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
of Pope Caelestine against them for the same Twelfethly The Decrees and bloody actings of Pope Innocent the third against them for the same The writings also of several learned Men of these times that opposed the Waldenses in this point and charged the whole party therewith viz. Eckbertus Erbrardus Ermigendus Cluniacenses Bernard Durandus Thomas Walden And to whom we add some others of great eminency that have come to hand viz. Ermingerdus Ermingerdus who wrote his Book contra Waldenses in this Age wherein he chargeth them in these words Dicunt etiam quod nulli nisi proprio ore corde hoc Sacramentum pâ—tat potest prodesse Inde adducentes hunc errorem quod parvulis Baptismus aquae nihil prosit They say that the Sacrament of Baptisme can profit none but those who with their own proper mouths and hearts desire the same from whence they draw the error that water Baptisme is not profitable to little Children Vet. Bib. Pat. Tom. 5. p. 1250. And Rainerius Rainerius in his Book contra Waldenses saith De Baptismo dicunt quod ablutio quae datur Infantibus nihil profit item quod patrini non intelligent quià respondeant Sacerdoti Concerning Baptisme they say that that which is given to little Children profits nothing and that the Gâ—ssips understand not their Responses to the Priests Bib. Patr. Tom. 13. pag. 300 301 c. And which evidence I desire the Reader to take the more notice of because Mr. Wills doth so positively deny that Rainerius in the Catalogue of their errors gives not the least hint of any such thing no not one word of their denying Infants Baptisme which he saith is very strange if he had understood any thing thereof Wills p. 96 97 98. You have also Favâ—n Favin the French Chronologer testifying that in these times viz. twelfth and tâ—irteenth Century the Albigensâ—s did deny Infants Baptisme esteeming it superstitious Against all which he gives no particuler exception only saith these two things First that whereas I cite two Canons of Pope Alexander the third that was but just about the rise of the Waldenses who were so called from Peter Waldo of Lyons about 1160. as Perin informeth And which is evidence as he supposeth against the former Decrees inferring that those mentioned to be made before that time were before they were a People And Secondly in pag. 60. saith That tâ—eâ—e is no coâ—vincâ—ng prâ—of to be fetcht from hence of their being against Iâ—fants Baptisme because they were their Enemies calumniating malicious Papists that loaded them with all manner of reproaches to render them odious And that unless some one doth out of their one mouths give better â—vidence he shall believe with Mr. Marshal that this Doctrine of opposing the baptizing of Infants of Believers is an Innovation no ancienter then the Anabaptists in Germany and for which he quotes Joseph Vice-comes L. 2. c. 1. pag. 103. in Mr. Wâ—llâ— pag. 60. 2. part 1. Waldense so called from the Vallyes from Ancient time To both which I say First to the first Exception you will find that Beza tells us that they mistake themselves that say they were called Waldenses from Peter Waldo in as much as they were so called from the place of thâ—ir abode in the Valleyes as at large you have it in mine pag. 338 342. And that Claudius Sciscelius Counceler to Charles the Great in the eight Century mentions them by that name in his Book contra Waldenses But however the People or Sect of the Waldenses were known or distinguished by several names as the People of Lyons c. as Eusebius tells us p. 340. And set forth in story under divers names in several Ages as Doctor Vsher tells us and which you have more particulerly p. 338 c. And to the second that there is convincing proof offred from the Decrees of Popes Kings and Councels Mr. Marshals grant let Mr. Marshals grant suffice who in pag. 63. of his Defence for Infants Baptisme saith thus I shall desire you to shew that any Company nr Seâ—t if you will so call them have denyed Infants Baptisme produce if you can any of their Confessions alledge any Acts of any Councels where this Doctrine was charged upon any and condemned in that Councel And which I presume is substantially done both from their Confessions of Faith and from Acts of Councels also where such were condemned And as to that Quotation out of Vicecomes to prove that none denyed Infants Baptisme till the German Anabaptists I heartily thank him for it which you 'l find doth the contrary giving an Account of several that denyed Infants Baptisme before that time as you have it in the Quotation he refers to p. 102 103. telling us in these words That as the Adult Baptisme Vicecom ownes that many had denyed Infants Baptisme of old no one ever doubted thereof witness as he saith the Monuments or Writings of all the holy Fathers and Occumenical Councels as well as the Scriptures themselves especially the Acts of the Apostles But as for Infants Baptisme he tells us that Vincentius Victor Hincmarus of Laudum the Henâ—ricâ— and Apostolici in Bernard and Cluniacenses time John Wickliff in his 4. Book of Trialog c. 2. Walafrid Strabo Ludovicus Vives c. did all of them witness against it in their times So that we have a good confirming evidence from his Authority to establish the truth we have asserted and he denyed It is true Vicecomes in the same place adds amongst the rest of the witnesses against Infants Baptisme Luther Calvin and Beza and the reason is because they did oppose and neglect to do it as the Church of Rome ordained and practised it setting it up in a New way without the Services and Ceremonies of the Church and which was all one to them as if it was not practised at all and therefore did the Church of Rome renownce of old as you have heard the Baptisme of the Greek Church as the Greeks renownced theirs rebaptised those that were baptised by either as much as if it had not been at all by either side 4. From the Footsteps they had left thereof in several Countrys And Fourthly That the Waldenâ—es did deny Infants Baptisme appears from the Footsteps we find hereof in those respective Regions and places where they had heretofore imprinted it as appears by the followâ—ng instances it being acknowledged that they were dispersed all Europa over viz. In Germany First In Germany through all the parts thereof where they planted Churches and has Schooâ—s in so much that their Barbes could travel all the Countrey over and lye every night at a Frieâ—ds house wherein both by Dâ—ctrine and suffering this truth was eminently câ—nfirmed and for which you have several instances from most parts of the Country from p. 256 to 260. Sâ—iâ—zâ—rland Secondly In Switzerland where in like manneâ— it was witnessed toâ— from 260 to 267. Flandres
and many suffred Bonds and Martyrdom from Protestant Brethren for the profession thereof p. 260. 5. Thessalonians The Churches in Thessalonica of the same Faith and practise p. 76. 6. Flemings The Churches of Christ in Flanders asserting the same and multitude of Martyrs that witnessed thereto by blood p. 267 c. 7. Bohemians The Churches in Bohemia witnessing to this truth and their great sufferings for the same pag. 271. 8. Hungarians The Churches of Hungaria of the same practice p. 274. 9. Poles The Churches in Poland of like Faith and practise p. 274. 10. Transilvanians The Churches in Transylvania of the same practice 274. 11. English The Churches in this Nation owning the same Principle and practise viz. First In the time of the ancient Britains p. 226. Secondly Vnder the name of Lollards from the Waldensian Barbe of that Name pag. 278. p. 203 204. Thirdly Vnder the name Wickliffians who asserted also that Believers were the only Subjects of Baptisme p. 283. And Lastly Since Henry the Eight's time under the name of Anabaptists p. 306. Against which latter testimony from these respective Churches in these several Regions he only excepts against the Donatists Waldenses and ancient Britains denying that they were of this Faith and practise which you have particulerly replyed to in the third Chapter where the witnesses against Infants Baptisme are defended But in the mean time it must be remembred that the rest stand good as not excepted against Secondly you have the Testimony 2. The witness born to Baptisme after Faith by those that owned Infants Baptisme born to this truth by many Eminent Men and Churches that have owned and practised Infants Baptisme since the imposing thereof some of whom are these that follow as you find them in the respective Centuries viz Chrysostom Austin Gregory Cassiodorus Haimo Rabanus Anselm Algerus Rupertus Lumbard Albertus Belarmine Grotius Luther Calvin Hamond Dailly Tayler Baxter Church of England All or most of them affirming with the Church of England that Faith and Repentance is required in all those that are to be Baptised viz. Repentance whereby they forsake sin and Faith whereby they steadfastly believe the Promises To all which Testimony Mr. Wills especially quarrels me for perverting as he saith Mr. Wills exceptions against this part for the Testimony their sayings against there intended sences by improving what they say for Adult Baptisme wherein they meant only Strangers and Pagans converted to the Faith against Infants Baptisme which is in an other way and upon an other Account And for being so notoriously contradictious to my self in saying they are for Believers Baptisme in one part of the History and yet the same Men and Councels for Infants Baptisme in an other Replyed to To which I say that by Quoting their sayings that are so expresly for us though it may be not intended so I have done no injury 1. Not quoted for Anabâ—ptist First because I do not quote them as Anabaptists or to prove that Believers Baptisme was the only Bâ—ptisme of those Centuries that would have been madness and contradiction with a witness and which he seems to father upon me 2. But Argumâ—nt ad homineur Secondly because nothing is more fair or frequent then to improve mens own sayings against themselves for their better conviction and clearing the truth as Mr. Tombes has brought Mr. Baxters 20. Arguments against himself and therefore called his Book Felo de se and no more injury done thereby then Mr. Tombes saith was done by Bishop Morton in alledging the Romanists words in there writings as an Advocate for the Protestants against themselves but right done thereby as he saith to the Church of God So that what they say respecting the Commission for the necessity of teaching profession and confession and so as their w rds necessarely exclude any other but such câ—pable Subjects what injury to improve it for the truth and to which I have spoken much to prevent Cavils of this kind as you 'l find it p. 85 86 and in the Praeface Austin so for Adult Baptisme in wâ—rds as to exc â—â—e â—ntanâ—s For instance If Austin tells us in one place That 〈…〉 put due Examination both to Doctrine and Conversation ought to be Baptised and that no igâ—orant or scandelous Pâ—rson without due instruction and fruits of Repentance are to be admitted to Baptisme what can be spoken more agreeable to truth and more indeed to assert Believers Baptisme to be the only Bâ—ptisme and to exclude any other that are noâ— capable to act Faith or testefy fruits for if no other as he saith then not Infants Yet the same Austin in contradiction hereto saith How weakly contradâ—ctiously Austin asserts Infants Baptisme Let Infants be baptised by the Faith of another to take away Original sin without which they can neither be Regenerated or saveâ— Now compare these two together what sound Christian will not say that Austin before spoke the mind of Christ in wholesome sound word and herein his own words if not corrupt and heretical For as one well observes that such Doctrine as this was the greatest poyson that ever the Father of Lyes powred into the hearts of Sinners to make People think that sprinkling a little water on the face could Regenerate take away sin and save the Soul and beget grace ex opero operato by the work done Calvin in one place tells us 2. Calvin for Believers Baptisme by Rule the due and right order of Baptisme from the Commission saying thus viz. That Men may rightly offer themselves to Baptismeâ— Confession of sins is required otherwise the whole action would be nothing else but spâ—rt Yet in another place in contradiction hereto saith Let the Children of Believers be baptised Calvin for Infants Bapâ—isme in contradictâ—on hereto wiâ—hout Rule because God having taken their Parents into Covenant they themselves aâ—â— also to be imbracâ—d in the same Covenant Neither is Baptisme hereby separated from Faith and teaching because though Children have not yet Faith nor are capable of teaching yet their Parents have both But by what Rule or Reason this latter is urged and how possibly to be Reconciled with the former so agreeable to both is the knot to be untyed 3. Mr. Baxter for Believers Baptisme by precept Example So also Mr. Baxter upon Christ Commission Matth. 28.20 This saith he sheweth the Disciples their several works in their several Orders viz. First to make Disciples which Mark calls Believers Secondly is to Baptize them whereto is annexed the promise of Salvation Thirdly to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ And that to contemn this order is to contemn all Rules of Order professing his conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that it is one sort of Faith even saying that must go before Baptisme the Profession whereof the Minister must
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
and so one would indeed for if Faith must go before and Children have no Faith then only professed Believers were the Subjects And again if None but the Catechumens and those instructed in the Faith were to be Baptised then surely no Children were to be Baptised who were so uncapable both of the one and the other Therefore by the way it must be granted that this was a proper proof to evidence that the Eastern Church in his time admitted only of Adult Baptisme which he is pleased to say is so abominably false And to evince my Forgery and Falshood from the good acquaintance he would have you think he had with this Father that the same Author viz. Bazil in the very next lines to which I had above cited speak thus as he confidently affirms What then say you of Infants which neither know good nor evil may we baptise them Yea saith â—e for so we are taught by the Circumcising of Children And therefore saith he hence-forward have a care Reader how ye trust the Authors Quotations for the palpable abuse done to this Father Answer ∣ ed. 8 To which I say but if the abuse prove his own what then And that it is so the Reader will presently understand Know therefore that the Quotations out of Bazil's Exhortation to Baptisme you 'l find in the Magdeburgs Century 4. cap. 6. p. 416. in these words Bazilius non alios quam Catechumenos Baptizatos esse scribit Basil say they writes that none other but the Catechumens were baptised And then in the next lines immediately following nothing intervening say Qui in Paschale convocabantur in Exhortatione ad Baptismum Who are called together at Easter to be exhorted in order to their Baptisme There being no such syllable nor any thing like it either in the forgoing or following words I have also searched all that the Magdeburgs say of that Father and all Bazils works themselves and particularly the third Book against Eunomius but can find nothing like it I have also Examined the great Dutch Book of Martyrs that recites most of the principal passâ—ges that Bazil speaks of Baptisme and who from Mirningus and Montanus their great Century Writers do testify that he was altogether for Adult and wholy against Infants Baptisme He used to say Sicut enim credimus in Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum sic Baptizamur in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti As we do believe in the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit so we may be baptised in their names Cent. 4. p. 235. And in the definition he gives of Baptisme he calls it Sigillum Fidei Tessera Christiani Miliâ—is similitudo mertis sepulturae ac resurrectionis nortuorum The Seal of Faith the Badge of the Christian Soldier and the Symbole of death burial Resurrection from the dead And again very fully Quicunque baptizatur sive Judaeus sive Graecus sive Masculus sive Foemina quacunque generit differentia nominatus exutus in sanguine Christi veterem hominem cum actibus suis per doctrinam ipsius novum in Spiritu Sancto indutus qui secundum Deum conditus est in justitia sanctitate veritatis ac renovatur ad ignitionem secundum imaginem ejus qui condidit ipsum c. That who ever is baptised whether Jew or Greek male or female c. have put off by the Blood of Christ the old Man with his deeds and by his Doctrine have put on the new Man by the holy Spirit who according to God is built up in the Righteousness and holyness of the truth and renewed in knowledge according to the Image of him that created him c. And therefore in his Book of Baptisme doth largely treate of the necessity of partaking of the Lords Supper that other Ordinance of Christ immediately after Baptisme Regenerati vero in nomine Filii baptisati sumus Filii Dei declarati opus itaque deinceps nutriamur cibo vitae aeternae Those of us that are Regenerate and have made declaration of the Son of God and are Baptised in his name it is meet that we should immediately be nurished with the food of Eternal life viz. the Bread of God in that Ordinance And whether all this is not agreeable to what before was said of this Doctor is left to the Reader to judge being also one of those say the Magdeburgs that made that former Decree in the Councel of Neocaesaria But you 'l say how came Mr. Wills by this saying it is to be supposed he did not make it which will be with him to declare and how he came to father it upon Bazil that no man could ever find in him before It is true the words I find exactly to be the words of Gregory Nazienzen but not of Bazil as Cent. 4. cap. 4. p. 234. Oratione in sanctum Lavacrum tertia Quid de Infantibus ais qui neque gratia quid ne sit paena cognorunt nam illos baptizemus Maxime quidem si periculum aliquod imminet melius est enim nondum rationis compotes sanctificari quam non signatos initiatos vita excedere all which Mr. Wills leaves out then adds Idque nobis designat post octavum diem Circumcisio illa quae figurale fuit signaculum What will you say of Children which are neither sensible of good or evil shall we Baptisme them yes by all means in Case of urgent danger for it is better to be sanctified without their knowledge then to dye without it for so it hapned to the Children of Israel in Circumcision But suppose there had been such a Sentence as Mr. Wills saith followeth I had cited enough of the Father to confirm the truth of what I asserted viz. that instruction and Faith according to Christs Commission was necessary to precede Baptisme And that none but the Adult that made Profession of Faith were to be baptised And if he should have contradicted himself as some others had done it would have been their parts that should avouch him in the behalf of Infants Baptisme to have reconciled such a contradiction to those his former assertions But to put the matter more out of doubt I procured a Friend to write to Master Wills to know where that passage was to be found in Bazil To which he made this following return viz. As to that passage of Bazil Mr. Wills Letter to his Friend about the Quotation of Bazil I do not charge Master D. with misquoting but partially quoting and misapplying him and upon Examination of my Papers cannot find any Page to which that passage of mine concerning that Father doth refer But when I go to Oxford where I made my Collection I may be able to give better satisfaction Therefore upon the whole respecting this passage I appeal to the Reader whether Mr. Wills is not found tardy and justly reprovable in the following particulars viz. Mr. Wills guilty of much
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
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