know which of them was the more pernicious § 4. And it must grieve every conscionable and discerning lover of Truth and Peace to observe how these two Church-disturbing parties do by their extremities of opposition increase as well as exasperate each other As the Ithacian Prelates did by the Priscillianists and the Priscillianists by them The Pride covetousness dead formality and cruel violence of Clergie Tyrants maketh the poor Sectaries think that they must go so far from them till they have lost themselves and know not where they are and as Mr. Danvers musters up a catalogue of my sayings in his mode and dress which seem ugly to the poor man that thinks he seeth Antichristianity in such Gospel and natural truths which he understandeth not Like that melancholy person who thinks she seeth Spiders upon every one that comes near her and they must brush them off before she can converse with them though she be caetera sana so those on the other extream think them so fanatick and almost mad that they are apt to suspect every word almost that they say of madness and sometimes thereby injure the truths of the Gospel and soberer people that partake not of their guilt and so say of such as agree with them but in aliquo tertio They are all alike § 5. This was the main cause which made St Martin separate from his neighbour Bishops and deny communion with them to the death Because their persecution of the Priscillianists had so animated the looser sort against strict Religious people that they had brought men under the suspicion of Priscillianism if they did but fast and pray and read and talk of the Scripture It 's easie to see of late who they are that have done the like § 6. When this sort of men see the weakness of the Sectaries and the bold-faced falshood which such as Mr. Danvers obtrude on the world and hear them furiously revile what they understand not it maketh them think that they are fitter for Bedlam than for humane societie And their consciences justifie them for all the cruelties that they use against either them or more innocent persons whom in their ignorance and uncharitableness they number with them § 7. And on the like account when they read and hear their erroneous Doctrines and hear their incongruous words in prayer they think they can never be too strict in shackling them and all others in prescribed forms And nothing quieteth their Consciences in all this so much as the undeniable errors and follies and miscarriages of those that thus provoke them § 8. But in this the Church in Augustines days did not think that way the wisest cure when he saith Afferat ut fieri solet aliquam precem in qua loquatur contra regulam fidei multi quippe irruunt in preces non solum ab imperitis loquacibus sed etiam ab haereticis compositas per ignorantiae simplicitatem non eas valentes discernere utuntur iis arbitrantes quod bonae sint Nec tamen quod in eis perversum est evacuat illa quae ibi recta sunt sed ab eis potius evacuatur Aug. de bapt cont Donat. as I remember about lib. 5. c. 11. O truly charitable and peaceable Doctrine And he that will separate from other for every difference or real error in Doctrine or Prayers shall have enow to separate from him § 9. I know nothing that so much multiplieth Sectaries as the notorious miscarriages of Church-Tyrants that oppose them And I know nothing next carnal interest it self that so much multiplieth and confirmeth Papists and Church-Tyrants as the madness of the Sectaries· The wildeness but especially the diversity of their opinions hath done more to increase the number of Papists among us than any thing that ever the Papists themselves could otherwise say for their cause For people see so many giddy with turning round and see so many Sects among us that they are confounded and know not which to be of but they must lay hold of somewhat that is more stable or be wheel-sick § 10. O what a confirmation is it to a Papist to find such a one as Mr. Danvers calling Gods Truths and Ordinances Antichristian Yea our very Baptismal Covenant and dedication to Christ is Antichristian and the chief Fathers and Martyrs of the Church are Antichristian no wonder if I be so And I doubt almost all the Church of Christ for 900 years at least in this mans reckoning And what will the Papists desire more With what scorn will they deride such men Wo be to him by whom offence cometh The chief Quakers are charged by Mr. Faldo and others even some of their own name of denying the person and office of Christ himself It is worth the enquiring whether they reject him not as Antichrist and call not Christianity by the name of Antichristianity CHAP. IV. Of Mr. Danvers's his Witnesses against Infant-Baptism § 1. WHen he hath told you that In his small search shamefully small he cannot find there is any authentick testimony that it was practised on any till the fourth Century he in the next words saith that it is granted that Tertullian spake against it in Africa which is clear evidence that some had been speaking for it in that corner of the world This is no contradiction with him And did they only speak for it and not practise it Speak once like a man And was not that till the fourth Century § 2. His Catalogue containeth three Columns The first of the Baptism of the Adult And what Christian ever denied this And what meaneth the man in labouring to prove it The second is of the Instituting and asserting of Infant-Baptism of which more anon The third is of his Witnesses against Infant-Baptism And the first of these mentioned in the Catalogue is Tertullian in the third Century By which he seemeth to confess that till the third Century he hath no witness against it But I have said so much elsewhere and others more to prove 1. That Tertullians words prove that Infant-Baptism de facto was then in use 2. That he only telleth his opinion of the point of convenience but concludeth not against Infant-Baptism as unlawful 3. That it is most probable he speaketh of the Infants of Heathens 4. That he speaketh from that strict singularity which made him plead also for the Montanists Fanaticism and against second marriages and for his inordinate fastings c. as a man differing from the Churches and numbered with the Hereticks though I think him a learned Godly man And I refer it to the Readers judgement whether in my book of Infant-Baptism I have not proved by many other words in Tertullian that he was not against all Infant-Baptism but for it among Christians § 3. His next and great Witness is the Donatists together This is something were it true but it is such a kind of falshood as I must not name in its due epithets lest you think
me over-sharp § 4. His words are Donatus a learned man in Africa taught that they should baptize no Children but only that believed and desired it Answ Utterly false And how doth he prove it By Sebast Frank. whom I will not search to see whether he say so or not Reader if the question be what was done said or held by thousands of men twelve hundred years ago and the Writings of them and their Adversaries were extant and the Histories written of them in that and the next Ages would you have a man pass by all proof from these and tell you what a fellow of his own opinion saith eleven hundred years after He brings us with great ostentation the Dutch Anabaptists Martyrologie and such like Histories of a few years old of fellows that knew little more than as he doth what their Party or Companions told them or what they ignorantly gathered from such Books as are yet to be seen by us as well as by them If I should dispute what Augustine held would Mr. D. fetch his proofs from the writings of James Nailor or George Fox or Isaac Pennington yea or Mr. Tombes to prove his assertions while Augustines works are at hand to be seen § 5. So next he saith that the followers of Donatus were all one with the Anabaptists denying Baptism to Children admitting the Believers only thereto who desired the same And he 〈◊〉 one called Twisk Ansâ— â—tterly false They held no such thing § 6. His next proof is indeed from an unquestionable witness he saith Augustines third and fourth Books against the Donatists do demonstrate that they denied Infant-Baptism wherein he manageth the argument for Infant-Baptism against them with great zeal enforcing it by several arguments but especially from Apostolical Tradition and cursing with great bitterness they that should not embrace it § 7. Answ Mr. Bagshaw is now quite over-done in the quality of untruths Reader either this man had seen and read the Books of Augustine mentioned by him or he had not If not doth he use Gods Church and the souls of poor ignorant people with any tenderness of Conscience sobriety or humanity to talk at this rate of Books that he never saw or read which are so common among us to be seen If he understand not Latine how unfit is he to give us the History of these antiquities And how audacious to talk thus of what he knoweth not If he understand it what cruelty is it to the Church to venture on such untruths to save him the labour of opening and reading the books he talketh of But if he have read them then I can scarce match him again among all the falsifiers that I know in the world I dare not be so uncharitable to him as to think that ever he read them § 8. The Books are seven that Augustine wrote of Baptism against the Donatists And in them all I cannot find one syllable of intimation that ever the Donatists denied Infant-â—â—â—â—ism but enough to the contrary that they 〈◊〉 Nor do the third and fourth books mentioned by him meddle with it any more than the rest There is not in the seven books nor in all the rest of Austins books against the Donatists one word that I can find of any such controversie with them at all And for a man to say that in two books he manageth the arguments for Infant-Baptism against them with great zeal c. when there is not one word that supposeth them to deny it blush Reader in compassion for such a man § 9. Reâ—der the Donatists were a great party of men in Africa They were Prelatical and for Ceremonies as the other Churches were They differed from the rest on the account of the Personal succession of their Bishops In a time of persecution they said truly or falsly was a great controversie that one of the Bishops delivered up the church-Church-books to the Persecutors to be burnt rather than die himself when they demanded them And that the Catholick Bishops received successively their ordination from that man and called them Traditores whereas the Bishop that all their Bishops had successively been ordained by was one that had refused to deliver up the Church-books And consequently he was the right Bishop and they that had their succession from him were true Bishops and Churches and all the rest were no true Bishops or Churches and therefore that all their Baptism and Sacraments were nullities and their Communion unlawful and that all people were bound in Conscience as ever they would be saved to separate from the rest called Catholicks and to come to them and to be rebaptized So that their Schism was much like the Papists who confine the Church to their party and condemn all others save that the Papists ordinarily rebaptize not though they say some Monks have done it as elsewhere I have cited The Donatists were Episcopal ceremonious Separatists that did it on the account of a purer Episcopal succession Till their days the holy Doctors of the Church had almost all been against drawing the sword against Hereticks even Augustin himself But the greatness of their party and the proud conceit of their greater zeal and strictness than the Catholicks had made them so furious that the Catholick Pastors could not live quietly by them Insomuch that some of them wounded the Ministers in the streets and some of them made a salt sharp water and spouted into Ministers eyes as they past the street to put out their eyes till many such insolencies provoked Augustin to change his judgement of toleration and especially the multitudes seduced by them and the Bishops to crave the Emperors aid The Emperor made Edicts for mulcts and banishment to those that persevered This being a new way so exasperated the Donatists that in very passion many of them yea Bishops murdered themselves to bring odium on the Catholicks to make the people believe that the cruelty of the Catholicks compelled them to it And this was the state of these two parties but not a word of difference about Infant-Baptism between them that ever I read in either part § 10. The Controversie between Austin and them he thus stateth Lib. 1. c. 1 2. Si haberi foris potest etiam dari cur non potest Baptism received out of the Catholick or true Church among Schismaticks is true baptism and therefore baptism given without by Schismaticks is true baptism Impie facere qui rebaptizare conantur orbis unitatem nos recte facere qui Dei Sacramenta improbare nec in ipso schismate audemus They do impiously that endeavor to rebaptize all the united Christian world and we do rightly who dare not deny Gods Sacraments no not in a Schism For Augustin peaceably held the Donatists baptism to be true and valid though irregular and unlawfully given and taken but the Donatists held all the Catholicks Ministry and baptism null § 11. Therefore he thus summeth up their differences cap. 3. Duo sunt
quae dicimus esse in Catholica Baptismum illic tantum recte accipi Item alia duo dicimus esse apud Donatistas baptismum non autem recte accipi Harum sententiarum tres nostrae tantum sunt unam vero utrique dicimus That is Two things we say that there is Baptism in the Catholick Church and that there only it is rightly received Also two things more we say that there is Baptism with the Donatists but that with them it is not rightly received of these sentences three are only ours and one is common to us both Austin held it a sin to be baptized among Schismaticks to joyn with their Sect but not a nullity § 12. Hereupon he addresseth himself to evince the sinfulness of their Schism and unchristianing all the Churches And indeed he seems to think that though Baptism was among them yet hardly Salvation And his argument though I think we must abate for mens passions and temptations is worth the Separatists consideration that baptism that destroyeth remitteth he calls it not sin is not saving that which is without love remitteth not sin But Schismaticks saith he have not love For Nulli Schismata facerent si fraterno odio non excaecarentur Annon est in Schismate odium fraternum Quis hoc dixerit Cum origo pertinacia Schismatis nulla sit alia nisi odium fraternum That is None would make schisms if they were not blinded by the hatred of their brethren Is there not the hatred of brethren in Schism What man will say so Whenas both the Rise and the Pertinacie of Schism is no other than the hatred of brethren But blind zeal will not let men know their own hatred when yet they defame their brethren as no brethren and endeavour to have all others think them so bad as not to be communicated with and separate from them on that account § 13. The main subject of all the rest of these seven Books of Austin is to answer the Donatists claim of Cyprian and his Carthage Council as on their side and to answer all the sayings of him and the several Bishops of that Council The plain truth is this In the first age the Churches were so sober and charitable as not to account every erring brother and party Hereticks but such as subverted the Essentials of Religion And some of these corrupted the very form of Baptism The baptism of these the Church took for null and baptized such as they pretended to have baptized Cyprian and the other African Bishops knowing this and being much troubled with heretical Churches about them stretched this too far and rebaptized them that such Hereticks baptized as did not change the form of Baptism but incorporated men into their corrupt societies The Donatists took advantage by this example and all the Reasons of the Council to go so much further as to take the Catholicks for Hereticks or unlawful Churches and rebaptize those that they baptized Austin answereth all the Councils reasons but praiseth Cyprian as a holy Martyr and no Heretick though mistaken § 14. And it is not enough for me to say that all these Books of Austin have not a word of what he speaketh as controverting Infant-Baptism with the Donatists but moreover he bringeth the Donatists agreement with the Catholicks in the point of Infant-Baptism as a medium in his arguing against them Lib. 4. c. 23. shewing how much baptism availeth in that Christ himself would be baptized by a servant and Infants that cannot themselves believe are baptized Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli Infantes baptizantur qui nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam ore confiteri ad salutem quod latro potuit Quinetiam flendo vagiendo cum in eis mysterium celebratur ipsis mysticis vocibus obstrepunt tamen Nullus Christianus dixerit eos inaniter baptizari That is Which all the Church holdeth when little Infants are baptized who certainly cannot yet with the heart believe to righteousness and with the mouth confess to Salvation And yet no Christian will say that they are baptized in vain Thus he argueth against the Donatists If the whole Church hold Infant-Baptism and no Christian will say that it is in vain though they themselves believe not and confess not then you should not say all baptism is vain because we Catholicks administer it or because it is received in our Churches The whole tenor of Austins charitable language to the Donatists and the scope of this place sheweth that he here pleaded universal consent and by all the Church and no Christian includeth the Donatists And so he oft argueth against the Pelagians who though they denied original sin durst not differ from the whole Christian world by denying Infant-baptism but pretended that it was for the conveyance of Grace though not for remitting sin § 15. And Austin next addeth Et si quisquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat Quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur tamen veraciter conjicere possumus c. That is And if any one in this case of Infant-baptism ask for Divine authority Though that which the universal or whole Church doth hold and was not instituted by Councils but was ever held is most rightly believed to be delivered by the Apostles authority yet we may truly conjecture c. and so he passeth to the Scripture argument from Circumcision § 16. Here note 1. That this was no controversie with the Donatists 2. Nor with any other Sect but hold by all the Church 3. That he only saith as in a Parenthesis that that which all the whole Church holdeth and did ever hold not instituted by any Council is justly taken for an Apostolical tradition which I think few Protestants or sober Christians will deny Who can imagine that Timothy Titus Silas and all the whole Church in the Apostles daies and ever since should hold and agree in any thing as a part of Christian Doctrine or Worship which they had not from the Apostles Had the Apostles so little charity as not to endeavour to rectifie any of their errors 4. Note here that the Donatists never denied this that Infant-baptism was ever held by the whole Church to that day and not instituted by any Council And were not Austin the Donatists and the whole Church liker to know the universality and Antiquity of the thing than the Holland or English Anabaptists about fourteen hundred years after them 5. Note that he bringeth Scripture for it also § 17. Indeed I find some that before those times had been above Ordinances and against all baptism but none against Infant-baptism as unlawful Therefore Augustine saith elsewhere that it is easier to find Hereticks that deny all baptism than any that change the form of baptizing so sure hath the Tradition of universal practice
be believed As for his talk of Disgracing the Nonconformists it 's true in two senses 1. As he and I disgrace Christianity by being so ignorant and bad 2. Or if he mean not My own Nonconformity but his even his Nonconformity to a great deal of truth and Christian duty and common honesty by concatenated falshoods I have done my part when constrained to disgrace it § 15. Sometime a friend to Calvin and then a greater to Arminius saith he Answ 1. Did he tell the Reader where by one in any words I contradict the other 2. But see the misery of a Sectarian spirit that taketh it for a contradiction to be a friend to Calvin and Arminius both He would as this inferreth take it ill to be thought a friend to Anabaptists and Paedobaptists both to Independents and Presbyterians and Episcopal too But that is to such as I the greatest duty which to him is a shameful contradiction When I think none Christians but Anabaptists I will be a friend to no other as such Men of so little a Church must have answerably little Love Censoriousness is a friend but unto few 3. But by this your friendship seemeth narrower than I thought it I thought it had extended to all the Anabaptists But they are divided into Free-willers and Free-gracers as they call them that is into Calvinists and Arminians and are you a friend but unto one part of them 4. But indeed Sir the Controversies intended by you under these names are not such as a man of my poor measure can fix his judgement in every young and promise that it shall never change nor that I can take it for a shame to grow any wiser in them than heretofore though perhaps your judgement changed not from your Childhood And I hope if what I have written may be published to make it appear that such as you that speak evil of what you understand not are the grievous enemies of the Churches of Christ as to Truth Holiness and Peace by your militant noise about Calvinism and Arminianism stirring up contentions and destroying Love by making differences seem greater than they are and laying the Churches Concord and Communion and mens salvation upon such questions as Whether the house should be built of Wood or Timber And is not this worthy of your zeal § 16. He adds Sometimes a great Defender of the Parliament and their Cause and then none more to renounce them and betraytor them for their pains Answ 1. Was there never but One Parliament and One Cause Perhaps you mean that the Parliament called 1640 and the Rump as called and the Armies Little Parliament and Oliver and the Army Council and all the rest of the Soveraigns were all One Parliament Or that to swear to the first Parliament or fight for them and to shut out and imprison them and to dissolve them as Usurpers and to set up one chosen by who knows whom and to set up Oliver and his Son and to pull him down again and to set up the Rump again and to pull them down and set up a Council of State c. were all one Cause And that one day it was Treason not to be for one Soveraign and another day not to be against that and for another Your Army did not betraytor them when they forced out one part as Traytors first and thrust out the major part after imprisoning and reproaching many worthy wise and religious men and when they pulled down all the rest at last Had you or I more hand in these matters Whether you know your self I know not but I am sure you know not me nor what you talk of § 17. It followeth Sometimes a great Opposer of Tradition and anon a great defender thereof Answ 1. If you take Tradition equivocally you calumniate but by equivocation but if thereof mean the same Tradition your falshood hath not the cloak of an equivocation Prove what you say by any words of mine It is between twenty and thirty years I think since I largely opened my judgement of Tradition in the Preface to the second edition of my book called the Saints Rest which I never changed since If you will deny that your Father delivered you the Bible or any other or that the Church hath used both Bible and Baptism from the Apostles dayes till now Let the reproach of such Tradition be your glory if you will It shall be none of mine But do you write a book to prove the Tradition of Adult Baptism from Christs time to ours and when you have done renounce and scorn it See Reader how he valueth his own work § 18. He addeth Sometimes a violent impugner of Popery and yet at last who hath spoken more in favour of it Answ Here again if by Popery and it you mean the same thing You hold on the same course Prove it true and take the honour of once writing a true accusation I have not hid my judgement about Popery having written about seven or eight books against it in above twenty years time by which you may see in comparing them whether I changed my judgement If you cannot refuse not to blush But I was and am a defender of that which is Popery and Antichristianity with you the Church-membership Covenant-interest and Baptism of Infants and it 's like many more parcels of the Treasures of Christ which you zealously rob him off and give to Antichrist As too many Sectaries do the greatest part I doubt more than nine parts of ten of his Kingdom or Church universal And as Divines use to prove that carnal minds are enemies and haters of God because they confess honour and worship him both in Name and in respect of many of his Attributes and relations and works yet in respect of others they are averse to him so I would be a monitor to you and such like Sectaries to take heed of going much further lest before you know what you do while you honour Christs name and cry up some of his Grace and doctrines you should really hate oppugn and blaspheme him and take Christ himself for Antichrist and his Churches and servants for Antichristian If you will take him for Antichrist that taketh Infants into the visible Church I think it will prove to be Christ himself § 19. Reader How big a volume wouldst thou have me write in answering such stuff as this Tears are fitter than Ink for such fearless rash continued visible falshoods to be deliberately published to the world as truths by one that calleth himself a man and a Christian and seemeth zealous to new Christen most of the Christian world Unless I should tire my self and thee I must stop and cease this noysome work Only one charge more which runs through much of his book I will answer because it concerneth the cause it self § 20. He oft tells you that when I have called my book Plain Scripture proof I yet there and after contradict my self by saying that
More PROOFS OF INFANTS Church-membership AND Consequently their Right to BAPTISM Or a SECOND DEFENCE of our Infant Rights and Mercies In Three Parts The First is The plain Proof of Gods Statute or Covenant for Infants Church-membership from the Creation and the Continuance of it till the Institution of Baptism with the Defence of that Proof against the Frivolous Exceptions of Mr. Tombes And a Confutation of Mr. Tombes his Arguments against Infants Church-membership The Second is A Confutation of the Strange Forgeries of Mr. H. Danvers against the Antiquity of Infant-baptism And of his many Calumnies against my Self and Writings With a Catalogue of fifty six New Commandments and Doctrines which He and the Sectaries who joyn with Him in those Calumnies seem to own The Third Part is Animadversions on Mr. Danvers's Reply to Mr. Willes Extorted by their unquiet Importunity from an earnest Desirer of the Love and Peace of all True Christians By Richard Baxter London Printed for N. Simmons at the Princes Arms and J. Robinson at the Golden-Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard 1675. The PREFACE Reader THe first year of my Ministry I fell into a doubt about Infant-Baptism and I was so ignorant as not to understand the nature of that solemn Covenant and Investiture and the Parents duty of entring the Child into the Covenant with God and what the Vow was which then was made when time and light had satisfied me I retained as charitable thoughts of the Anabaptists as of almost any that I differed from About 1646 1647 1648. they made more stir among us than before Mr. Tombes living near me we continued in peace not talking of our difference For I purposely avoided it in publick and private unless any asked my opinion At last his Converts came to me and told me that if I would not answer him in writing they must take it as an encouragement to them to be Baptized and confessed that he sent them or that they came by his consent To avoid long writings one dayes dispute was thought a shorter way That dispute with many additions I was necessitated to publish with some returns to some after arguings of Mr. T.'s He wrote what he thought meet on the other side I thought I had done with that work for ever But in 1655 he sent to me again and drew from me the Letters here recited These without my consent he published with an answer in the midst of a great Book I left his answer these nineteen years or thereabouts without any Reply as also the rest of his books against me I thought it not lawful for me to waste my precious time on things so little necessary A man may find words at length to say for almost any cause I partly know what can be said against this and every book that I have written And I know what I can Reply And I partly foreknow what they can say to that Reply and what I can further say in the defence of it and so talk on till we have wrangled away our Charity and our Time and must all this be printed to ensnare poor readers But at last Mr. Danvers hath laid a necessity upon me I had silently past over all his vain Reasonings and all his accusations of my writings and all his falsifications of Authors had he not called me so loud to repent of slandering some for being Baptized naked And when I found it my duty to speak to that I thought it fit to say somewhat of the rest passing by what Mr. Wills hath done more fully in an answer to his book There are two sorts of men called Anabaptists among us The one sort are sober Godly Christians who when they are rebaptized to satisfie their Consciences live among us in Christian Love and peace and I shall be ashamed if I Love not them as heartily and own them not as peaceably as any of them shall do either me or better men than I that differ from them The other sort hold it unlawful to hold Communion with such as are not of their mind and way and are schismatically troublesome and unquiet in labouring to increase their Party These are they that offend me and other lovers of peace And if God would perswade them but seriously to think of these obvious questions it might somewhat stop them Qu. 1. How inconsiderable a part of the universal Church they hold communion with And unchurch almost all the Churches on Earth Qu. 2. Whether they can possibly hope that ever the Church on Earth will Unite upon their terms of rejecting all their Infants from the visible Church and renouncing all our Infant Rights and Benefits conferred by the Baptismal Covenant of grace Qu. 3. And whether if they continue to the worlds end to separate from almost all the Churches and unchurch them their employment will not be still to serve the great enemy of Love and Concord against the Lord of Love and Peace and against the prosperity of faith and godliness and against the welfare of the Church and souls and to the scandal and hardening of the ungodly THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART THE Preface pag. 1 Mr. Tombes's first Letter p. 5 B.'s Answer to it Ibid. Mr. T.'s second Letter p. 8 B.'s Answer to it p. 9 Mr. T.'s third Letter p. 10 B.'s Answer is divided by Mr. T. into Sections His Answers are confuted Sect. 1 2 3 4. The many Questions to be handled Quest 1. Infants were once Church-members p. 13 Sect. 5. Quest 2. It was not only the Infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church-members p. 18 How far the Sichemites were of Israel and Church-members p. 21 Sect. 6 7 8 9 10. Of other Nations Ibid. Sect. 11. The Israelites Infants were members of the Church Vniversal p. 26. Sect. 12 to the 18. Infants were members of the Jews Church as well as Commonwealth p. 28. Sect. 18. Quest 4. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging Parents to enter their Children into Covenant with God by accepting his favour and engaging and devoting them to God and there was a promise of God offering them his mercy and accepting them when devoted as aforesaid c. p. 31 Sect. 19 c. Visible Church-membership what it is And that it is a benefit p. 32 Sect. 22. Legal-right to Infants Church-state given by Gods Covenant Mr. T.'s confuted and the case opened p. 35 Sect. 23 24. This Right is the effect of Gods Law or Covenant p. 44 46 Sect. 25 26. The proof of Parents obligation to enter their Children into Covenant what we mean by a Law Mr. T. maketh nothing of Church-membership p. 46 50 Sect. 27. Precepts oblige to duty and the promises give right to benefits p. 54 Sect. 28. No Transeunt fact without Gods statute or moral donation or covenant made the Israelites Infants Church-members proved to Sect. 44. p. 56 Sect. 44 45. Infants Church-membership instituted by God at mans creation and the constitution of Gods
to collect the Printers Errata though I see divers and therefore must leave the discerning of them to your selves And I again admonish and intreat you that the detection of the extraordinary falshoods and blind temerarious audacity of Mr. D. be not imputed to the whole Rebaptizing party to whose Practice Gregor Magn. paralleleth Reordaining and that his crimes abate not your Christian Love and tenderness to others there being truly Godly wise and peaceable persons worthy of our Communion and willing of it of that party as well as of others Hearken not to them that would render the Party of Anabaptists odious or intolerable no more than to those Anabaptists who would perswade those of their opinion to renounce Communion with all others as unbaptized It is against this dividing spirit on all sides that I Write and Preach PART I. My private Letters to Mr. Tombes proving the Church-membership of Infants in all ages vindicated from his unsatisfactory exceptions The PREFACE § 1. THE occasion and time of these Letters is long ago published by Mr. Tombes himself in the third Part of his Anti-Paedobaptism page 353. and forward where he printeth the said Letters without my consent Had I found his Answers satisfactory I had changed my judgement and retracted that and other such writings long ago But I thought so much otherwise of them that I judged it not necessary nor worth my diverting from better employment to write an answer to them § 2. And whatever the singular judgement of that learned and excellent Professor of Theology mentioned in his Preface was or is concerning the arguments that I and many before and since have used for Infant Baptism and notwithstanding his opinion that it was introduced in the second Century c. yet so many wiser and better men than I think otherwise both of the cause and of Mr. T 's writings that I hope the modest will allow me the honour of having very good company if I should prove mistaken § 3. No sober Christian will deny but that Godly men of both opinions may be saved And then I think no such Christian that is acquainted with the History of the Church can choose but think that there are now in Heaven many thousands if not hundred thousands that were not against Infant Baptism for one that was against it And while we differ de jure yet without great ignorance of the state of the world we must needs agree that de facto the number in the Church of Christ in all Nations and Ages that have been against Infant Baptism hath been so small as that they make up but a very little part of the Church triumphant which though I take for no proof of the truth of our opinion yet I judge it a great reason to make me and others very fearful of turning rashly and without cogent proof to the other side I know the Churches have still had their blemishes but that they should all universally so err in the subject of Baptism and Christianity it self is not to be believed till it be proved § 4. Though Christ be not the Author of any of our errors he is the healer of them and he is the Effector as well as the Director of his Churches faith and holiness And yet to say that though thousands or hundred thousands are in Heaven that were for Infant Baptism for one that was against it yet Christ was against even such a constitutive part of his Church as accounted is not to be received without good proof § 5. For my part I must still say that after all that I have read for the Anabaptists and much more than such Catalogues as Mr. Danvers I do not at present remember that I have read of any one Christian that held the baptizing of Infants unlawful in many and many hundred years after Christ at least not any that denied not Original sin Though indeed the Pelagians themselves that did deny it much yet denied not Infant Baptism § 6. But of this enough heretofore I lay not my faith on the number of Consenters but in a doubtful case I think the way that almost all went that are in Heaven and took it as the very entrance of the door of life is safer caeteris paribus than that which few in Heaven did own And though on earth I have more approvers than Mr. T. I think mans approbation so poor a comfort as that I am sorry to read in his Preface and elsewhere how much he layeth upon it Alas were it not more for the good of others than our selves how inconsiderable a matter were it whether men value and honour or despise us and what we are thought or said of by each other when we are all on the borders of eternity where the honour of this world is of no signification § 7. In the answer which I must give to Mr. Tombes should I transcribe all his words and answer every impertinent passage I should needlesly weary the Reader and my self I will therefore suppose the Reader to have his Book at hand and to take his words as he hath given him them that I may not be blamed as concealing any of them And I shall answer to nothing but what seemeth to me to need an answer And for all the rest I am content that the impartial Reader judge of them as he findeth them For I write not for such as need an answer to every word that is written how frivolous soever against plain truth Mr. Tombes his first Letter SIR NOt finding yet that Law or Ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership which you assert in your book of Baptism to be unrepealed I do request you to set down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where you conceive that Law or Ordinance is written and to transmit it to me by this bearer that your allegations may be considered by him who is April 3. 1655. Yours as is meet John Tombes Richard Baxters Answer Sir I mean to see more said against what I have already written before I will write any more about Infant Baptism without a more pressing call than I yet discern I have discharged my Conscience and shall leave you and yours to take your course And indeed I do not understand the sense of your Letter because you so joyn two questions in one that I know not which of the two it is that you would have me answer to Whether there were any Ordinances or Law of God that Infants should be Church-members is one question Whether this be repealed is another you joyn both into one For the first that Infants were Church-members as you have not yet denied that I know of so will I not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you are now about it And much less that you should have the least doubt whether it were by Gods Ordination There are two things considerable in the matter First the benefit of Church-membership with all the consequent priviledges It is the
the Israelites that denomination of the Congregation of Israel of which Infants were members For you jumble both together both causes Civil and Ecclesiastical and of both those that make to the being and well-being So that our enquiry must be whether the Congregation and the Commonwealth be the same thing in your sense and what constituteth it formally For in this you speak in dark ambiguities The fourth question is Whether there was any Law Ordinance or Precept of God concerning mans duty herein or obliging him to the Covenant acceptance and engagement and so to membership and any promise grant or Covenant conferring the right of Church-membership and the consequent priviledges to Infants To this you say both Yea and Nay if I can understand you or at least as to much of the question concerning the being and part of the effect of the precept and promise Yet you conclude that you do not conceive that Infants of Israel were made visible Church-members by the promises in the Covenants or the precepts fore-named but by Gods transeunt fact I will not suspect that you imagine any other promise doth it besides that in the Covenant because your tying the effect to the transeunt fact doth exclude them Here we are cast upon these questions next The fifth question Whether there be such precepts and promises as you grant or as I shall prove which yet make not Infants Church-members The sixth question Whether there be any transeunt fact of God which without the efficiency of precept or promise did make the Infants of Israel Church-members The seventh question Whether those which you have assigned be such facts The eighth question Which are the Texts of Scripture that contain or express the said laws precepts or grants which I maintain this you insist upon The ninth question Whether such laws preceps or grants as I shall prove are capable of a repal or revocation The tenth question Whether they are actually revoked or repealed Mr. T 's Answer The eighth question is the only question needful to be resolved c. Reply If I do too much it is but your passing it by and it will not trouble you SECT IV. R. B. BEfore all these questions are well handled we should easily be convinced that it had been better either to have let all alone or else if we must needs have the other bout at least to have agreed on our terms and the stating of the questions better before we had begun And I think that even that is not easie to do For when I desired your plain exact and full explication of one word transeunt fact and you tell me you have plainly fully and exactly told me your meaning It falls out either through the unhappy darkness of my own understanding or yours that I know but little more of your mind than I did before and that you seem to me to have raised more doubts and darkness than you have resolved and dissipated Yet being thus far drawn in I shall briefly say somewhat to the several questions not following your desires to answer one alone which cannot be done to any purpose while the foregoing are unresolved because it is the clearing up of truth and not the serving of your present ends in your writings now in hand that I must intend Mr. T 's Answer I affect no more bouts with such a captious wrangler so many doubts seem not to be from the darkness of the understanding but either from the lightness of the fancy or the bent of the will to find a way to blunt the Readers attention c. Reply This is not the Controversie Is your judgement alike right of persons as of Doctrines SECT V. R. B. THE first question being resolved that Infants were once Church-members to the resolving of the second question I shall prove these two Propositions 1. That it was not only the Infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church-members 2. The Infants of Israel were members of the universal visible Church and not only of that particular Congregation The first I have proved already in my book And 1. Isaac was a Church-member yet none of the Congregation of Israel it was not Israel till Jacobs days If you say that by the Congregation of Israel you mean the seed of Abraham which had the promise of Canaan Yet 2. I say that Ishmael and Abrahams seed by Keturah and Esau had none of the promise and yet were Church-members in their infancy In Isaac shall thy seed be called that is that seed which had the promise of Canaan And so it was confined to Jacob who got the blessing and the birthright which Esau lost and was excluded yet was of the Church from his infancy The Son of the bond-woman was not to be heir with the Son of the free-woman yet was Ishmael an Infant member If you say that by the Congregation of Israel you mean all the natural seed of Abraham I add 3. The children of his bond-men born in his family or bought with mony were none of Abrahams natural seed and yet were Church-members in their infancy If you go yet further and say that by the Congregation of Israel you mean all that were at the absolute dispose of Abraham or his successors and so were his own I add 4. The Infants of free Proselytes were none such and yet were Church-members If you yet go further and say that you mean by the Congregation of Israel any that came under the government of Abraham or his successors then I add 5. That the Sichemites Gen. 34. were not to â—ome under Jacobs government but to be his allies and neighbours being so many more in number than Jacob that they concluded rather that his cattle and substance should be theirs yet were they circumcised every male and so were made members of the visible professing Church For it was not the bare external sign that Jacob or his sons would perswade them to without the thing signified For the reproach that they mentioned of giving their daughter to the uncircumcised was not in the defect of the external abscission for so Moses own son and all the Israelites in the wilderness should have been under the same reproach and all the females continually But it was in that they were not in Covenant with the same God and did not profess to worship the same God in his true way of worship as they did And therefore as Baptizing is not indeed and in Scripture sence Baptizing if it be not used for engagement to God even into his name so Circumcision is not indeed and in Scripture sence Circumcision unless it be used as an engaging sign and they be circumcised to God Mr. T 's Answer By the Congregation of Israel I mean the same with the Hebrew people or house of Abraham by an anticipation c. Reply 1. That not only the Infants of Abrahams house were Church-members shall be proved 2. Here he is forced to take in the Children
B. THE second proposition to be proved is 〈…〉 Israelites children were 〈◊〉 of â—he uâ—â—versal visible Church of Christ as well â—s â—â— the Congregation of Israel But this you did heretofore acknowledge and therefore I suppose will not now deny I suppose it past controversie between us 1. That Christ had then a Church on earth As Abraham saw Christs day and rejoyced and Moses suffered the reproach of Christ Heb. 11.26 and the Prophets enquired of the salvation by Christ and searched diligently and prophesied of the grace to come and it was the spirit of Christ which was in those Prophets signifying the time and testifying beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow 1 Pet. 1.10 11. So were they part of the Church of Christ and members of the body of Christ and given for the edification of that body Though it was revealed to them that the higher priviledges of the Church after the coming of Christ were not for them but for us 1 Pet. 1.12.2 I suppose it agreed on also between us that there was no true Church or Ecclesiastical worshipping society appointed by God in all the world since the fall but the Church of Christ and therefore either Infants were members of Christs Church or of no Church of Gods institution Moses Church and Christs Church according to Gods institution were not two but one Church For Moses was ChristsVsher and his ceremonies were an obscurer Gospel to lead men to Christ And though the foolish Jews by mis-understanding them made a separation and made Moses Disciples to be separate from Christs Disciples and so set up the alone shadows of things to come yet the body is all of Christ Col. 2.17 and by so doing they violated Gods institution and unchurcht themselves 3. I suppose it agreed also that Christs Church is but one and that even those of all ages that are not at once visible yet make up one body 4. And that therefore whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal Though the Church was more eminently called Catholick when the wall of separation was taken down But I remember I have proved this in my Book part 1. chap. 20. and therefore shall say no more now Mr. T 's Answer The two first are granted To the third Though whoever is a member of any particular Church is a member of the universal yet it follows not which Mr. B. drives at and vainly talks of his proving that every one who was a member of the universal Church in that he was a member of the Jewish Church particular was a visible member of every particular visible Church of Christ 2. Nor that every one that was a member of the universal Church in that he was a member of a visible particular Church of Christ was a visible member of the Jewish particular Church c. Reply 1. None of this ever came into my thoughts which he untruly saith I drive at c. What sober man could imagine either of these assertions What pittiful abuse of ignorant Readers is this 2. And what a poor put off to the point in hand That which I said is but that all particular visible Churches and members make up one visible universal Church and therefore every visible member of any particular Church is a member of the universal He durst not deny this and yet a slander serveth his turn SECT XII R. B. COncerning the matter of the third question I assert that it was not only of the Jews Common-wealth that Infants werâ— members but of the Church distinct from it This is proved sufficiently in what is said before Mr. T 's Answer As yet I find it not prove that the Jewish Church was distinct from the Common-wealth or that there was not any member of the Church who was not of thâ— Common-wealth Reply 1. It is only a formal and not a material distinction that I medled with The formal reason of a Church-member and a Civil-member differ at least after the choice of Kings when the Republick was constituted by a humane head Of which I refer the Reader to Mr. Galuspie's Aarons Rod If the Jews Common-wealth be specified as a Theocracy from God the Soveraign the Sichemites were of it and other nations might 2. But many say that some were of the Common-wealth that were not of the Church though not contrarily And be they distinct or not it sufficeth me that Infants were of the Church SECT XIII XIV XV XVI R. B. MOreover 1. Infants were Church-members in Abrahams family before Circumcision and after when it was no Common-wealth So they were in Isaacs Jacobs c. 2. The banished captivated scattered Jews that ceased to be members of their Common-wealth yet ceased not to be of their Church 3. The people of the Land that became Jews in Hesters time joyned not themselves to their Common-wealth Nor the Sichemites 4. Many Proselytes never joyned themselves to their Common-wealth Mr. T. affirmeth them all to have been Common-wealths Answer The word being ambiguous may in a large sense be extended to a family and to a scattered people that have no Soveraign but is not so usually taken SECT XVII R. B. THE Children of Abraham by Keturah when they were removed from his family were not unchurched and yet were no members of the Jews Common-wealth But I shall take up with what is said for this already undertaking more largely to manifest it when I perceive it necessary and useful Mr. T 's Answer Abrahams children by Keturah when out of the Common-wealth of the Hebrews were unchurched at least in respect of the Church of the Hebrews Reply 1. What a wide gap doth that at least make you yet to say They were a Church or no Church as you please 2. Reader use Scripture but impartially and in the fear of God and I will leave it to thy Conscience to judge whether it be credible that when God had foretold that Abraham would command his children and houshold after him to keep the way of the Lord Gen. 18.19 and when Ishmael Keturahs children and Esau were circumcised by Gods command and God had yet promised the Political peculiarities specially to Isaac and Jacob yet God would have all the grandchildren of Ishmael Keturah Esau to be uncircumcised and all their posterity to cease that usage as soon as they were out of Abrahams house when yet History assureth us that they long continued it Or whether God would have them circumcised and yet be no Church-members Believe as evidence constraineth thee SECT XVIII R. B. TO the fourth question I assert that 1. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging the Parents to enter their children into Covenant with God by accepting his favour and re-ingaging and devoting them to God and so entring them solemnly Church-members And 2. there was a Covenant promise or grant of God by which he offered the Church-membership of some Infants and actually conferred it where
and so it was made with the wickedst of Noahs seed and even with the beasts of the field yet doth it import a special favour to Noah and his seed as one whom God would shew a more special respect to as he had done in his deliverance and upon this special favour to him the creatures fare the better For though the word Covenant be the same to man and beast yet the diversity of the promissary and his capacity may put a different sense on the same word as applied to each And indeed it should seem but a sad blessing to Noah to hear an increase and multiply if all his Infant posterity must be cast or left out of the visible Church and so left as common or unclean This were to encrease and multiply the Kingdom of the Devil If he that was so mercifully housed in the Ark with all his children must now be so blest as to have all their issue to be out of the Church it were a strange change in God and a strange blessing on Noah And an uncomfortable stablishing of a Covenant with his seed if all that seed must be so thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain Moreover it is certain that Noah did prophetically or at least truly pronounce the blessing on Shem and Japhet And in Shems blessing he blesseth the Lord his God shewing that God was his God and so in Covenant with him And it is plain that it is not only the persons but the posterities of his three sons that Noah here intended It was not Cham himself so much as Canaan and his succeeding posterity that were to be servants to Shem and Japhet that is to their posterity And the blessing must be to the issue of Shem as well as the curse to the issue of Cham. And indeed a Hebrew Doctor would take it ill at that Expositor or Divine whatsoever that should presume to exclude the Infant seed of them out of Gods Church And well they may if in the blessing God be pronounced to be their God Saith Ainsworth in loc under this Shem also himself receiveth a blessing for blessed is the people whose God Jehovah is Psal 144.15 and eternal life is implied herein for God hath pre-prepared for them a City of whom he is not ashamed to be called their God Heb. 11.16 and Shem is the first man in Scripture that hath expresly this honour Moreover in Gen. 9.27 in Japhets blessing there is much though in few words to this purpose intimated First note that the Jewish Church is called the tents of Shem. From whence it appeareth that the Church priviledges of that people begun not with or from Abraham but were before And that it is the same Church that was of Shem and of Abraham and after all the additional promises to Abraham the Jewish Church is still denominated the tents of Shem now they were the tents of Shem before Abrahams days And therefore it is clear that it being the same Church must be supposed to have the same sort of members or materials and therefore Infants must be members before Abrahams days as well as after That Church which was Shems tents had Infant Church-members for the Jews Church is so called into which Japhet was to pass But the Church both before and after Abraham was Shems tents Ergo. Yet further let it here be noted that it is into Shems tents that Japhet must pass I suppose that the evidence is better here for that exposition that applyeth the word dwell to Japhet than to God and so that this is spoken of the conversion of the Gentiles as many Expositors have cleared at large And so as Ainsworth saith the sense is that Japhet shall be united with the Churches of the Jews the posterity of Shem which was fulfilled when the Gentiles became joynt-heirs and of the same body and joynt-partakers of Gods promise in Christ the stop of the partition-wall being broken down c. Ephes 3.6 2.14 19. Although it may further imply the graffing of Japhets children into the stock of the Church when Shems posterity should be cut off c. vid. ult Now if it be Shems tents even the same Church that Japhets children must dwell in then as Shems Infants were Church-members so must Japhets and not all his Infant seed be cast or left out So that here is a promise of Infant Church-membership unto the Gentiles in these words Reply To all this the summ of Mr. T. 's answers are 1. A denial of the senses given of some Texts which I leave to the Readers examination being resolved not to tire him with a tedious Reply 2. He grants that their persons were blessed God their God and their seed in the Church As if Gods open Covenant and promise made them not visible members but invisible SECT LXX to LXXIX R. B. WE come next to the Promise made to Abraham which I shall say the less to because you confess it But again note that whereas your self make the beginning of Gods taking the Jews to be his people and so of Infants to be members of the Church to be at Abrahams call from Ur 1. There is no one word of that in the Text. 2. Lot came out of Ur with Abraham yea and from Haran and lived with him were not Lot and his Infants Church-members then 3. The chief note I intend is this that there is no more said then to prove Infants Church-members than what we have shewed was said long before and is said after of the Gentiles Infants no nor so much If therefore the passage of Abraham out of Ur yea or the promise made to him in Haran Gen. 12.2 3. will prove Infants Church-membership then have we as good proof of it to the Gentile Church as to the Jews And here I note further that in the beginning before the command for Circumcision you plainly yield that Infants Church-membership is a thing separable from Circumcision and begun not with it but before And indeed I have evinced that to you in my Book of Baptism Abraham himself was not made a member by Circumcision but circumcised because a member of Christs Church by faith Ishmael was a member before and so was Isaac and the Infants born in Abrahams house Whether there were any promise or precept of this but a meer transeunt fact let the Text last mentioned and the following bear witness Gen. 12.2 3. In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed and Gen. 17.7 9 10. And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee and I will be their God And God said to Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations This is my Covenant which you shall keep between me and you c. to vers 15. In all this let these things be noted 1. That here is an express promise or Covenant to Abraham and his seed after
including their Infants but as part of the Analogie as if he had said As we now are all baptized into Christ These things seem to me a certain notification of Gods will herein which in the foresaid former Treatise I have fullier opened and improved And should I stand to answer all the words that Mr. Tombes hath said against it I should needlesly tire the Reader and my Self and lose that time which I cannot spare A Confutation of Mr. Tombes's Reasons Sect. 52. by which he pretendeth to prove that Infants were not reckoned to the visible Church-Christian in the Primitive times nor are now Mr. T. 1. I Argue thus If no Infants were part of the visible Church-Christian in the Primitive times then whatever Ordinance there were of their visible membership before must needs be repealed But the antecedent is true ergo the consequent The Antecedent I prove thus If in all the days of Christ on earth and the Apostles no Infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian then not in the primitive times But c. Ergo c. The Minor proved 1. All visible members of the Church-Christian were to be baptized But no Infants were to be baptized Therefore no Infants were visible members of the Christian Church Answ 1. To the Major they were to be baptised after Christs baptism was instituted Mat. 28.19 but not before when yet the Christian Church was existent in Christ and his Disciples Therefore Christ was not baptized in his Infancie 2. To the Minor If his bare affirmation would prove that Infants were not to be baptized what need he write his books Mr. T. 2. They were not visible members of the Church-Christian who were not of the body of Christ But no Infant was of the visible body of Christ proved from 1 Cor. 12.13 All that were of the body of Christ were made to drink into one spirit in the Cup of the Lords Supper But no Infant was made to drink into one spirit for none of them did drink that Cup c. Answ Denying the Minor I answer to the proof 1. To the Major 1. Mr. T. elsewhere pleadeth that 1 Cor. 12. speaketh of the Church-invisible only and yet now he maketh it to be the visible 2 All is oft put for the Generality and not a proper universality And it seemeth hard to prove that every visible member hath the spirit which is expresly there said of all the members though whether Baptism and the Lords Supper be included Mr. T. elsewhere maketh disputable But I grant that it is spoken of the Church as visible and that all the members ordinarily having Spiritus Sacramentum are in judgement of charity said to have the Spirit 3. But if Sacraments be indeed here included as he asserteth then Baptism is first included and so if we prove Infants Church-members this Text will prove them to be baptizable according to Mr. T. Remember that 4. But that Mr. T.'s exposition is not true that every member drinketh of the Cup in the Lords Supper he may be turned about to confess himself For 1. Doubtless he thinks that this Chapter speaketh of the Church not only as visible if at all but as invisible also and he oft saith that many real members of Christs body have not the Sacrament 2. By this his exposition his adult Baptizing should not make or prove any to be visible Church-members till they drink of the Cup though it were a year or many years 3. And no one that liveth without the Lords Supper through scruples about Church-orders or their own fitness which are the cases of multitudes should be visible members Nor those that live where they cannot have the Sacrament Nor any Lay-man in all the Popish Church where the Cup is denied the Laity 2. To the Minor Infants might be baptized into one spirit by the initiating Sacrament in order to the rest to be partaked of in due time And as not every Church-suspension so Natural-suspension of further priviledges nullifieth not membership Mr. T. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17 All that were one body and one bread did partake of that one bread which was broken But no Infant did partake Answ 1. Christ and his Disciples did not partake of it before the institution 2. No baptized persons partake of it in the interspace between the two Sacraments which with some is a long time 3. A baptized person may die before he drinketh that Cup or may live where it is not lawfully to be had 4. Church-members may be suspended from the Lords Table Therefore the text speaketh not of every member but of the ordinary communion of capable persons Mr. T. Eph. 4.5 The whole Church is one bodie and hath one Lord and one faith But no Infant hath one faith Answ 1. It is spoken of the generality of the noblest and capable members denominating the Church The Apostle saith not that every member hath all these but There is one Lord one faith c. Christ had not one Lord being Lord himself as here understood and yet was a member Christ in the womb cannot be proved to have actually hâ—d that one faith and he was long the chief member before he was baptized And whether ever the twelve Apostles were is uncertain 2. The Text seemeth chiefly to speak of the Doctrine of faith called objective faith one Creed And this the Church might have and yet not each member actually believe For 3. The Parent in faith devoting himself and his Infant to God his Faith and Consent is reputatively the Childs who is used as a member of the Parent Mr. T. 3. They were no members of the visible Church who were left out of the number of the whole Church all the Believers the multitude of the Disciples c. But Infants are left out of the number in all places in the New Testament Ergo Answ 1. Many texts speak of all that were present only and many speak only of such as the present matter did concern And it is most usual to denominate All or the Body from the Noblest and Greatest part If you were to describe a Kingdom would you not say that it is a Civil Society of rational creatures or men consenting to the mutual Relations of King and Subjects and the duties of each for the common welfare You would so define it as that Reason Consent and Intention should be in the definition Infants have none of these in act and yet who doubteth but Infants are members of the Kingdom of every Kingdom under Heaven that I have read of So you know that we take Infants to be members of our Churches now And yet is it not usual with us to say that all the Church met to hear or to do this or that When yet the Infants and many others might be absent The Texts Mr. T. alledgeth are Acts 1.15 The number of the names together were about 120. Answ Though I take not the Church then to be so numerous as
not receive them though we approve not of their way § 30. And were it in my power as a Pastor of the Church I would give satisfaction by such an answerable profession as this Though it be our judgement that Infants have ever been members of Gods visible Church since he had a Church and there were Infants in the world and do believe that Christ hath signified in the Gospel that it is his gracious will that they should still be so And that he that commanded Mat. 28.19 Go ye and Disciple all Nations Baptizing them would have his Ministers endeavour accordingly to do it and hath hereby made Baptism the regular orderly way of solemn entrance into a visible Church state and therefore we devote this child to God in the Baptismal Covenant Yet we do also hold that when he cometh to age it will be his duty as seriously and devoutly to make this Covenant with God understandingly himself and to dedicate himself to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as those must do that never were Baptized in Infancie And we promise to endeavour faithfully as we have opportunity to instruct and perswade him so to do hoping that this his early Baptismal dedication and obligation to God will rather much prepare him for it than hinder it § 31. Me thinks these Professions should put off the chief matter of offence and exception against each other as to the ill consequents of our opinions And if sober good men would by such a mutual approach be the more disposed to live together in love and holy peace how easily should I bear the scorns of those Formalists that will reproach me for so much as motioning a Peace with the Anabaptists even in the same Communion Who by making it a reproach will but perswade me that such as they are less worthy of Christian Communion than sober pious and peaceable Anabaptists § 32. And if with the partial sort of themselves such motions of Peace be turned into matter of contempt and they proceed in their clamours and reviling of me as an enemy of the truth for being against their way I shall account it no wonder nor matter of much provocation finding in all Sects as well as theirs that the injudicious sort are apt to be abusively censorious and the more mens Pride Ignorance and uncharitableness remain the more they will swell into self-conceit and trouble the Church with a mistaking wrangling hurtful sort of zeal § 33. And as I must needs believe as ill of some sort of Zeal as St. James hath spoken of it Jam. 3. and experience hath too long told the world of it yet I take it for truly amiable in men that they have a love and Zeal for Truth in general and a hatred to that which they think to be against it and that their bitterness against the truth and me is upon a supposition that both are against the truth and God for this beareth them witness that they have a zeal of God though it be not according to Knowledge and if they knew truth indeed they would be zealous for it § 34. I conclude with this notice to the contrary minded that the evidence for Infants Church-membership seemeth to me so clear both in nature and in Scripture that I bid them despair of ever perswading me against it But if they will have any hope of changing my judgement it must be by confessing the visible Church-membership of Infants and proving that yet they are not to be baptized and that Baptism was appointed for initiating none but adult converts and not to be the common entrance into the Church which yet I think they can never do while the plain Law of Christ Mat. 29.19 and the exposition of the universal Church doth stand on record to confute such an opinion But here they have more room for a dispute § 35. But though I expect to be censured for it I will say once because truth is truth that though Rebaptizing and Reordaining are justly both condemned by the ancient Churches and pronounced alike ridiculous by Gregory Mag. Lib. 2. Ep. Indict 11. c. 46. and many others yet were men Rebaptized but for Certainty to themselves or to the Church and to quiet their consciences and on such terms as in my Christian Directory I have shewed that a seeming Reordination might in some cases be tolerated and would not wrong Infants nor make it an occasion of division or alienation I know not by any Scripture or reason that such Rebaptizing is so heinous a sin as should warrant us to contemn our brethren No though it were as faulty as the oft commemorative baptizing used by the Abassines CHAP. III. A General View of Mr. Danvers book § 1. MR. Danvers book is entitled a Treatise of Baptism in which he giveth us the History of Infant and Adult Baptism out of Antiquity as making it appear that Infant Baptism was not practised for 300 years in his second edit it is near 300. And in his Append ed. 2. I cannot find that it was practised upon any till the fourth Century And he giveth us a Catalogue of witnesses against it By which those that hold their Religion on the belief of such mens words will conclude that all this is true and that Infant Baptism is a Novelty and those that are against it do go the old and Catholick way § 2. Having perused his testimonies on both sides I am humbled and ashamed for the dulness of my heart that doth not with floods of compassionate tears lament the pittiful condition of the seduced that must be thus deceived in the dark and of the Churches of Christ that must be thus assaulted and shaken and distracted by such inhumane horrid means The book being composed in that part of history which the stress of the cause lyeth on of such UNTRUTHS in fact and history as I profess it one of my greatest difficulties to know how to call them Should I say that they are so notorious and shameless as that I say not only a Papist but any sober Turk or Pagan should blush to have been guilty but of some page or line◠of them and much more a man of any tenderness of conscience the Readers would think that the language were harsh were it never so true and some would say Let us have soft words and hard arguments And should I not tell the Reader the truth of the case I might help to betray him into too much fearlesness of his bait and snare and I doubt I may be guilty of untruth by concealing the quality of his untruths And it is not matter of Argument but fact that I am speaking of § 3. But it pleaseth that God whose counsels are unsearchable as to permit five parts of the Earth to remain yet strangers unto Christ so to permit his Church to be so tryed and distracted between Church Tyranny and dividing separations Sects and parties as that in many ages it hath not been easie to
delivered down the form and words of baptism to us § 18. Afterward pag. 230. Ed. 2. Mr. Danvers cometh to Austin again and saith that Vincentius Victor did oppose Austin in the point of Infant-baptism citing August li. 3. c. 14. de Anima Answ Not a word of truth no such matter in that Chapter or the whole book § 19. Next he saith Cresconius did also oppose Austin in the point of Infants baptism and did maintain that there was no true baptism but that which administred after faith Answ Utterly false still There was no such controversie between them No wonder if he had miscited sentences that will thus go to falsifie whole Books as speaking of that which they never meddle with Augustine having written against Petilian their best speaker having of a Lawyer been made a Bishop Cresconius a Donatist Grammarian interposed for Petilian and perswaded Austin to gentler thoughts of them but speaks not a word against Infant-baptism § 20. Nay lib. 3. cap. 31. Austin tells us that they held it as well as the Catholicks saith he Circumcisionem certe praeputii in figura futuri baptismi Christi ab antiquis observatum esse negare ut arbitror non audetis That is I suppose you dare not deny that Circumcision was observed by the ancients in figure of the Christian baptism It was a granted thing § 21. And it was Cresconius words to Austin Vna Religio eadem Sacramenta nihil in Christiana observatione diversum adhuc adversus invicem laboramus Saith Austin Quare ergo rebaptizas Christianum Ego non rebaptizo that is We have all one Religion the same Sacraments there is nothing in our Christian observation divers saith Cresconius And yet do we strive against each other Why then dost thou rebaptize a Christian that differeth not from them I rebaptize no Christian saith Austin So that here was no disagreement in Sacraments or any Christian observance Only as Austin saith lib. 7. de bapt c. 2. the quarrel was that the Catholicks were charged to be Traditores quia ex traditoribus the successors of sinners Thus being wise and righteous overmuch did tear and almost ruine the Churches § 22. He addeth pag. 223. Ed. 2. the saying of Osiander Fuller Bullinger that the Donatists and the Anabaptists held the same opinions Answ 1. In what In all things or some that is in the point of Rebaptizing persons before baptized do you own that indeed But not as being against Infant-baptism 2. So many Prelatists have called the Puritans Donatists and abundance of Protestants say that the Papists succeed the Donatists in appropriating the Church to their party Do not write next that they say the Papists are against Infant-baptism lest you make your selves Antichristian also § 23. Reader the Donatists were so great a party of men and had so great a number of Bishops and so many wrote against them whose works are yet extant and their cause had so many publick examinations that I leave it to thee if thou have the brains of a man to judge whether if they had been against Infant-baptism in a time when Austin said no Christian denied it neither Optatus nor Austin nor any other of their most copious opposers would ever have charged them with such an opinion nor any examiners Councils or Historians of their ages even when the Catalogues of hereticks unhappily took in so many little matters as they did and made hereticks some more and worse than they were And now if John Becold will say they were of his side we must believe him § 24. His dealing with the Novatians is the same or worse He feared not in the face of the Sun to write that the Novatians opposed Infant-baptism and numbreth them also with his party When it is a falshood as much aggravated as these particulars import 1. They were an honest and numerous people and scattered almost all over the Empire tolerated till Innocents time in Rome and long tolerated and much favoured by many Emperors and Patriarchs in Constantinople because as Socrates saith they agreed in Doctrine with the Catholicks And could they have denied Infant-baptism and not be accused of it 2. They had many bitter enemies that would soon have cast this in their teeth 3. Many Councils had to do with them where multitudes had opportunity to accuse them 4. They were an ancient Sect arising even in Cyprians time and long continued And in so many generations it would have been known 5. They are put in the Catalogues of many Heresiographers that are keen enough and none of them that ever I found accuse them of any such thing No not Epiphanius himself who is most copious and not very backward to accuse And shall either John of Leyden or any of his party now in the end of the world perswade us by slandering so many thousands of innocent men that they were guilty And can Mr. Danvers now tell us that they held that which for a thousand years hath lain unknown § 25. He citeth Socrates l. 7. c. 9. that Innocent banished them out of Rome Answ Elsewhere indeed Socrates and many more say so But doth that prove they were against Infant-baptism § 26. Somewhat he would fain say at the second hand out of Albaspinaeus Observ 20. I hope he never read the book Albaspinaeus there purposely decideth the Controversie what the Novatian Heresie was in several Chapters and never mentioneth any such opinion or suspicion of them The same doth that great Antiquary Jesuit Petavius and what these two men knew not of the Fathers and Church-history few in the world knew unless I may except Blondel and Vsher In his notes on Epiphanius of the Novatians he entreth on the same Controversie as Albaspinaeus did and never mentioneth any such thing § 27. Next he tells us that Ecbertus and Emericus do assert that the Waldenses the new Cathari conform to the Doctrine and manners of the old the Novatians Answ But did they say that the Novatians were against Infant-Baptism Why did you cite neither words page nor Book And if they had should two railing slanderous Papists near a thousand years after Novatian be taken for witnesses that he was against Infant-baptism against all the History of the Church that concerneth them to the contrary Socrates himself an honest Historian and Sozomen also are ordinarily by the Papists accused as Novatians because they speak fairly and impartially of them as honest men and whether they were or not I know not but by their own words conjâ—cture the contrary And they lived when and where the Novatians were best known And yet tell us not a syllable of any such suspicion of them § 28. Next he saith Perin saith that the Waldenses were the off-spring of the Novatians driven out of Rome about Anno 400. Answ It is very probable Therefore the Waldenses were not against Infant-baptism For it is certain the Novatians were not And the same Perin saith the Waldenses were not But if
may see in Fulgentius's life But what is all this to Infant-baptism § 51. Next he tells us that in the ninth Century Hincmarus Laudunens was against Infant-baptism and reciteth many words of Hincmarus Rhenensis to him Answ The book is Bib. Pat. Suppl To. 2. containing 55. Chapters And if I must read every word of such long books to try his Citations I must spend many months to be able to tell you that a man told you so many untruths All that I can find by a cursory perusal is but this about a Village in the other Pariâ—h whom it should pay Tythes to habebas imbreviatos quot Infantes sine baptismate quot homines sine Communione inde obierunt quae mihi in publicum objicere nolles ne postea tibi improperarem at si alia mala de me scires illa etiam de me diceres Reader is here a syllable against Infant-baptism Who was the accuser here What is in the accusation but as in Adrians to Greg. which plainly proveth the contrary that he was for Infant-baptism and ordinarily used it when the intimation was but that he had let some Infants die without baptism and some men without Communion Hath not many a Minister among us been so accused And are we therefore against Infant-baptism Or was Hinomarus against adult Communion because envy said he let some die without it § 52. Reader the truth is I am so weary of this work that I cannot perswade my self to follow it any further it is so sad and loathsom a business that is set before us fitter to be wept over than answered at large I shall yet take notice of what he saith of the Waldenses and to that further say 1. That I have elsewhere vindicated them already from this slander 2. That so do many of their bitter adversaries in laying no such thing to their charge Among whom to what is said elsewhere I add but the Testimony of Nauclerus a Popish bitter enemy to them who Vol. 2. part 2. pag. 265. reciteth their Doctrine as being agreeable with the body of Doctrine held in the Reformed Churches never mentioning any denial of Infant-baptism but only that they affirmed Water to be sufficient without Oyl AND now as to our Testimonies for the Common practice of Infant-baptism from the daies of the Apostles I will not abuse the Reader by reciting again the testimonies long ago recited Let him but consider what I have there said out of Justin Irenaeus Origen Tertullian Cyprian Nazianzene Augustin and others and I leave the matter to his Judgement § 53. And further where they feign Nazianzen to be indifferent I will add but these words out of his Orat. 40. vol. 1. p. 648. Ed. Morel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hast thou an Infant Let not naughtiness surprize him first Let him be sanctified from his Infancy Let him be consecrated to the spirit from his Infancie But dost thou fear the seal because of the weakness of his nature How weak a minded mother art thou and of how little faith But Hannah c. Thou hast no need of Amulets and Inchantments with which the wicked one creepeth into the minds of vain men stealing to himself the veneration due to God Give him the Trinity that great and excellent Amulet That all this is spoken of Baptism is past all doubt Yet Nazianzen in some cases admitteth of delay till three years old But took baptism to be so necessary for Infants that he thought that if any though by surprize and not the Parents contempt should die unbaptized they should not goe to Heaven or be Rewarded though he thought they should not go to Hell or be punished Ib. Orat. 40. His opinion therefore for delay three years in case of safety consisted with too much apprehension of its necessity even to Infants § 54. When I read his language of holy Cyprian I confess the apparition of so frightful a spirit doth affright me from his doctrine First The man with greater audaciousness than the Papists use the Fathers doth first attempt against all consent of antiquity and without any proof to question the truth of the sentence of Cyprian and the Carthage Council to Fidus. Secondly And what could he say more to betray the Protâ—stant Cause to the Papists than as after Either Cyprian had been vilely Ruffined or that he himself was a notable Factor for Antichrist and that in him the mystery of iniquity did very strongly work The man it seems had never read Jeremy Stephens his Edition of Cyprian de unit Eccl. and how those few words of Peter and the Church of Rome were added by Corrupters though he is willing to believe in the general that his writings were corrupted But we have certain Copies at least of so much of them as confute his Cause I remember our great Antiquary Bishop Vsher told me that it was Tertullian and Cyprian that he took for the Chief Records of Church Antiquities next a few small things which give little information of matters of fact And some of the things that this man so starteth at Cyprian held and as Epiphanius saith All the Christian Churches And must he then be a Factor for Antichrist Who then is this Man a Factor for Mark Reader whether it be any wonder if I be abhominable and Antichristian to him when Cyprian and the sixty six Bishops with him must come under hypothetically that suspicion 1. That Cyprian who was so holy and wise a man 2. That lived before Antichrist was born 3. That died a Martyr for Christ 4. Who is so great a part of the pure antiquity that if you cast him away what will the rest be for a great time 5. That Cyprian who is called by some the first Anabaptist because he was for rebaptizing those baptized by Hereticks 6. That Cyprian who so stifly opposed the Bishop of Rome though himself was in the error 7. That Cyprian whom the Donatists boasted of as their predecessor in rebaptizing and Austin was put to answer though with his honour 8. That Cyprian who lived before any Christian Emperor when strict discipline upheld religion without and against the Magistrates sword and who wrote so many of his Epistles only for the rigor of Church-discipline O whâ—t pleasure is this to Papists If we be but such Antichristians say they as holy Cyprian and the primitive Churches were we will prefer it before the Anabaptists Christianity § 55. And if Cyprian was Antichristian where then was the Church of Christ It will be hard to answer Papist or Seeker about its visibility or Infidel about its reality And what a King do they make Christ that make him to have no Kingdom that they can prove to have been existent § 56. We will easily grant him that Cyprian de unit Eccl. is abused by the Papists and the very words thrust in are proved so to be by many Copies that have them not Yea Jeremy Stephens saith that there are
his own understanding and his ignorant Readers by such silly wranglings animated by partiality let him bear the Consequents and know that I have somewhat else to do with my few remaining hours than to write books on such insufficient invitations and expectations CHAP. VII Of Danvers's many other accusations of me § 1. IT was one of the old Characters of the Hereticks in the Apostles dayes To speak evil of the things that they understood not And that may well be their Character in which they contradict the three great constitutive parts of Christianity and all Religion and true honesty viz. TRUTH HUMILITY and LOVE by Falshood Pride and Malignity called commonly Vncharitablness § 2. The Root of this is when Reigning an unsanctified heart in which these vices remain unmortified covered from the owners knowledge by a form of Godliness and especially a zeal for the wayes of some Party more honoured in the persons eyes for wisdom or piety than others In others there is a great measure of the same vices mixed with true Grace where an evil and a good cause are conjoyned as to some effects They love God and his Truth and they hate all that they think against him they would promote piety in the world and repress what they think against it And being persons whose wits and studies were not such as exactness and largeness of knowledge do require but yet lovers of knowledge truth and Scripture they have more knowledge than prophane sots but little alas little in comparison of that which is necessary to a methodical accurate understanding of the matters which frequently fall under controversie And so knowing but little they know not what they are ignorant of nor what others know beyond them And it being the common vice of mans understanding to be hasty in judgeing before they hear or know one half that is necessary to a true and faithful judgement and so to be confident before they understand these men hereby are led to confidence in many an error And an erring judgement first telleth them that Truth is falshood and falshood truth that Good is evil and evil good that Duty is sin and sin is duty and then a good cause and a bad the Love of Truth and a perverse and partial zeal concur to put them on in the way of error Ignorance and error set them on a wrong cause and a mixt affection or zeal partly good and partly evil spurreth them on And in these the Error and Heresie and consequent sins are no more predominant than the cause and God will have mercy on those that in ignorance with good meanings oppose many truths and do much evil § 3. And the great means of nourishing this sin in Churches is departing from Christs Church order who hath appointed Teaching and Learning to be the setled way of getting knowledge And therefore required all his disciples to come to his Church as little children to School with teachable humble minds to Learn and not with proud wrangling minds to dispute If all our children should spend their time at School in disputing with the Teacher and setting their wits against his as in a conflict what would they thus Learn § 4. Therefore Paul saith that the servant of the Lord must not strive and oft calleth men from perverse disputings and striving about words which subvert the hearers and from such contendings as edifie not but tend to more ungodliness though the faith may be contended for and truth defended when opposition maketh it truly necessary § 5. When a man seeketh after knowledge as a Learner he meeteth it with a willing mind he cometh towards it with an appetite and so is a capable receiver But when a man cometh as a disputant he is ingaged already to one side and if that be false he cometh out to fight against the truth with a spirit of opposition hating truth as error and good as evil and thinks it his duty and interest to destroy and shame it if he can and therefore is unapt to think what may be said for it but studyeth all that he can against it And is this loathing and opposition and fighting against truth the way to know it § 6. Therefore that which hath undone the Churches peace is that too many Teachers being themselves too forward to controversies have too hastily drawn in their people into their quarrels and cast such bones before them in books and pulpits instead of food which break their teeth and set them together by the ears instead of nourishing them And so one mans hearers are taught to dispute for this sort of Government and anothers for that sort one mans for free-will and anothers against it when perhaps neither they nor the master of the quarrel can tell you what it is and so of an hundred more such like The honest hearers when they should be digesting the ancient Christian doctrine and learning to increase in Love to God and man and to practise a holy and a heavenly life and prepare for a comfortable death and happy eternity by a Living faith and hope are taught that if they be not zealots for this opinion or that for Anabaptistry for separation c. if they pray by a book or if they joyn with those that hold such things as they hear called by odious frightful names they are not then right zealous Christians but corrupt or complyers or lukewarm And thus each Church is made a miserable Church-militant and trained up to war against each other § 7. And this Ministers have done partly to strengthen themselves by the consent and number of their adherents as the Captain must conquer by his Souldiers When they can set a great number on hating their adversaries and backbiting them and telling the hearers wherever they come to make them seem odious how erroneous and bad such and such men are they think they have done much of their work And while they think it is for Christ they know not how notably they please and serve the Devil But I must remember that I have spoken of this elsewhere and so dismiss it § 8. That Mr. Danvers and his imitaters speak evil confidently and vehemently of the things they know not yea very many such I am sure But from what principle or root or how far that vice which produceth these fruits is mortified or unmortified as to all others I am neither called nor willing to judge I remember how Mr. Tho. Pierce once dealt with me When my Religious neighbour could hardly be perswaded to communicate with those among them that were of his judgement saying they were men that would swear and lie and lived scandalously I thought it my duty to keep up discipline and yet to moderate their censures by telling them what sins I thought might stand with some measure of sincere piety and Church-communion And what doth he but hence take advantage to tell the world how loose my doctrine was and what sinful persons I thought
had grace So now if I should say that notwithstanding these hard-faced falshoods heaped together and confidently obtruded on the ignorant even about publick and visible matter of fact yet I hope the Auâ—hor feareth God truly in other respects and erreth through Ignorance passion and temerity I should be told publickly ere long by one or other that I think the most brazen-faced Lyars may be Saints And if I deny such mens Goodness I look to be told that I am censorious and a reviler of godly men that differ from me Therefore I am thankful to Christ that he not only excuseth us from so hard a work as the Judging of the sincerity of others but calls us off and saith who art thou that judgest another mans servant to his own master he stands or falls But whoever censure me for it I will say that my judgement still inclineth to the hopeful and charitable part For siding and error may draw good men into heinous sins § 9. That He and I do differ in Judgement and Practice is not to be denyed I thought our difference had been but in so small and tolerable things till I saw worse in his writings as should neither abate Love or forbid Communion And thinking so I was the likelier to practise as I thought and not to hate him and such as he But I perceive he takes the differences to be far greater and my errors and sins to be more heinous and intolerable and therefore if he hate me though I know not that ever he saw me or I him it is no wonder it being more agreeable to his judgement And also if he would not tolerate me were it in his power § 10. If he so greatly differ from me and be in the right certainly it is because he is either a great deal wiser and more knowing in these matters or because he is more conscionable to avoid perverting temptations and more Godly and fit for divine light I deny not either but from the bottom of my heart tell him that I am so deeply conscious of the darkness and smalness of my understanding and my little goodness and very ill deserts from God that did he bring me any considerable evidence for his cause my great suspicion of my self would prepare me to hear him But it must not be such stuff as he here obtrudeth on us And I must tell him though I acknowledge God to be a free Benefactor and may give the Greatest Knowledge to them that have least laboured for it yet while diligent searching is his commanded means I shall doubt whether his easier and shorter search hath attained to so much more than my harder and longer till the fruit shall prove it § 11. He tells us Ed. 2. p. 170. that I cannot do my self more right and my offended brethren than to clear my self in these particulars which are indeed so heinous not only to every one of his Nonconforming brethren but to most Protestants that hear them Answ 1. Still such untruths Do you know what most Protestants think that hear them and every one of my Nonconforming brethren Why some of the wisest of them that I know did read them over and approved them before they were printed Others many and many of the most judicious also of my acquaintance have since professed their consent Nay more I remember not one Minister that hath made me know by word or writing to me that he dissenteth from any one of all these heinous things I remember that once some objected what they heard others say not as consenting to the opposers and acquiesced in my answers or rather in the words of the book perused So that if every one of my Nonconforming brethren be offended and I known not of one nor any one of them would ever vouchsafe a word or line to convince me you censure them for woful dissemblers or uncharitable But I believe them of themselves rather than you § 12. He addeth And I dare be bold to say hath given more general offence and lost Mr. Baxter more amongst his Friends than any thing he did in all his life Answ 1. The offence which Christ dreadfully condemneth which is scandalizing the weak or laying snares or stumbling-blocks before them to tempt them to think ill of Christ or Godliness or to commit any sin I would avoid as carefully as I can And to avoid it I have written that which offendeth you But the offence which is but Displeasing dissenters yea mistaking men I little regard on my own account And your talk of my loss or being lost doth savour so rankly of a humane hypocritical temptation as maketh me remember what Christ said to Peter Math. 16.23 that would have had him save himself from suffering though I will not speak out such unpleasing words to you But your words savour too much of the flesh O Sir it is but a few moments more and you and I shall be in a world where the thoughts and words of mortals of us will be of small importance to us And themselves are hasting to the day when all their thoughts perish O cease from man whose breath is in his nostrils for wherein is he to be accounted of Would you tempt me to look to the hypocrites reward the approbation of man O miserable reward Were not that book odious to you I would refer you for my Reasons to the two Chapters of Man-pleasing and Pride If Gods approbation seem not enough for us why call we him our God But if I have lost so much as you intimate you would perswade me that my service is more than I take it to be I have felt little comfort in any service of God which cost me nothing But you shall not tempt me to over-value it so much I find no loss at all by it What have I lost Sir Not one farthing or farthings-worth that I am aware of As I lived not on any man before so I am never the poorer for that duty now Is it mens praise or good thoughts of me Not one friend to my remembrance in the City or Land hath once told me his dissent much less that I have lost his good esteem Only one young man that heard me Preach came for satisfaction about one of the particulars who was satisfied as far as I could perceive and I wisht him but to read over all in my book about that you object concerning the Crucifix and I heard of him no more And if I am so much lost with my friends and no one of them in England tell me that he dissenteth and wherein such friends are not so valuable as to be any of my felicity And do you call a man lost that loseth the thoughts or the breath of man As it is their own duty or sin I regard all mens thoughts or words and so would please all men for their good to edification But as to my own comfort I can spare yours and theirs and if you and a
the controversie is difficult and by saying that in the ancient Churches men were left at liberty to Baptize their children when they would And 1. His very words prove that this is no contradiction For these very words I will make plain to a boy of ten years old and yet the world must know in print that he is not able to understand them and that this is worthy the consideration of his proselytes 2. My meaning I opened long ago which he concealeth The Proofs of Infants Church-membership are Plain the proof therefore of their right to Baptism is plain though not in the same degree but there are objections of difficulty which may be brought against it which every weak Christian nor Minister neither cannot answer And the hardest is that which is little taken notice of by themselves but I impartially opened in my Christian Directory And is it a contradiction to say that a doctrine that hath Plain Proof may be assaulted by difficult obâ—ections And yet such as a sober Christian should not be changed by unless on the same reasons he will forsake all Christianity and his everlasting hopes For I take the doctrine of the Souls Immortality to be such as may be Plainly proved But truly I take it to be five degrees above the ability of this Writer to answer solidly all that can be said against it I take it to be Plainly provable that the Scripture is certainly true And yet I take it to be quite above this confident mans ability well to solve all the difficulties objected were it but those poor ones of Benedictus Spinosa in his late pestilent Tractatus Theologico-Politicus I think I have plain proof that God is not the Author of sin and man is not moved in it and all his acts as an engine by unavoidable necessitation But I despair that ten years study more should inable this Writer clearly to solve the objections of Hobbes or Camero about it In a word though we have Plain proof that Christ is the Son of God I should be loth that the faith of this Nation should lie upon the success of a dispute about it between a crafty Infidel and this self-conceited man § 21. And why should my impartiality in acknowledging the Churches liberty as to the time of Baptism at first be so unkindly received I meant not nor said that Christ had left it Indifferent and to their Liberty but that they left one another at liberty herein Because 1. The first and great work was in setling the Churches by converting Jews and Gentiles to the faith And the Adult who were the active members were they that the Apostles had most to do with and therefore whose case is expresly spoken of 2. Because it was a known thing that the Infants of Church-members had ever been Church-members and were in possession of that Relation when Christ and his Apostles set up Baptism 3. And it was a granted case that all Sanctified persons devoted themselves and all that they had to God and every thing according to its capacity And therefore their Infants according to their capacity which God himself had before expounded 4. And it was never the meaning of Christ to lay so much on the outward washing as many Papists and Anabaptists do But as the uncircumcised Infants in the Wilderness were nevertheless Church-members and saved so when Infants were in the Covenant of God by the Parents true and known consent their damnation was not to be feared upon their dying unbaptized by surprize 5. But yet obedience to God being necessary many Parents hastned their childrens Baptism at two or three dayes old Others staid till the eighth day others longer and multitudes had children that were in several degrees entred on the use of reason when the Parents were converted and it remained doubtful whether they were as to the Covenant at their Parents choice or their own And to this day there want not those that think that Baptism was not instituted to be the ordinary initiating Sacrament of the children of Church-members but only of Proselytes And that Christians Infants took their places in the Church of course but Proselytes from without only were to be Baptized Though this be an error it is probable that there were some then as well as now of that opinion But nothing more occasioned as far as I can find the delay of Baptism than the fear of the danger of sinning after it especially of apostasie All held that all sin past was pardoned in Baptism And Heb. 6. and 10. and other texts and the common doctrine of the Church made them think it a very perillous thing to sin wilfully after illumination and the acknowledgement of the truth And therefore abundance delayed their own Baptism till age and many were backward to Baptize their children lest childish folly and youthful lusts and worldly temptations should draw them to trample upon the blood of the Covenant And on such accounts all were not Baptized at one age And divers that were Baptized at age upon their own conversion from Heathenism were not suddenly so knowing as to be acquainted with all the cases about their childrens rights but must have a considerable time to learn For it was be it spoken without offence to stricter men a General and Narrow sort of Knowledge which the Apostles and the Primitive Churches required in the adult as necessary to Baptism yea when they had at last kept them long under Catechizing For even in Augustines time though all used the same words of Baptism so few had a clear understanding of the very Baptismal form or words that writing ubi supra de bapt contr Donat. he saith that as to the Meaning of those words not only the Hereticks sed ipsi carnales parvuli Ecclesiae si possent singuli diligenter interrogari tot diversitates opinionum fortassis quot homines numerarentur Animalis enim homo non percipit c. Annon tamen ideo non integrum sacramentum accipiunt § 22. There remaineth a Catalogue of my heynous errors which he hath put in the preface to his first edition and in the end of the second and which he and such as he have taught many honest weak people in London both Anabaptists and Independents to talk frightfully and odiously of from one another behind my back What should I say to him and them Shall I answer them that never speak or write to me Shall I take this mans accusation for a confutation or conviction Is so deadly an enemy of Antichrist conceited of a self-infallibility or that I must take my faith or trust from Mr. Danvers though not from the Church Pope or General Council If not what did the man think that a recitation should do with me Did not I know what I had written till he told me § 23. But it is others that he tells it to Those others will read my own words or they will not If they will I will not be so
Papists baptism administred and received be nullities and all Papists to be rebaptized and all Protestants that were baptized by Papists are questions which I will not be so vain as to dispute with one that talketh at this mans rate But yet we have not done with the high charges of his Preface He saith Oh! were not those twenty Queries so much against the self-evidencing authority of the Scriptures in his Admon p. 142. in favour of Tradition a heynous provocation to say no more of them Answ It seems they were so to you But really did you read that book and the other to Mr. Bagshaw and yet not fear to follow him and out-do him in notorious untruths after so full a conviction and warning as was given him Think on it and again cry out But alas whereto will not men run left to themselves I there professed and proved to your friend Mr. Bagshaw that I was for and wrote for the self-evidencing authority of the Scripture and it is untrue that those twenty Queries or any one of them is against it· But seeing you think otherwise if indeed you hold the contrary to the assertions implied in those twenty Queries I am not at the end of the Catalogue of your strange Doctrines If you and my revilers own them so will not sober men e. g. XLIII Every Christian must see the Copies of the Scripture written by the Prophets and Apostles own hands Or at least must understand the Transcripts in the Original tongues XLIV God hath promised unerring infallibility to all Scribes in the world that write out the Bible and all Printers that print it Or at least to some of them and we may be certain who those are XLV Though the several Copies have a multitude of differences it is certain none of them are erroneous or mistaken XLVI Those men and women that understand not Hebrew or Greek may be certain only by seeing a Hebrew and Greek Bible without a Translators help that every word in it is the word of God XLVII Either he that will be sure which Copy is without mis-writing must first see all the Copies in the world that differ or else if he never see but one or few he may be certain that it is right in the words in which it differeth from all the rest which he never saw XLVIII No corrupt or mis-written Copy of the Scripture can come to a true Believers hands Or if it do he can infallibly tell us the Errata XLIX A true Believer that never saw the Originals can by seeing a translation judge of all the diverse readings in the Originals L. The Translators are either all infallible in translating or else a true Believer is certain which of them is and which not and which translation among many faulty ones is faultless LI. He that never saw all Translations but perhaps but one can by that one tell that it is truer than all the differing ones which he never saw LII All this of Copies and Translations is known to Believers either by Prophetical Revelation from Heaven or by the self-evidencing demonstration of the Copy and Translation which he seeth LIII Every true Believer without being ever told it by man can tell by the self-evidencing demonstration of the words that the Canticles and the Books of Judges Ruth Chronicles Jonah are Canonical and that the wisdom of Solomon Baruck Pauls Epistle to the Laodiceans Clemens to the Corinthians c. are not Canonical LIV. Either God will give faith to no one that cannot read among all the illiterate Kingdoms of the world where the Gospel is to be preached or else all that cannot read may without ever reading a word be certain by self-evidence which readings in the differing Copies and which Translations are true or false and which books and verses and sentences are Canonical and which not LV. Either God hath promised that every illiâ—â—â—â—te Christian that cannot read shall hear 〈◊〉 one else read every word of the Bible to him in Originals and Translations or one that he may judge or else by the self-evidence that person that cannot read nor never heard half the Bible read can certainly tell what words are truly or falsly written or Translated without ever hearing them LVI When the greatests Learned Linguists differ about a Lection or Translation as the Septuagint c. such as Lud. Capellus Usher Buxtorf Bootius De Dieu L' Empereur Walton c. or when such as Luther Althamer c. differ about a Canonical Book as James it is because they see not that self-evidence which every Christian may see that cannot read nor was ever told it that one part if not more do herein err while their judgements are contrary None of these fifty six are Articles of my Faith nor Gods Commandments that I can find I say not that these ignorant Revilers hold all these but I say that He and They that will openly exclaim against the contrary assertions as heynous errors or tell about among the receivers of false reports that I hold dangerous errors for saying the contrary to these doth either perswade men that all these are his Opinions or else that he is an impudent Hypocrite in reviling known truth as heynous error or else a rash Calumniator that dare reproach or speak evil of that which he understandeth not nor will not so much as by reading my plain words be at the labour to understand Perhaps some better minded person will say It casteth poor Christians into perplexity to hear such doubts about the Scripture readings and translations were they not better concealed Answ They are not to be talkt of unseasonably to uncapable persons They are not to be told the ignorant instead of a Catechism But they are all publickly known to the learned world long ago and told the ignorant people by the Papists to ill ends And if any one will perswade you to hold the contrary and make you believe that all or any of these absurdities and falshoods are the true Protestant Religion or any part of it and that they that hold the contrary are Popish it is time to vindicate the Protestant Religion and all sober godly Protestants from the scorn of such imputed dotages But this is the unhappy fruit of overdoing There are some men among us so overwise and overrighteous in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures that they would perswade us that it is sufficient to expound it self without a teaching Expositor and to preach it self without a Preacher and by consequence from their generals to Write and Print it self without a Writer or Printer and to bring it self down from the Apostles to every man without the hand or tongue of man and to preserve it self from corruption without the care of man and to translate it self without a Translator And that all Printed Sermons or books of Divinity all Catechisms all Sermon notes for memory all forms of Prayer yea the dividing the Bible into Chapters and Verses
and Printing Contents and Citations or References much more the Geneva Notes and Pictures are all sinful additions to the Word of God As if the sufficiency of the Statutes of the Land lay in Keeping Printing Transcribing Pleading and Expounding themselves without the use of Scribes Clerks Lawyers Law-books or Judges I am well assured that God needeth not our Lies to his Glory and that truth and falshood do so ill agree that though falshood may steal a cloak from truth yet truth will never be beholden to falshood for friendship and defence And if ever Lies pretend any kindness or service to the truth it is but treacherously to supplant it and will turn to its disservice and injury at last In a word All the Devils in Hell and all the Consistory at Rome could not easily find out a more effectual way as far as I can understand to turn multitudes to Popery than 1. By calling truth and sober Principles Antichristian Popery and Idolatrous 2. And by describing the Religion of the enemies of Popery as made up of Lies and Dotages 3. And by falling all together by the ears and breaking into a multitude of Sects and condemning each other as unmeet to be communicated with and so making men believe that they must be Papists or distracted Dotards whose self-conceitedness in Religion hath made them mad I say nothing that I know of doth tend more to multiply Papists than this unless I may except the way of sensuality and violence murdering some and drawing others by fleshly and worldly motives Nor do I know any thing in the world that more quieteth the Consciences of Persecutors and Scorners in all that they do and say against us and hindreth them more from all conviction and repentance Mr. Danvers endeth his book Ed. 1. with a smart reflection on Mr. William Allen and Mr. Lamb for forsaking the cause of Anabaptistry and Separation which they had written for And I will end mine with a few words concerning them concluding with a free and faithful Admonition to Mr. Danvers to consider whether He or They should be most earnestly called to Repentance and most speedily practise it CHAP. IX REader having the following vindication of Mr. Allen put into my hand I think it not unmeet upon this occasion to undeceive some who to render his example in receding from the way of Separation wherein he was sometime engaged upon the account of Infant-baptism the less imitable and his endeavours to draw off others the less successful have given out that he did but turn with the times for worldly ends when the King came in Whereas I can bear him witness that that return was made by him the year before the coming in of the King as did sufficiently appear to me both by Letters which then passed between him and my self about that affair and also by his book called A Retractation of Separation published by him that same year Which Book I would entreat the sober Reader to get and lend to some of the separating mind they will find no temporizing or formality in it but a spirit of Christian love and peace And if the reasons in that Book and in his perswasive to peace and unity since published be such as none of the Separatists can confute or stand before they will have no reason to impute the Authors change to carnal reason or worldly interest I question not but experience after trial which is wont to make teachable men wiser put him upon reviewing the grounds of his practice and so had a great hand in that alteration which he made And I would have those who account it a disparagement to a man to alter his Judgement at any time to tell us at what age we come under that law when we must grow no wiser nor no better And what I say of Mr. Allens alteration of his judgement I must say also of Mr. Lambs whom those that easily judge before they know have accused also as turning with the times when as on my knowledge his change was in 1658. or the beginning of 1659. For by letters I did sollicite him to that alteration and received his answers sooner than I knew of Mr. Allens change And I perceive that Mr. Lambs words and example are slighted by very many upon two accusations 1. That he is run into the other extream of overmuch conformity 2. That he is over hot As to the first my distance maketh me a stranger to his mind and practice But as long as he conformeth not as Ministers do but to that which belongeth to a private man what doth he more than Mr. Tombes hath largely written for And Mr. Nye hath written to prove it lawful to hear Conformists in the Parish Churches and for the Magistrates to appoint publick Teachers for the people 2. And as to the second not justifying my own earnestness much less others which I am not acquainted with to calm the minds of the offended I may well say 1. That it is no wonder if a man that is naturally of a warm and earnest spirit do shew it most when he thinks that he speaks for God and Truth and the Church and mens Souls 2. That it is no wonder if a man that was drawn himself so deep into the guilt as to be a Teacher of an Anabaptists Church and to write for them be an earnest expresser of his Repentance when he is recovered and earnestly desirous to save others from the snares in which he was intangled and to do as much for Truth Unity and peace as ever he did against it What followes are Mr. Allens own words Worthy Sir I Having some intimation that you are about to make some return to the Author of a late Treatise of Baptism do apprehend that if you think fit to Print this following Paper at the end of your Book you may do the good office of removing a stumbling-block at which some are too apt to dash their foot and thereby also further caution men against being misled by giving too much credit to the quotation of Authors as managed by that Treatisor In reading a Treatise of Baptism of the first Edition Penned by H. D. I observed that in the two last pages of his Postscript he mentions two discourses that were publiâ—hed about one and twenty years ago the one by my self and the other by another and saith that both of us are gone back to that which therein we call will-worship and Idolatry Indeed I am sorry that that author should put me upon any necessity of reflecting so much upon him in vindicating my self as to tell the world that upon this occasion I having twice reviewed that Book of mine did not find so much as the mention of either of those two words will-worship or idolatry upon any occasion whatsoever Nor am I conscious to my self of ever being so absurd as once to think that to be idolatry which he most untruly saith I call so in that Book That cause
And whether he like his other reason Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum And whether Tertullian here do not tell us that he took those Infants that were Baptized to receive thereby solemn Remission of sin if they had any sin If he thought they had none we have little reason to follow his opinion 8. Whether his own words plainly shew not what I have said of him that it was as Constantine and multitudes delayed Baptism for fear of falling afterwards which they thought most dangerous si qui pondus intelligant Baptismi magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem Fides integra secura est de salute And lib. de Anima Tertullian saith Apostolos ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina Omnis Anima in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur See the rest there for Infants birth holiness § 3. His renewed reproaches of Cyprian as having Antichristian doctrine and his renewed questioning whether there were ever such a Council as that at Carthage mentioned are things so audacious and gross that they need no further answer pag. 90. § 4. And his citation of Austin pag. 94. that which had not been instituted in Councils c. is nothing against this authority or to disprove its Apostolical traduction For it is easie for him to see 1. That it was not whether Infants should be Baptized that was the question but whether it should be done before the eighth day 2. That this Council was so far from Instituting Infant Baptism that it was never brought into doubt or question among them but taken as the unquestioned practice of the Church But O that such as Mr. D. would give over honouring Antichrist so far and rejoicing and hardning the Papists as to make such as Cyprian teachers of Antichristian doctrine and Antichrist to have been the Author of Infants Christening before Cyprian and Tertullians time The Papists owe such adversaries thanks § 5. Pag. 104. He boasts of forty more against Infant Baptism cited by him as not yet humbled for his abuse And because Mr. Wills by mistake granted him Adrian and Hincmare he seemeth to believe himself the more confidently as if they had indeed been against Infant Baptism of which before § 6. Pag. 105. He reciteth his false story of Berinus of which before § 7. Pag. 106. He reciteth his falsification of the Bishop of Apameae And turneth us for his proofs to some book oft called the Dutch Century Writers and the Dutch Martyrologie I suppose both Novel and Anabaptist Authors And he may as well turn us over to our neighbour Anabaptists to tell us what is written in the ancient Historians and Doctors when we have the books themselves before us § 8. Pag. 106 107. He impenitently repeateth his slander of Wickliffe referring us to his profs p. 283 c. Where having before falsly told us that he wrote another book called Trialogia besides his Dialogues when it is the same book that is called Trialogus in the M. S. and Dialogus in the printed Copy as he may see by many citations out of the Trialogus in Bishop Vsher de success Eccles which are all in the Dialogus he tells us of a great many of Wickliffes words to other purposes and cannot bring one line or word in which he denyeth Infant-Baptism But only 1. The lying accusations of his adversaries to that end and 2. His own words which deny two Popish tenents 1. That Baptism saveth all ex opere operato When he proveth contrarily of young and old that where Grace concurreth it saveth and else not 2. That Infants unbaptized are damned which in charity he thinks is to be denyed And what 's this against their Baptism § 9. Yea Wickliffe expresly asserteth Infant-Baptism Dialog li. 4. c. 11. I will give the Reader Mr. Danvers words and his together Mr. D. Reply p. 106 107. That Wickliffe denyed Infant-Baptism I produced so much evidence to prove it from pag. 283. to 289. demonstrating that he not only affirmed that Believers were the only subjects of Baptism but withal that children are not Sacramentally to be Baptized and what can be more express evidence in the case And Treat ed. 2. p. 283. That Believers are the only subject of Baptism as appeareth in his eleventh Chap. of his Trialog And p. 287. as a Lollard he denyeth Infant-Baptism Whether Mr. D. ever saw his cited book I know not But judge of the mans credit by the words He cites the eleventh Chap. not telling us of which book But it is the fourth book where the matter is handled as followeth Wickliffe Trialog l. 4. Cap. 11. Et primo videamus ubi baptismus in Evangelio stabilitur Nam lege Mat. ult quomodo Christus mandavit suis Apostolis Ite docete c. et hinc Philippus baptizans Eunuchum Act. 8. prius instruxit eum in fide et propter hanc formam verborum Christi Mat ult Ecclesia nostra adducit fideles pro Infante qui discretionem non attigerat respondentes et tales compatres communiter faciunt quod filii sui quos de baptismo elevant sint in Oratione dominica et symbolo instructi et alii qui discretionem attigerant dum instruuntur in fide Christi ante suum baptismum vocantur Catechumeni Hoc autem sacramentum est tam necessarium viatori quod Christus dicit Nicodemo Joh. 3. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua c. Ex tanta itaque authoritate fidei Scripturae sunt fideles generaliter baptizati et ordinavit ecclesia quod quaelibet persona fidelis i◠necessitatis articulo poterit baptizari Nec refert sive immergantur semel vel ter sive aquae super capita sua effundantur sed faciendum est secundum consuetudinem loci quem quis incolit tam in uno ritu legitimo quam in alio Quia certum est quod corporalis baptizatio sive lotio modicum valet nisi adsit lotio mentis per spiritum sanctum à peccato originali vel actuali Hoc est enim Principium in hac fide quod quicunque rite baptizatus fuerit baptismus delet quodcunque peccatum invenerit in homine baptizando Et quia ad delationem peccati requiritur satisfactio et non potest fieri satisfactio pro peccato nisi per mortem Christi ideo dicit Apostolus Rom. 6. Quicunque baptizati sumus in Christo Jesu in morte ejus baptizati sumus ALITH Sed dic rogo clarius quomodo Christus qui tantum odivit signa sensibilia tantam necessitatem salvationis posuit in hujusmodi lotione Videtur enim derogare divinae liberalitati atque potentiae quod Deus non posset intercedere toto merito suo atque passione salvare Infantem vel adultum fidelem nisi vetula vel alio viante baptizetur communiter infideli similiter delato Infante fidelium ad ecclesiam
subjects of Baptism Will he make the Church of his mind by such palpable falshoods as these But he adds He saith that persons are first to be Baptized with that he calls the insensible Baptism before water c. Answ 1. Utterly false It is his own forgery Wickliff saith no such thing that it must be first Nay I doubt he saith quite contrary as I have recited Ideo duo baptismi priores sunt signa Antecedentia ex suppositione necessaria ad istum tertium baptismum flaminis See here how far this man is to be believed 2. But though Wickliff called Water-Baptism an antecedent sign yet most Protestant Writers I think hold that believers Infants have by virtue of Gods Covenant the Baptism of the Spirit that is a seed or disposition to future gracious acts if they live and that they are in a state of salvation before they are Baptized being the children of the faithful by them dedicated to God by heart-consent and that Baptism is but the publick solemnization of the same Covenant and delivery of the blessings by way of investiture Let Mr. D. read but all the testimonies cited by Mr. Gataker in his book of Baptism against Dr. Ward and Bishop Davenant and he will see this is no opinion proper to the Anabaptists And I scarce believe that he can prove me and all Protestants that hold that opinion to be therefore against Infant-Baptism How then would it have proved Wickliff so 4. He saith that Wickliff saith that Baptism doth not confer but only signifie grace given Answ 1. And what 's that to prove that he was against Infant-Baptism 2. And how proveth he this Why Fuller out of Cochleus saith so Answ 1. But Cochleus is one of the most notable Lyars of all the Papists that opposed Luther and hath left his Calumnies to posterity And must he be believed against Wickliff 2. And Fuller wrote but about twenty years ago And must one of our neighbours tell us what Cochleus saith was the opinion of Wickliff when we can read his words our selves 3. But to make this like its fellows even this much is untrue Fuller tells us no such thing out of Cochleus but tells us that Gregory charged Wickliff with eighteen Errors Tho. Arundel with twenty three the Council of Constance with 45. Tho. Waldensis with 80. Dr. Lucke with 266. and Cochleus with 303. and then he reciteth 62. out of Waldensis where the words are 4. And Waldensis is known to be a false accuser of him in many particulars though a learned Papist 5. And even this Waldensis that saith his worst and sought to make the most of his errors never here accuseth him as denying Infant-Baptism And would he not have done it had it been true But Mr. D. that by this trick which he is so ready at can make Heresies and Hereticks also too easily tells us of a popish Heresie viz. for Baptism to take away all sin to confer grace to work regeneration and save the soul as still held by them that teach young children to say that by their Baptism they were made children of God members of Christ and Inheritors that is heirs of the Kingdom of heaven Answ 1. By this it seems the English Protestants and all the rest that take this to be true doctrine hold a Popish Heresie 2. Let the Reader peruse Gataker against Davenant of Baptism and he will find almost all the ancient Fathers Latine and Greek of the same judgement And what a pleasure is this to the Papists to be told that almost all the ancient Writers held their heresie And then indeed Where was our Church and the Kingdom of Christ before Luther or rather before those whom he opposed 3. It is unquestionable true doctrine that as Marriage-consent in private layeth the first ground of Marriage rights which by solemn Matrimony are openly and regularly delivered by investiture which perfecteth the title even so the Heart-Consent or Covenanting of the person or parents for Infants doth lay the first ground of Christian right which is solemnized and perfected regularly by Baptism which by the way of tradition or publick investiture doth take away all guilt of sin Sacramentally regenerate and save and make us children of God members of Christ and his Church and heirs of heaven who were so before by a Private initial right of which the Church did take less cognisance And one would think that no Anabaptist should deny this called Heresie as to the adult 5. He next addeth from Wickliff They are fools and presumptuous which affirm such Infants not to be saved which die without Baptism so Fuller words it out of Cochleus Answ 1. False still It is not out of Cochleus but Waldensis 2. And what 's this to the question of Infant-Baptism He adds And Wickliffs own words as c. 2. de Trialog Quod desinentes parvulos fidelium sine baptismo c. Answ Still false 1 I have before transcribed the words out of the Printed book which are far otherwise 2. It is not desinentes but qui quicquam definiunt 3. It is not of all children dying without Baptism but of those that could not have it being prevented by death when it was desired 4. He saith this of those that determine that they are saved also 5. And instead of c. 2. this is lib. 4. c. 12. 6. He saith That all truth is contained in the holy Scripture and that which is not originally there is to be accounted prophane And that we are to admit of no science or conclusion that is not proved by Scripture testimony and that whoever holds the contrary opinion cannot be a Christian but flatly the Devils Champion with more such cited partly out of Cochleus by Fuller false again and partly de Verit. Script a book of Wickliffs which I have not and I conjecture he never saw For 1. I told you before the very words of Wickliff that condemn only such abuses of outward signs as shew him to be of a contrary opinion 2. Will any sober man believe that he damned all as no Christians but Champions of the Devil that thought that some Conclusions Physical Mathematical Metaphysical Medicinal Logical c. may be true that are not proved by Scripture testimony and so that almost all Christians in the world are no Christians 7. Saith he That he slighted the Authority of General Councils as Fuller out of Cochleus c. Answ 1. False again as to the Author 2. But what is that to Infant-baptism But his direct proof is out of Waldensis saying that Wickliff saith that children are not sacramentally to be baptized Answ 1. I have not Waldensis at hand but have little cause to believe Mr. D. 2. And Fuller who undertaketh to recite Waldensis charge hath not a word of any such sense 3. If bitter Papists so accuse him is it therefore true Judge by his own words Indeed Wickliff held that sacramental baptism saveth none young or old without the baptism
of the spirit and that it may be separated from it And hence was the Papists noise against him 8. Saith he As a further argument that he denied Infant-baptism may appear because he did so vehemently impugn Confirmation c. Answ 1. Here we have Fuller out of Cochleus falsly again 2. Are all Protestants against Infant-baptism that are against the Popish Sacrament of Confirmation What a prover is this man Is Dallaeus that hath written so large a disputation of Confirmation an Anabaptist And the English Nonconformists too 3. But in very deed Mr. D.'s falshood and Wickliffs opinion for Infant-baptism may very probably be gathered from that not fifteenth as he but fourteenth Chapt. of Confirmation For 1. He reprehendeth the Bishops for adding so many Ceremonies to Infant-baptism never blaming their baptism it self 2. He argueth against confirming children as superfluous because the spirit is given in baptism it self confirmatur ex hoc quod baptizatos nostros dicimus regulariter Spiritum Sanctum accipere eo ipso quo legitime baptizantur that is And it is hence confirmed in that we say that our baptized ones do regularly receive the Holy Ghost in that or by that very thing that they are lawfully baptized And he had before said that they are offered to Baptism in the Church according to Christs Rule § 11. After all this Mr. D. addeth Wickliffs opinions against Popery to the number of 29. But what all this is to the case of Infant-baptism what man besides himself can tell But let me tell him that I would not have him too easily believe bitter adversary Papists lest he forfeit the little relicts of his own credit And that it is not like that Wickliff was against enjoyning the Lords-Prayer as he citeth Yea I would not have Mr. D. come so near the Papists yet as Wickliff did How doth he like such words as these Trialog li. 4. c. 22. fol. 138. Et talis est triplex Ecclesia Ecclesia scilicet Militans Dormiens Triumphans Ecclesia Dormiens est praedestinati in Purgatorio patientes that is There is such a threefold Church The militant Church the sleeping Church the triumphant Church The sleeping Church is the Predestinate suffering in Purgatory And lib. 2. c. 10. see what he saith of Angels and adoration of them And c. 11. of Angels offices and their being virtually every where And what he saith of Kings and Matrimony quod excedit alia Sacramenta c. li. 4. c. 19 20. fol. 132 133. Nor would I say that omnia quae eveniunt de necessitate eveniunt as fol. 120. a. Or that Deus potest esse Asinus si velit ut fol. 90. b. One of the worst things I like in Wickliff is that he plungeth himself into the deepest School-subtilties or difficulties with less subtilty or diligence than the case requireth and than Schoolmen use And indeed I like not divers of his conclusions as lib. 2. c. 14. fol. 41. Quod Deus necessitat creaturas singulas activas ad quemlibet actum suum It is supposed that Hobbs by the same Doctrine overthroweth all the Christian faith And I believe that his doctrine there fol. 41. and elsewhere for merit and how temporale sit causa praedestinationis aeternae will displease some And his distinction of Mortal and Venial sin as li. 3. c. 5. fol. 52. And that he maketh final impenitence the sin against the Holy Ghost And that none can know what sin is mortal in us and what not And cap. 6. Concedi potest quod multi praesciti sunt in gratia secundum praesentem justitiam It may be granted that many reprobates are in a state of Grace according to their present righteousness Praesciti autem nunquam sunt in gratia finalis perseverantiae The Reprobate are never in the grace of final perseverance So that he held that present true grace was lost by some as Austin did which he explaineth cap. 7. And cap. 8. again he is at his Omnia eveniunt necessitate absoluta reviewing what he had said and concludeth that no man can do better than he doth but he could if God would and denieth not sin to be hereby necessitated c. § 12. Pag. 115. He again impenitently reneweth his slander of Berengarius as being against Infant-baptism Concerning whom saith Vsher de success Eccles cap. 7. p. 207. Author Actorum c. The Author of the Acts of Bruno found in the Library of the Noble Baron Carew of Clopton who saith he was at this examination saith that they some of Berengarius followers said that baptism profited not children to salvation as also Deodvinus Leodiensis first from common fame and then Guitmundus Arch. Aversanus on the credit of Leodiensis report that Bruno Andegavensis Berengarius Turonensis quantum in ipsis erat baptismum parvulorum evertisse did as much as in them lay overthrow the baptism of children But we find no charge ever brought against Berengarius concerning Anabaptism in so many Synods as were held against him Nor do they seem to have denied any thing else who are said to deny that baptism profiteth little Ones to Salvation but that Baptism conferreth Grace ex opere operato As gathering from the Apostles words He that planteth and he that watereth is nothing but God that giveth the increase So Alanus li. 1. cont haerâ—t sui temp taketh them as if they had said Baptism hath no efficacy either on young or old therefore mâ—n are not bound to be baptized And that this was the plain case is proveable in that it was just the case of Wickliff and the Waldenses who were said to do as much as in them lay to cast out Infant-baptism because they thought that every wicked Priest did not sanctifie them ex opere operato and infallibly convey Gods grace to the unprepared But his proofs are 1. The Magdeb. tell us that Berengarius maintained his heresies which they set down to be denying Transubstantiation and Baptism to little ones under five heads which Lanfrank Arch-Bishop of Canterbury answers at large in his book called Scintillaris and as to that of denying Infant-baptism he answers by saying he doth thereby oppose the general Doctrine and universal Consent of the Church Answ 1. I have not the Magdeb. at hand but he hath little to do that will ask Illyricus and Gallus and Amsdorfius what Lanfrank writeth if he have his book before him The publisher of Lanfranks book against Berengarius giveth us notice of no other Trithemius de script Eccles knew of no other but this which is in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 6. p. 190. And I have lookt over every line of it such labour do these men put us to and I find not one word where any such thing is mentioned by Lanfrank but only his accusations of Ber. about Transubstantiation He never once chargeth him as denying Infant-baptism nor mentioneth it See Reader into what hands the poor seduced ones are fallen § 13. His
second proof is this Cassandra in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleve saith that Guitmund Bishop of Averse doth affirm that he did deny baptism to Little Ones c. Answ 1. Cassander in neither of his Epistles to the Duke of Cleve mentioneth any such matter But in his Preface to his Book for Infant-baptism to the Duke of Cleve he saith that Guitmund saith Quod inter caeteros errores parvulorum baptismum everterit quem tamen errorem in publicum non produxit quod eam blasphemiam ut Guitm loquitur ne pessimorum quidem hominum aures toleraturas sciret in Scripturis sacris locum ejus erroris tuendi penitus non videret Mark here Reader 1. Berengarius is not said to deny Infant-baptism but to overturn it that is by some consequence it 's like 2. He did not publish this his opinion but held it unpublished And how then did Guitmund know it 3. Was Berengarius as honest or as stout a man as he is supposed and yet when Infants were daily baptized would never speak out his thoughts of the evil of it 4. Either he baptized Infants himself or not If he did was he against it then What a Knave do they make him that so say If not his opinion must needs be published by his practice when they whose ears could not tolerate it would less tolerate the refusing of their Childrens Christning 5. Was that an honest man that would secretly hold an opinion which he knew he had no Scripture for 6. Note that even Cassander there tells us that indeed the Waldenses though agreeing much with the Catharists did yet both approve and use Infant-baptism p. 671. and that this error slept till his age when Stork and Muntzer raised it § 14. 2. But what need we ask Cassander what Guitmund said What childish play is this His own book is as common as Cassanders in Bibl. Patr. To. 6. p. 215. And Guitmunds words are these Berengarius opened those things by which he might please worldly men that love always if they may do it unpunished to sin to wit destroying as much as in him lay Lawful Marriages and overturning Infants baptism So that in one the Devil by his mouth perswaded the worst men that it was lawful to abuse all women and in the other Cassato baptismate Infantiae in profundum omnium malorum utpote postmodum baptizandis impune ruere Lege Epist Leodiensis Episcopi contra Berengar ad Henr. Reg. Franc. eisdem pene verbis eadem ipsa ibi scripta reperies that is making void the baptism of Infancie they might rush unpunished into the depth of all evils as being afterward to be baptized Read the Epistle of the Bishop of Liege to H. R. of France against Berengarius and there you shall find these same things written almost in the same words And now Reader judge further 1. Whether this Papist who never knew the matter himself and whose book sheweth him a silly bitter fellow professing to transcribe or take his words from the Bishop of Liege who took it from fame be to he believed in his accusations of such a man when Lanfrank that disputed with him before the Pope nor the Pope himself nor any of the many Synods that examined him and constrained him to recant ever mention such a thing Were these Persecutors think you blind or merciful herein 2. If he be to be believed in this why not in the first article of the lawfulness of abusing all women commonly 3. Do not the very words quantum in se and everterit and cassato baptismate open the case that malice gathered this as a forced consequence only of some words of Berengarius It is like because he defined a Sacrament to their dislike which Lanfrank reproveth him for And so sottish a fellow was this Guitmund that his fellow Papists are put to disown him for saying that their Eucharistical Host cannot be corrupted or putrifie or be eaten by Mice or any Bruits but only seemeth so to be ib. p. 230. l. 2. § 15. His third proof is In the Bibl. Patr. Paris p. 432. it is recorded that Durandus writes the denying and as much as in them lay the destroying the baptism of Infants c. Answ 1. Did this man ever see the Books he citeth who citeth pag. 432. of the Bibl. Pat. as if were but one Tomb or Volume that long ago was eleven great Volumes and now many more It is like Marg. le Bignes Edit is that he meaneth The Epistle is Tom. 3. p. 319. of the Bigne Paris 1624. The Author saith Vsher de succes Eccl. p. 196. is falsly called Durandus and is Deoduinus or Dietwinus His words are Fama supremos Galliae fines praetergressa totam Germaniam pervasit jamque omnium nostrum replevit aures qualiter Bruno Andeg. Episc item Berengarius Turonensis astruant Corpus Domini non tam Corpus esse quam umbram figuram Corporis Domini Legitima conjugia destruant quantum in ipsis est baptismum parvulorum evertant This is it that Vsher cited 1. You see here is nothing but a Papist Prelates tale to a King upon far fetcht fame 2. Charging him equally yea more with destroying marriage 3. And saying but quantum in se of baptism 4. And part of the fame is that the King had called a Council to examine these things which Council never taking notice of any such matter confuteth the fame And doth Mr. D. the great enemy of Antichrist perswade poor Anabaptists to believe such fellows and tales as these § 16. In his Reply he addeth fourthly Thuanus witnesseth that Bruno Arch-Bishop of Triers did persecute Berengarius for denying Infants baptism as p. 242. Answ 1. Again he tells us of Thuanus and tells not where as if we must read over five volumes in folio to be able to disprove such a Tale-teller as this But he saith Vsher saith so de success Eccl. pag. 252. But all still is false my book there hath not such a word Vshers words are pag. 207. and them also he most horribly falsifieth They are but these Brunonem queque Trevirorum Arch. Dioecesi sua expulisse quosdam ex Berengarii Sectatoribus qui illius Doctrinam in Eburonibus Atuaticis aliis Belgii populi◠disseminabant narrat Thuanus That is Thuanus saith that Bruno Arch-Bishop of Trevers expelled out of his Diocess some of Berengarius's followers who sowed his doctrine c. so that here is no talk of persecuting Berengarius but some of his followers nor a word of Infant-baptism Was ever such a reporter as this man before taken for a credible person I confess I remember not that ever I read the like among Papists or any other Sect. In Thuanus the words are found in his Epistle to the King before all his works excellently disswading him from blood and persecution and there is not one syllable of Infant-baptism but only that which Vsher cited yet durst this man justifie
these horrid falshoods in a second Edition and a Reply CHAP. III. Mr. D.'s Justification of his slander of the Waldenses Confuted more largely § 1. IN his Reply p. 108. he reassumeth this Calumny And first he reciteth their Confession to prove it as if he wanted matter to fill his Book not having one word against Infant-baptism in that which is by himself recited But it must be inferred if such a man as this be to be believed because faith is required in the adult and them that Covenant for Infants and because Traditions and Inventions are disclaimed and such like Had the man dealt by the Waldenses but as he doth by me when citing my words he will prove that my words are for him while I am against him as if I understood not what I say it had been much less But to face down the world that the Waldenses denied Infant-baptism for such silly reasons is intolerable It is not worth the labour to shew him how the Protestants agree with the Waldenses in all the points where he feigneth a disagreement p. 112. § 2. Yet doth the man break out into admiration that he having with exactness given a particular account of all those Confessions word for word and proved by ample demonstrations 1. That none of them were extant till the sixteenth Century c. Answ Wonderful That such a man should talk of exactness and demonstration Stay Reader a little and tell me whether it call not for shame and tears that one such Book should be written by a Christian Much more that this calumny should be thus over and over audaciously justified § 3. In Roger Wendover our chiefest ancient Chronicler and one that he oft citeth himself and therefore should have read In Hen. 2. fol. 319. b. You have a Confession of the Tholousians called Boni homines in which are these words Credimus etiam quod non salvatur quis nisi qui baptizatur parvulos salvari per baptisma That is We believe also that none is saved but he that is baptized and that little children are saved by baptism For we find that it was the denial of the saving virtue of wicked Priests baptism to young or old as working ex opere operato which occasioned their accusations would you have a fuller proof Vsher de succes Eccl. c. 6. p. 155 c. giveth us the Catalogue of their opinions as reported by Aeneas Sylvius after Pope Pius the second where there is somewhat of theirs against Confirmation Chrism Extream Unction c. but not a word against Infant-baptism adding the consent of Jacob. Picolomin Anton. Bonfin Bern. Lutzenburg Another Catalogue he giveth out of the Magdeb. hist Centur. 12. c. 8. col 1206 1207. as taken out of an old M.S. where is not a word against Infant-baptism Yea reciteth Will. Reynolds a bitter Papists Catalogue where there is no such thing Yea mentioneth nine points more in which Parsons Sanders Coccius say they differ from us but none of this And pag. 242. c. 8. he tells you of Gretsers own confession that they were none but the Waldenses that Hoveden speaketh of that made the foresaid Confession though accused of Arianism See more testimonies of many others pag. 306 307 308. Thuanus falsly cited by him as before of Berengarius lib. 6. an 2550. reciteth their opinions pag. 185 186. not mentioning a word of this nay telling us that some falshoods were reported of them doth not so much as number this among the fictions And pag. 188. he tells you of an inquiry made into their Original and Doctrine by Gul. Bell. Langaeus commanded by Authority thereto wherein no such thing is mentioned of them but their avoiding Popish superstitions In the first Confession recited by Perin p. 60. they own baptism but say not a word against Infant-baptism The same is true of the second Confession recited by him p. 62 63. In the end of Perin you have their Catechism and the summ of their Doctrine out of several of their old Books and therein not a word against Infant-baptism but expresly they assert it Cap. 6. p. 41 42 43. in their Doctrine of the Sacraments they say And for this cause we present our Children in haptism which they ought to do to whom the children are nearest as their Parents and they to whom God hath given this charity Just as Wickliff Judge now of this mans words § 4. But his second Demonstration is from the witness born against it by some of their most eminent leading men viz. Berengarius Peter Bruis Henricus Arnoldus Answ Berengarius is not used to be reckoned as one of the Waldenses but if you will so call him I have confuted the slander of him before His proof against Bruis is Peter Cluniacensis of whom I have said enough to Mr. Tombes which I will not recite § 5. It is true that some Papists do raile at the Waldenses with abominable calumnies as guilty of the most odious heresies denying the resurrection and the salvation of Infants asserting the common use of women and abundance such Insomuch that it is become a hard question whether really there were any such people or whether all were slanders and among other things they charge them with denying Infant-baptism And the Authors go so much on fame and shew so much falshood that many think that all are fictions But Bishop Vsher de succes Eccl. and some others bring many testimonies to prove that in that age there were abundance of Manichees that came into Lombardie and from thence came into the country of the Waldenses and that for their sakes the Papists accused the Waldenses of all these villanies and heresies with Anabaptism as if they had been all of a mind And though I confess that the horrid lies of abundance of Papists of Luther Calvin Zuinglius and other such and some experiments in this age have given men occasion to question whether all were not meer forgeries and that nothing is to be believed that they said of those times yet I am ready to think that there were some such persons as they describe that were against the Resurrection and for common uncleanness and denied Infants salvation and baptism even such Manichees and Arrians as aforesaid Not that I think it any whit strange that fame among such worldly persecutors should belie others as much as this comes to but because of the historical reports of such Manichees recited by Vsher ubi sup pag. 225 226 c. cap. 8. Vignier Hist Eccles an 1023. And that they falsly took the Waldenses to have been of the Manichees mind as living among them is all the cloak that any reasonable charity can afford to those old ones that falsly accused them And to the later slanderers Coussordus Gretser c. this will be no cloak much less to Mr. Danvers if in his zeal for his Sect and way he will own the slanders of blinded Papists when he crieth them down himself and