confederates were circumcised so saith our Saviour Go disciple the nations and baptize them Paraeus upon Matth. 3. 7. hath those words Ad eos Infantes etiam pertinet universale Christi mandatum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nec obstat quod infantes doceri nondum possunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim Christo proprie non est docere ut vulgo redditur sed discipulos facere sicut exponitur Joh. 4. 1. In Christi enim mandato doctrina etiam sequitur Baptismum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Facite discipulos baptizando et docendo c. non quod doctrina non debeat praecedere baptismum in adultis sed quod debeat etiam sequi in infantibus baptizatis 1. The general command of Christ Go disciple all Nations appertains to Infants neither doth it hinder because Infants can not be taught for the Greek word doth not properly signifie to teach as it is commonly rendred but make disciples as it is expounded Joh. 4. 1. According to Christ's Command Teaching doth follow Baptism For it is Baptizing them and then teaching them to Observe Make disciples by Baptizing and Teaching c. not that Teaching ought not to go before Baptizing in the Adult but that it ought also to follow in baptized Infants Spanhemius in his Dubia Evangelica tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render teach signifies to make disciples which is done saith he by Baptizing and Teaching and he gives this reason for this his Analysis because if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie only to teach there would be found a tautologie in Christ's words Thus Go Teach all nations Baptizing them Teaching them The sense therefore saith he of Christs words is this Goe ye make Disciples to me out of all nations by Baptizing and Teaching and the former way of making disciples Infantibus etiam aptari poterat may be applyed to Infants 4 I think I could bring some scores that understand the Commission in this sense and therefore argue against the Anabaptists thus The Gospel is to be preached to every Creature All nations must be discipled but Infants are a part of this Creation are included in all Nations therefore they must be made disciples also for Them in the Commission must refer to Nations or else it relates to nothing for it hath no relative besides to answer to and therefore Infants being a part of the Nation where the Gospel is preached must be baptized Thus we see hitherto Mr. Danvers cannot discharge himself of the charge of Prevarication and perverting the Authorities produced by him but like a discontented man is angry with every Body he meets with that crosseth his humour and therefore falls a Skirmishing with the Lutherans Calvin Baxter and concludes bitterly against me with an Appeal to the Reader whether it can be supposed I did read his Book and answer it with consideration and so whether I ought not to be esteemed a person extreamly void of Reason and Conscience And let the Reader likewise judge whether this be suitable to the Title of his Book A Sober Reply to Mr. Wills against whom I may rightly object that of Ambrose on the 119 Psal. Quem veritate non potest lacerat convitiis Secondly concerning the Falsehood chargedu pon Mr. Danvers which is fully proved in what follows Page 30. After some scornful jeers which he is pleased to cast upon me as that I profess my self a solid grave person a Minister of the Gospel a Master of Arts and a Learned Man and one that hath spent much time in the University which is more than ever I profest or pretended to he thinks it not enough to render me ridiculous but wicked also and therefore insinuates that I have a peculiar malignity against his person whom I never saw as well as against the Truth To which I shall only say That Mr. Danvers hath cause to repent of his great Uncharitableness especially because I have exprest my Charity towards him declaring in my Infant-Baptism Asserted part 2. page 224. That I hope he is a Godly-Man and I appeal to the searcher of Hearts in this matter who knows that he wrongs me that I look upon him rather as an Object of pity than hatred And for that other which is much worse that I have a malignity against the Truth I can speak it in sincerity my Conscience bearing me witness that I can do nothing willingly and knowingly against the Truth 2 Cor. 13. 8. Wherefore I desire him to search his own Heart whether the malignity be not there and so I shall leave him to our great Master whose Prerogative it is to judg and who I hope may in time convince him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jude 15. of all his virulent Speeches Mr. Danvers having thus discharg'd his Stomach offers to joyn issue with me in order to the speedy trial at whose door the Falshood lies He hath made a good beginning hath he not and 't is very like we shall have as good an end 1. First I charge him with Falshood for saying the Magdeburgs tell us that in the first Century the Apostles Baptized only the Aged I told him the Falsehood lay in this because he addeth the word Only which is not spoken by them And how doth he clear himself of this Why by inveighing against me Suo more and telling the World that I am an injurious Man and charge on him a Falsehood of my own making how so Since saith he my words are thus As to the subjects of Baptism the Magdeburgs tell us that in this Age they find they Baptized only the Adult or Aged I do not say saith he that they tell us that in this Age they Baptized only the Adult risum teneatis amici Reader I think thou art hard put to it to find how I have injured him for it seems by his own confession they tell us they baptized only the Adult but I wrong him for not putting in his other words that they did find it But it is to be supposed that whatever they did tell us they did find it But I must tell Mr. Danvers that they do not say that they find they only Baptized the Adult This is all they say Baptizatos esse adultos exempla probant de infantibus baptizatis exempla quidem annotata non leguntur Examples prove that the Adult were Baptized and as for the Baptizing of Infants we read not any Examples upon Record Now for to say that the Magdeburgs tell us they find they Baptized Only the Adult is as he brings it in a subtle insinuation to deceive the Reader for the words being placed in that order by themselves do import as if the Magdeburgs did not look upon Infants-Baptism as Apostolical or that any such were baptized in the Apostles days whereas their very next words

ad Quintum Sextum that is to Beringarius his 5th and 6th Arguments against Transubstantiation not against Infant-Baptism Launifrank answers Opposuit doctrinam perpetuam consentientem Ecclesiae Dei So that this Authority is quite cashier'd and Mr. Danvers must have an unparallel'd Confidence to attempt the retrieving him The next is Cassander out of Guitmundus who saith that with the Real Presence he denied Baptism to Little-Ones though the latter not so publickly as the former but Guitmund and Cassander say quem tamen Errorem in publicum non produxit that is he never publickly denied Infant-Baptism Mr. D. translates it not so publickly because else it might be presently queried how then could Guitmund tell and rather than lay such a stumbling-block in the way he thinks it expedient to make bold with his Authors and abuse them than by telling truth undeceive his Reader This might be a sufficient Answer but to give Mr. D. fuller satisfaction I shall make a more particular inquiry into this business And as for Guitmundus the Magdeburgs tell us Ait eum Beringarium de Baptismo Infan de conjugio non recte docuisse Which proves him as much against Marriage as against Infant-Baptism But Bp. Usher tells us in his book de successione cap. 7. § 37. that Deoduinas Leodiensis took it upon common fame that Bruno and Beringarius did quantum in ipsis erat baptismum parvulorum evertere And adds deinde ex Leodiensis fide refert Guitmundus so that Guitmundus took it from Leodiensis who had it from common fame which indeed arose from their denying it to be necessary to Salvation As clearly appears by Walden charging Wickliff to deny it who yet was so positive in the point as Mr. Baxter hath proved And Usher also tells us that In tot Synodis adversus Beringarium habitis nullam de Anabaptismo litem illi intentatam invenimus Which further proves it And whereas Mr. Danvers insinuates 2 Ed. pag. 243 244. that Beringarius recants this opinion against Infant-Baptism and then recanted his Recantation there is not a word of Infant-Baptism in his Recantation He produceth also Thuanus to prove Beringarius and his followers were great asserters of Baptism after Faith 2. Edit pag. 73. and in his Reply pag. 116. He quotes his preface to his History to prove that the Arch-Bishop of Triers did persecute the Beringarians for denying Infant-Baptism It is true he tells us that the Arch-Bishop did eos diocesi sua expellere because illius doctrinam populis disseminarent but that Thuanus should say he did it because they denyed Infant-Baptism is one of Mr. Danvers's mistakes there being not the least syllable of any such thing in that Preface or in the whole History that I can find His last evidence to prove it is a Council called by H. 1. of France to suppress the heresies of Bruno and Beringarius for denying Transubstantiation and Infant-Baptism for which he quotes Bibliotheca Patrum pag. 432. But I can't find either in Bibl. Pat. or the Councils or any where else but in Mr. Danvers's book that that Council ever charged Beringarius with denying Infant-baptism Let Mr. Danvers prove it if he can And just after this rate doth he prove his matters But suppose these Authors had affirmed what Mr. D. would make us beleive they did yet it falls short of sufficient proof because the same sort of men charged Luther and Calvin to be against Infants-Baptism and this we have acknowledged from Mr. Danvers's own pen in his Innocency and Truth vindidicated p. 127. The next of his Witnesses are Peter Bruis Henricus Arnoldus but of this I have spoken already that even the Magdiburgs and Osiander who relates what Peter Cluniacensis and Bernard say of them do question the Truth of what their wicked Adversaries lay to their charge to which I refer the Reader and shall only add what Mr. Marshall says to Mr. Tombes The truth is saith he these two men did for 20 years together so much spread the Doctrine of the Waldenses and so plague the Bishops Mitre and the Monks Bellies that I wonder not though they charged any thing upon them that might make them odious to the people He that reads the railing Book of Cluniacensis will find that he acknowledgeth most of what he layeth to their charge to be upon the report of others He lays this to their charge that Children that die before they could actually believe were damn'd and that they did not altogether believe the Apostles Prophets no nor Christ himself By their corrupt consequences say the Magdiburgs they would make them hold any thing as before To deny Chrisme and Oyl and Spittle in the baptizing of Children was all one with them And if Mr. Danvers believes Cluniacensis did slander them in the other things he must excuse us if we believe he did also in this about Infant-Baptism One thing I shall mind the Reader with and so pass on and that is the good Intelligence Mr. Danvers holds since almost all the Testimonies that he brings through-out all his Book are borrowed either from Monks Abbots Jesuits Inquisitors or some Cankered Popish Priests that make no Conscience of loading the professors of the Truth with all manner of Calumnies But saith he Cassander witnesseth the same in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleave viz. that Peter Bruis and Henricus denyed Baptism to little ones affirming that only the Adult should be baptized 'T is true he saith so and withal tells us cum Baptismo fide etiam salutem et regnum Dei Infantibus ademerunt quod ad credentes tantum et baptizatos pertinere sensuerunt with Baptism and Faith they took Salvation also from Infants as judging it belonged only to Believers that were baptized but how comes Cassander by this good intelligence why the Abbot of Cluni told him so and if Mr. Danvers will not believe they damned all Infants though the Abbot affirms it why should we believe they denyed them Baptism for which he can produce no better proof but if Cassander is a person of such credit with Mr. Danvers I hope he will no longer reckon Peter Bruis and Henricus among the Waldensian Barbes because he tells us in this very Epistle that the Waldenses were for Infants-Baptism Dr. Prideaux is also introduced to confirm it how that they were condemned in the second Lateran Council for rejecting Infants-Baptism it is Common for the Popish Councils to condemn men for that which they never held But Mr. Baxter tells us there is not the least proof of any such matter medled with in that Council I let pass also Vice-comes because he writes palpable lyes how that Luther Calvin Beza denyed Infants-Baptism and why because as Mr. Danvers say's truly in his Reply page 127 they did oppose and neglect to do it as the Church of Rome ordained it without the Ceremonies of their Church which was all one to them as if it was not practised