to Write or teach him Musick Arithmetick Geometry Latine Greek or Hebrew Logick or Grammar or any Art though but such as Labourers get their daily bread by XXXI Ib. That it is a sin for those in Italy or any Kingdom that can have no other to let a Popish Priest teach their Children the Creed Lords Prayer and Ten-Commandments which all Christians are agreed in but it 's better that they never learned a word of the Bible or Christian-Faith than learn it of such a Priest so sinfully did Bishop Usher make the motion to the Priests in Ireland that Protestants and they might joyn in teaching the barbarous people the Creed and common principles of Religion XXXII Ib. That it is a sin to hear a Popish Priest read Gods word or any good book though it were a Protestants or one of the Ancient Fathers or to hear him speak the truest Doctrine though in a Country where it can no other way be heard or learned XXXIII Ib. That in such a Country where there is no other it is a sin to joyn with one of them in any Prayer how good soever though craving a blessing on our meat or in a Family or elsewhere even in the Lords Prayer XXXIV Ib. That it is necessary to Salvation to believe that the Pope is Antichrist and so no man woman or child can be saved that believeth it not And so since Antichrist arose we have a new Article in our Creed Even for those that know not what the Pope is whether male or female flesh or fish XXXV Ib. That it is a sin to read any good book in the Church besides the Scripture any Chapter in the Apocrypha any Homily or Sermon though written by an Anabaptist and though we declare what it is and mention it for no other end but what it is written for as we cite Authors as witnesses And yet it is lawful for Mr. D. to publish many falsly in Print XXXVI Ib. That it is a sin to read a Prayer in the Church though it were the Prayer of Christ John 17. or of Moses or others in the Psalmes or any others XXXVII Ib. That if one pray Mr. Danvers to pray for him it is Idolatry or if the people or sick pray the Minister to pray for them or Children their Parents or if one should do so by an Angel that should appear to him or to a Saint or Angel unseen imagining that he were present this is not only Superstition and so sinful but also Idolatry which is giving Gods proper worship to a creature And consequently it is the proper worship of God only to pray him to pray for us to himself XXXVIII Ib. That it is a sin to bow the knee at the naming of Jesus though we renounce all in it that is superstitious and scandalous and bow equally at the name of God Jehovah Christ c. XXXIX Ib. That it is a sin to stand when the Gospel is read though we be never so weary of sitting and stand equally at the reading of all the rest of the Scripture or at Sermon without distinction so heynously did the Vniversal Church sin for many hundred years in their long standings and so sinful a thing it is to hear in a Church or Meeting-place that hath no seats unless we sit on the ground XL. Ib. That it is a sin to kneel while the Ten-Commandments are read though it be by women whose custom that posture is upon a boss through the rest of the daies exercise and though it be never so openly declared that we take them not for a prayer nor do it to any ill signification or intent XLI Iib. That he sinneth who doth not condemn the Universal Church of Christ for many hundred years of the greatest antiquity that we have any records of since the Apostles for their worshipping with their faces towards the East Though he should himself dislike that practice and never use it nor consent to have it used XLII Ib. That it is a sin to say that any children of any wicked men in the world have any guilt of any of their nearer Parents sins but only of Adams And consequently it must be held that God unjustly threatned and punished any such children for their Parents sin from the daies of Cain Cham Pharaoh Ishmael Esau Achan Gehezi till the daies of that Generation threatned Matth. 23. And also that no man receiveth any pravity from Adam neither because it must pass to him through his next Parents and be theirs and he receiveth none that is theirs And so all Nations are justified against all guilt of any Parents sin but Adam and warranted to deny to confess any such guilt or to be beholden to Christ or mercy for the pardon of it though David Daniel and Nehemiah did otherwise I say again either Mr. D. and his like do really hold the contraries of the assertions of mine which he thus notifieth as heynous errors or not If not he raileth against his Conscience in hypocrisie If yea then these propositions which I have named to you are the contraries to mine And it is so cursed a thing to add two and fourty New Commandments to the Law of God that I who think them to be no better do again and again desire him to give me the full proof of all these strange Commandments and tell me where they are written if I have overlookt them If this cannot be obtained I call to his imitators and my backbiters to let me know whether really they will own all these and give me leave to tell the World and the Ages to come that these were their Doctrines for the love of which they whispered or clamoured against me But here he stops and pittieth the Reader and referreth them to my Book it self And I will joyn with him and add that the Reader that will think that he knoweth what I hold or wrote by this and such like mens citations or reports and will not read the Book it self and all in it together that concerneth the questioned subject before he judge I take not my self bound to write more books to tell him what I wrote in the former nor do I think that I am otherwise obliged to rectifie his Error than by Prayer or Counsel endeavouring to bring him to some tenderness of Conscience fear of God and sobriety of mind But his strength lieth in frightful exclamations O was ever the like yet heard c. to palliate abominations and reconcile us to Idolatrous Popish names as Altar Priests Sacrifices c. and their baptism And yet he might have known that all these words are oft used by the ancienter sort of the holy Pastors of the Churches after the Apostles and I remember not that ever one Christian was against it or scrupled the use of them And I before shewed that they are used by the Holy-Ghost in Scripture whom I dare not accuse of Idolatrous names or reconciling us to them Whether all the
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
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
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
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
Tombes had printed the last private papers which past between him and me without my consent I never answered his reply to this day not striving to have the last word and supposing that the studious impartial Reader would find no need of a rejoynder For to me his Reply seemed so empty and next nothing that I thought it unnecessary to say any more § 3. But it is now grown the custom among Papists and Sectaries and almost all the wranglers that trouble the world to scribble somewhat sense or nonsense against that truth which they have not wit or will or humility enough to learn and then say to those that would make them wiser you are answered and it goeth for a victory to any foolery if they can but say such a one that hath written against you is unanswered As if we dealt on such terms with the world in writing as that he that speaketh last that is that liveth longest must be supposed to be in the right Or as if we knew not when we write against the grossest heresie or error that as many words may be said or written for it as against it § 4. And O what pity is it that with the vulgar sort of well-meaning people number goeth for weight and he seemeth to be in the right to them who is nearest them and hath best opportunity to talk to them a few smooth deceitful words for his opinion and to belie and vilifie those that are against him Not but that there are great fundamental Truths which manifest themselves which I hope these honest souls would not be drawn from by an Angel from Heaven But verily no true Charity can be so blind as to deny it that in lower controverted points the knowledge of the vulgar Religious people is so low that he that is lower than an Angel or than a well-studied Divine or than a man of sober solid reason may deceive them having first been himself deceived if he can but speak zealously and reproach others impudently by the spirit described and exorcised in Jam. 3. at large § 5. And I crave thy pity Reader to my self and such as I that our Time and Employment is so much at the will and mercy of such a sort of wrangling men That if I have it in my desire to do Gods Church service upon some greater and more needful subject yet it is in the power of the Devil to stir up the corruption of honest well-meaning Christians to put a necessity on me to do some poor inconsiderable works and leave undone the greater and more excellent § 6. For circumstances may make it a mans duty to do that as presently necessary which within a few years will be of no signification but die with the interests and quarrels of the age § 7. It hath pleased the Lord who did let loose the Serpent upon Adam in Paradise to exercise his Church in almost all ages with temptations from two sorts that seem much contrary but are nearer in disposition and principles than they well understand themselves I mean Church-Tyrants and Church-Dividers And though I and most others of my quality have suffered incomparably more by the former yet it is not a little that I have suffered by the later And especially that by their slanderous and clamorous unquiet importunity they will not give me leave to live by them in peace nor to go on in better work while I meddle not with them I could not obtain that leave from Mr. Tombs And now Mr. D. hath been pleased to open the mouths of so many of his partakers against me as maketh wise men tell me that to be silent will be to be scandalously guilty of their sin And do we live upon these terms that any Railer can call us off from our better services when ever He and Satan please § 8. But my purpose is to meddle with them but this once And if after this these crying Children will bawl and wrangle and foul the house and think that I am made for no better work than either to rock the Cradle or to make them clean I will let them cry and take their course and will no more believe that their humours are the masters of my time § 9. By three or four arguments of his making it hath pleased one Major Danvers a Souldier to call me to this task 1. By heaping up a Catalogue of Accusations against my Doctrine in my Christian Directory 2. By reproaching me for not answering Mr. Tombes 3. By proclaiming me to the world a slanderer who owe the Anabaptists satisfaction for saying that many of them were Baptized naked 4. By perverse citations of my later Writings as if they had been serviceable to his cause 5. By his injury to poor souls and the Churches peace by his ignorant though confident opposition to the truth and writing a Volume of he knoweth not what § 10. And to add to my invitation it is become of late a common saying among the Anabaptists that I am turned to their opinion or very near it but have not humility to retract my former error and openly acknowledge what I hold § 11. The occasion of this is 1. Because I have so many years forborn to answer Mr. Tombes his last 2. Because I seek peace with them and speak for it upon all occasions and seek to abate other mens over-great opposition to them 3. Because upon all occasions I press the consideration and improvement of our Baptism taking it for the summ and Character of our Christianity and the true description of Conversion and the essential mark of Grace and the qualification of Catholick Church-members and the bond of all our Christian duty As if none but Anabaptists could think thus § 12. When I first read Major Danvers Book I thought such a Fardle could not be so regarded as to need an Answer But when his Bookseller came to know of me what I had against it as from him and when I heard how many thousands of them were Printed I rather chose to imitate him that had compassion on a headless multitude than him that said si populus vult decipi decipiatur And they that will not let me rest must bear some of the fruits of my disquietment CHAP. II. More of my Judgement of the Anabaptists and their Cause with a motion to them for peace § 1. I Confess that in my Book against Mr. Tombes I wrote several pages enigmatically of the offensive scandals of the Anabaptists And they that now read them when the occasion is forgotten or unknown will either not understand them or think them too sharp But in all military Controversies no man is so meet a Judge as he that is on the ground § 2. I am almost ready to condemn my self for that and many other things past when I forget the occasion of them and the state that we were in But I will not deny that at that time my heart felt more than I exprest 1.
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
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
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
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
other miracles and a victory he returned with a prosperous navigation saith Beda c. 20. by his own Merits and St. Albanes intercession Afterwards he returned again in a second necessity with Severus and delivered the Britains from Pelagianism who yet lived in such wickedness as Beda after Gildas describeth Here let the Reader note against Mr. Danvers dream 1. That this was done in 429. And if Mr. D. could prove indeed that all the Bishops of France then were Waldenses or of the judgement so called so long after he would do us Knights service against the Papists in the question of the perpetual visibility of the Church But if I cite Mr. Danvers for it I doubt they will laugh at me and make no more of his authority than I do of the Dutch Anabaptists Martyrology 2. Note that Prosper saith it was the Pope that sent Germanus 3. Note that he was sent by the Bishops of France who then did little differ from Rome but submitted to his Primacy and Patriarchate in the Empire though reserving their liberties Read the Epistles of Leo 1. against Hillary Arelat and all that story and you will see how much the Pope usurped there betimes 4. Pope Celestine was the great maintainer of Augustine against Pelagius and so the apter to do this 5. The Pope had before this sent Palladius to the Britains who received him And therefore they were then on some fair terms with him 6. Germanus and Lupus were Bishops and they that sent him and so Antichristian to some Anabaptists 7. Germanus sure was not of Mr. D's Church that used Reliques so strangely for working miracles Was this an Anabaptist 8. This was all done after Augustine had written that no Christian thought Infant-Baptism vain or about that time And yet were all the Britains then of another mind 9. The Bishops of France with Pope Celestine took part with Augustine against Pelagius and sent Lupus with Germanus to do that work And yet were all these Bishops against Augustine about Infant-Baptism which he saith all the Church Vniversal agreed in 10. Lastly the Britains were infected with Pelagianism Pelagius called Morgan being a Britain and Vsher saith some say born the same day with Augustine and Celestius a Scot or Irish man And the Pelagians themselves were for Infant-Baptism And if any Christians in the world had been against it they would have been the likeliest who denyed Original sin Yet even they durst not deny this And is it a credible thing that all these Britains who were some of Pelagius's mind and some of Augustines were yet against both in point of Infant-Baptism Yea and not a word said of this by any writer when their Pelagianism made so great a stir Yet this man gathereth that the Churches of France were Anabaptists contrary to all history because the Waldenses 600 years after were Anabaptists which is also false And the Britains were Anabaptists because the Churches of France sent two Learned men to dispute against Pelagianism in England when the unlearned Britains could not do it Reader will not this kind o◠arguing make thee an Anabaptist or else make thee pitty the seduced party O what a temptation to Popery do such men lay before the people When men see that every such a one that hath ignorance and pride enough to make him wise in his own eyes shall thus pour out falshoods to cheat mankind and the ignorant know not but it may all be true it tempteth men to think that there must be some Authorized men whom the Ignorant must believe before such seducers or else confusion and falshood will take place of truth and the people will be as children tossed up and down and carryed to and fro with every wind of doctrine And indeed a concordant Ministry is so to be preferred though it infer not a Roman infallibility § 42. 6. His last proof that the Britains were against Infant Baptism is because Augustine the Monk was himself so raw and ignorant in the rite as to ask How long the Baptizing of a child might be deferred there being no danger of death Answ I grow ashamed that I have medled with such a Collector A baculo ad angulum Doth it not rather imply that there was no controversie between him and the Britains about Infant-Baptism seeing he never mentioned any such thing § 43. His next witnesses against Infant-Baptism are in the fourth Century called by him Dadoes Sabas Adulphus and Simonis who saith he in his catalogue oppose it And p. 229. he saith to prove it but that they were charged to have an ill opinion of the Sacrament of the Altar and of Infants Baptism And he citeth Histor Tripartita li. 7. c. 11. and some fellow an hundred years ago Answ And have we here any honester dealing than before Read and judge That which the Tripartite History cited by him saith is this that There was then a Sect called Messalians or Euchetes known in the Catalogues of Hereticks and called The Praying Hereticks who expected the operation of some Devil thinking him to be the Spirit of God refusing to work and giving themselves to lie and sleep to expect Revelations Indeed their opinion was that Prayer was all and Baptism and the Lords Supper were nothing dicentes Divinum cibum nihil nec prodesse nec laedere that the Sacred or Sacramental food did neither profit nor hurt These men were led by one Dadoes Sabbos Adelphius Hermas and Simeon And Adelphus when old for they hid their opinion bewrayed his error in a speech to Flavian of Antioch that Baptism doth the Baptized person no good but prayer only expelleth the Devil And 1. These men were no more against Infant-Baptism than against the adults Baptism For they were above all Ordinances save Prayer 2. They were against neither as unlawful but against both and other ordinances as unprofitable 3. They carryed this much in secret which they could not have concealed had they not Baptized Infants 4. Some hereticks and all Infidels and Pagans were against all Baptism as well as they And doth any of this prove that any one Christian was against Infant Baptism more than adult § 44. Next he tells you that Faustus Regiensis saith that Personal and actual desire was requisite in every one that was to be Baptized Vincent and Cresconius I spoke to before And he citeth not a word of his writings for it nor any other but one Jacob Merning I suppose a Dutch Anabaptist Answ Reader thou seest still how thou art used Faustus Rhegiensis is a known Author his works are common He is commonly taken for a Semipelagian and he hath a book to prove that souls are bodies which Claudianus Mammertus hath answered But I never read one syllable in him nor in any other that ever wrote of him or against him that should make one doubt whether he was for Infant-baptism Could he be in such a station as he was and have so many writings and so many
adversaries and yet hold such an opinion and never be suspected Do the Anabaptists no better own their cause But the words he alledgeth are but such as he citeth of my own If truly cited no doubt spoken only of the adult and of what the Infants do by them But who can answer words not cited Must we read all his works again to see if there be such a word as oft as such a man will talk to us at this rate § 45. The next is Albanus a zealous godly Minister in the sixth Century was put to death for baptizing Believers though baptized in Infancy or by Hereticks Answ Still all alike 1. Baronius is cited an 413. n. 6. when in my Book there is not a syllable of any such matter 2. But thereabout he hath the History of the Donatists who rebaptized all both old and young as if our Separatists now should tell all England You are all out of the true Church which is only with us and if you come not to us and be not baptized in our Churches you have no true baptism nor can be saved And for such rebaptizing many were troubled And is this a witness against Infant-baptism Shall we not have one true word § 46. His tale of Swermers he refers us for to Merning and Rulicius or Lulicius and Glanaus men that I know not so well as himself and I had rather he had referred me to himself or Mr. Tombes § 47. He addeth p. 231. Nicephorus l. 17. c. 9. saith that In the year 550. one Peter Bishop of Apamen and Zoroarus a Monk in Syria did maintain and defend the point of dipping rebaptization or weder-dipping Answ Did Nicephorus write in Dutch 1. Is dipping any thing to the case of Infants 2. Are you really for Rebaptizing and are you justifying it If not why cite you instances of Rebaptizers Too many besides the Donatists rebaptized others to engage them to their Sect as the only Church 3. Do you know the History of the Council of Calcedon and Dioscorus and the Nestorians Reader believe not this man any further than sense or great evidence constraineth thee That which Nicephorus there saith is this Severus of Antioch and Peter of Apamea and Zooras a Monk were found to curse the Council of Calcedon and to hold but one nature in Christ praeterea anabaptismos aliaque nefandae obscoenitatis plena facinora peragere that is and also to have practised Rebaptizings and other villanies full of such obscenity that is not to be named If he rejoyce in these Witnesses is here a word of Infant-baptism When shall I come to a sentence that is true § 48. The next is Adrian Bishop of Corinth in the seventh Century did publickly oppose Infant-Baptism insomuch as he would neither Baptize them himself nor suffer them to be Baptized by others but wholly denyed Baptism to them Wherefore he was accused by Gregory Mag. Bishop of Rome to John Bishop of Larissa as appears by Gregories Letter to the said John in which among others he complains against the said Adrian that he turned away children from Baptism and let them die without it for which they proceeded against him as a great transgressor and blasphemer Answ Not one true Sentence in all this 1. It 's false that Adrian publickly opposed Infant-Baptism 2. It 's false that he was accused for it by Gregory or that Gregory laid any such thing to his charge 3. Or that they so proceeded if my books be true Reader the case in Gregories Epistles here cited is this Adrian was accused malevolently of many things not by Gregory but to Gregory Among others that through him some Infants had dyed without Baptism Gregory writeth to John Bishop of Larissa on his behalf and saith that no one of the witnesses could say that he knew any such thing by him but that they were told so by the mothers of some children whose Husbands had for their faults been removed from the Church sed nec in baptizatos eos mortis tempus professi sunt occupasse sicut accusatorum continebat invidiosa suggestio cum in Demetriade Civitate baptizatos eos esse constiterit that is Nor did the witnesses say that they died unbaptized as the envious suggestion of the accusers contained for it is manifest that they were baptized in the City Demetrias 1. Is here a word that he was against Infant-baptism 2. Could a Bishop of so great a City and Diocess have been against Infant-baptism and none to be able to prove it even in envious accusations Would not every week detect it 3. Would Great Gregory have thus justified him if he hâ—d but suspected such a thing above a hundred years after Austin said no one Christian thought Infant-baptism vain Was this great Pope an Anabaptist 4. Is it not plain by all this thâ—â— it was but the particulâ—â— children of some excommunicate mens wives who maliciously accuse him not for being against Infant-baptism no nor against their Infants baptism but for delaying it It is like to difference them from the children of Church-members And yet that they were afterward baptized See here what a witness he hath brought § 49. The next in his Catalogue is Aegyptian Divines but after in his book before it he tells you of one Berinius an eminent learned man that professed instruction to be necessary before baptism and that without it baptism ought not to be administred to high or low and citeh Beda l. 4. c. 16. Reader the passage in Beda is but this That Ceadwall having conquered the Isle of Wight gave it to Bishop Wilfrid no friend to Anabaptists who gave it his Sisters Son Bernwin appointing him a Priest called Hildila who by his labour among the Heathens converted and baptized two of the Kings Sons who were baptized and had a strange deliverance And is there a syllable in this story that Infant-baptism is concerned in No nor a word of one Berinus an eminent learned man that professed as he saith though it be nothing to the purpose Nor was the business done as he saith in Lower Saxony but in the Isle of Wight so little is there that hath the least kin to truth in this lamentable Reporter § 50. His Testimony of Aegyptian Divines he citeth two late Papists for instead of just proof who neither of them ever dreamed that those Aegyptians were against Infant-Baptism That the adult should be Catechised and instructed before Baptism all the Christian world agreed That there were some Monasteries of the Aegyptian Monks that would not hold communion with the Church of Rome is known and what a turn was made among many of the Clergy after the Council of Chalcedon on Dioscorâ—s his account whereupon a great body of the Southern Churches cut off from Rome and disowning them are called Nestorians many injuriously to this day And Fulgentius was disswaded from going to the strict Heremites and Monasticks near Aegypt because they were separated from the Roman Communion as you
whether it be lawful for me to take all sorts then living for lyars rather than this one man that hath written us such a book and who in a negative 25 years after cannot possibly be a competent witness no nor if he had written at that time For who can say that there was or is no such thing done beyond his knowledge § 4. But if Mr. D. would perswade the world either that I wrote that of all the Anabaptists or of most or of any in any other age or that I have since said that any continue the same practice he would but deceive men for it is nothing so § 5. I must confess I did not see the persons baptized naked nor do I take it to be lawful to defame any upon doubtful reports But when it is a fame common and not denied by themselves either Ministers or people at the time I think it is to be taken so much notice of as the confuting of the evil doth require § 6. I know not by sight that there is ever a Fornicator Adulterer Murderer or Thief as I remember in England And yet if I neither Write nor Preach to call such to repentance lest I be a Slanderer in saying that there are any such I think it would be foolish uncharitable Charity and unrighteous justice § 7. Most Sects do in their height and heat at first do that which afterward they surcease with shame The Donatist Circumcellians continued not self-murder the Anabaptists held not on to do as they did at Munster or in the time of David George Our Ranters continued not open swearing and whoredom long The fame of England which I never heard gainsayed is that the Quakers at first did shake and vomit and infect others strangely And is he a lyar that saith it because they do not so now I was at Worcester my self when at the Assizes one of them went naked as a Prophet before our eyes through the high street and they said they did so in many other places I know not the mans name now nor any of the multitude of Spectators if after twenty years and more I were called to prove it I know by uncontrolled fame that Mistress Susan Pierson solemnly undertook to raise the dead taking up a dead Quaker at Claines and commanding him in vain to live But if now after more than twenty years my witnesses were called for I must travel to the place before I could produce them § 8. Yea I never saw any Anabaptist rebaptize or baptize the aged But fame saith they do so and none deny it If it prove false I shall be glad and will joyn in vindicating them And so I say of the present case And will heartily joyn with any in reforming backbiting and rash ungrounded defamations of others CHAP. VI. Of Mr. Danvers's frequent Citations of my Words § 1. WHen I read Mr. Tombes his twenty Citations of me as against my self which Mr. D. provoketh me to answer and when I find Mr. D. so often imitating them and alledging my words as justifying his cause I have no conviction on my mind that it is lawful for me to wast my time and the Readers about a particular vindication of my words so triflingly and vainly used by them § 2. Either it is the authority of the Writer which they suppose will serve them or the force of the arguments or else it is only to make the Reader believe that the Writer is so foolish as not to know when he contradicteth himself The first I may well presume it is not If it were the same persons authority would be as much more against them as his judgement is If it be the second why do they use any arguments of mine when they are able to form such of their own as seem much more useful to them than any that I can give them And why then do they not insist only on the Argument and neglect the Author But seeing I must believe that the last is their business I can have leisure to say little more than this to them that it is not my business to prove my self no fool but to prove Infants Church-members nor will it make me smart if all of their mind in England so judge of me But yet I am not so foolish but that I know my own mind better than they do and can reconcile my words when they cannot If this satisfie not them it satisfieth me § 3. In summ the words of mine which they alledge against my self need but these two things to be said for them against such silly cavils 1. That most of them speak to the Question What is the kind of Covenant consent required in baptism Whether a meer dogmatical faith professed Or the profession of a saving faith as to the matter believed and the sincerity of the belief and consent And I prove that it is no other sort of faith but a true saving faith as to object and act which is required and accepted of God the searcher of hearts as the Condition of his Covenant And that it is not the Profession of any lower sort of faith as to object or act but of this saving faith which the Church must accept to the admission of members A lower profession will serve for none 2. But I still maintain and I think fully proved that God so far taketh the child as if he were a part of the Parent nature and grace having committed him to his will and disposal for his good till he have a will to choose for himself as that by this sort of faith and consent the Parent is to enter his Child into Covenant with God as well as himself and that in Gods acceptance the Child doth thus truly consent by the believing Parent and doth Covenant with God as a child Covenanteth and consenteth reputatively among men who by his Parents is made a Party in a Contract as in a lease for his life or the like Not that in sensu physico the person of the Child being the same with the Parents doth consent in his consent but that the Parent having the treble interest in the Child of an Owner a Governour and a Lover God by Nature and Grace conjunctly alloweth and requireth the Parent to dedicate the Child to God and to consent that he shall be a member of Christ and his Church according to his capacity and by that Covenanting consent to oblige the Child to live as a Christian when he cometh to age And this shall be as acceptable to the Childs Covenant-relation and rights as if he had done it himself and in this sense may be said reputatively to have consented or Covenanted by his Parents which in proper speech is They did it for him at Gods Command § 4. He that is not satisfied with this General Answer let him either peruse the words themselves in my Writings with those before and after that explain them or else if he will do as this man doth abuse
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
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
censorious of them as to think that they need any more to his frustration If they will not must I write another book to tell them what I have written in the former How shall I know that they will any more read the last than the first If Satan have so much power over them that he can make them err and lie and slander and backbite as oft as a man professing zeal for the truth will be his instrument and messenger it is not my writing more books that can save them The end must tell them whether I or they shall be the greater losers by it § 24. I have therefore but these two wayes now to take 1. Whereas this man saith that my doctrine seemeth heynous to every one of my Non-conforming brethren and most Protestants and that I have lost my self among my friends I do demand as their duty and my right the Means of my conviction and reductâ—on from those brethren if any whom he doth not belie I profess my self ready privately or publickly to give them an account of the reasons of all my doctrine and thankfully to retract whatever they shall manifest to be an error And I challenge any of them to prove that ever I refused to be accountable to them or denyed a sober answer to their reasons or refused to learn of any that would teach me or to study as hard to know as they or that ever partiality faction or worldly interest bribed me to deal falsly with my conscience and betray the truth And if after this claim they will be silent I will take them for consenters or if by backbiting only any will still notifie their dissent I will take them for such as I take this writer and in some respect worse though not in all § 25. II. My second remedy is I will go willingly to School to Mr. D. and having said so much for the Learning against the Disputing way I will become his hearer and reader if he have any thing to teach me that savoureth of Truth and Modesty more than this noysome fardel doth which he hath published And to that end I will here give him a Catalogue of the contrary opinions to mine which I desire him solidly to prove If he hold not the contrary doctrines why doth he exclaim against mine as heynous If he do hold the contrary to what I have with due and clear distinction and explication opened and his Readers after the perusing of all my own words together be of his mind I then take these following to be their own opinions and part of their Religion which I desire them to make good and teach them me by sufficient proof CHAP. VIII A Catalogue of some Doctrines of Mr. Danvers and the rest that with him accuse my Christian Directory if indeed they hold the contrary to mine which they accuse as must be supposed by their accusation which as a Learner I intreat any of them solidly to prove OF the Question 49. p. 826. as cited by him The falshood of his inserting in a Popish Countrey in their way of Baptizing in that cited place which spake only of the Lutherans I pass by as weary of answering such But I. That it is a sin for any man supposing Infant Baptism a duty to offer his child to be Baptized where it will be done with the sign of the Cross or such ceremonies as the Lutherans use though he profess his own dissent and dissallowance of those ceremonies and though he cannot lawfully have it done better but must have that or no Baptism at all II. That in the ancient Churches of the second third and fourth ages it had been better to be unbaptized than to use a white Garment in Baptism as they did or to be anointed as then or to taste Milk and Honey though the Person offering his child to such Baptism had professed his dissent as aforesaid III. That all the Churches of Christ in those second third and fourth and following ages who were Baptized thus Infant or adult had no Baptism but what was worse than none Though Church history certifie us that this use was so universal that it 's hard to find any one Christian in all those or many after ages that ever was against the lawfulness of it or refused it By the way it was but one of your tricks which you know not how to forbear to foist in Peril of Law when I had not such a word or sense as Peril As if you knew of no Obligation there but from Peril IV. Your pag. 373. ed. 2. That anointing using the white Garment Milk and Honey were Blasphemous rites and Popish before Popery was existent or if otherwise that All Christs Church was Popish then V. Your Pref. ed. 1. That Christs Ministers rightly ordained and dedicated to God in that sacred office are not so much as Relatively holy as separated to God therein VI. That Temples and Church Vtensils devoted and lawfully separated by man to holy uses either are not justly Related to God as so separated or though so separated and Related are in no degree to be called Holy VII Your Pref. 16. That no Reverence is due to Ministers and Church utensils VIII Ibid. To be uncovered in the Church and use reverent carriage and gestures there doth not at all tend to preserve due reverence to God and his worship IX Ibid. That the unjust alienation of Temples Vtensils lands dayes which were separated by God himself is no sacriledge no not to have turned the Temple of old and the sacred things to a common use unjustly nor the Lords day now But thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou more than commit Sacriledge Even teach men so to do and say It is no Sacriledge no not when God himself is the separater and man the unjust alienater And yet is Infant-Baptism a sin X. Ibid. That it 's no sacriledge unjustly to alienate things justly consecrated and separated to God by man as Ministers Lands Vtensils c. Remember Ananias and Saphira XI Ibid. That it is a sin to call a Minister a Priest though it be done in no ill design nor with any scandal or temptation to error and though he that useth the word profess that he doth it but as a translation of the Greek word Presbyter and as God himself doth Rev. 1.6 and 5.10 and 20.6 and 1 Pet. 2. 5.9 Question Whether it is sinfully used in Scripture XII Ib. Accordingly it is sin to use the word Altar for Table or the word Sacrifice for worship as thanksgiving c. though with all the foresaid cautions and though God so use them in the Scripture 1 Pet. 2.5 Heb. 13.15 16. Phil. 4.18 Eph. 5.2 Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.10 Rev. 6.9 and 8.3 5. and 16.7 And that all the ancient writers and Churches sinned that so spake XIII That no sober Christians should allow each other the Liberty of such phrases without censoriousness or breach of Charity and peace Ibid. pref XIV Ibid.
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
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
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
hath had time and means to know their calumniation To all this let the Reader add but the perusal of the gross contradictions of their accusers against each other yea the same Author as reported by Coussardus saying one thing and as published by Gretser saying the contrary I mean Raynerius And let him consider of the testimony of Vignier concerning an old Copy of their Doctrine shewed to the great and excellent Chancellour of France Mich. Hospitalius wholly agreeing with the doctrine of the later Waldenses and renouncing only the Popish superstitions And the testimony of Poplinerius that by many old fragments and monuments which he had seen in the language of their Country and by the Acts yet kept of the Disputation between the Bishop of Apanica and Mr. Arnolt and by their own Confessions which many assured him they had seen the old Albigenses doctrine was altogether conform to the Protestants doctrine Vsher p. 308. c. 10. And then judge whether the charge of Anabaptistry and all Manichaean abhominations be credible § 6. But saith Mr. D. Cassander testifieth in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleve that Peter Bruis and Henricus denied baptism to little ones affirming that only the adult should be baptized Answ Read but Cassanders Pref. and judge of the Credit of this mans accusations 1. Cassander saith that it was the Manichees and Priscillianists who were Gnosticks saith Sulpit Severus who lived in Priscillians time that brought in the errors after mentioned by him which swarmed in Bernards daies And that this Heresie bred them that were called Catharists a name belonging to one of the three sects of Manichees but in France they were called Albigenses from the place and that it was to these Manichean and Priscillian errours that they added the denyal of Infant-Baptism 〈◊〉 He saith Peter Bruis and Henry seem to have been the chief Authors of this addition but in a far differing sense from the later Anabaptists For Peter and Henry equally denyed Baptism and salvation to Infants or any but actual believers 3. And for the surmise of Peter and Henry he taketh the word of Peter the Abbot Cluniacensis so that Cassander doth but what Mr. D. doth even report Cluniacensi 4. And he professeth that the Waldenses called Picards whose relicts were in Moravia and Bohemia to that day did approve and use Infant-Baptism as consentaneous to the Gospel as I before cited him § 7. His next proof is Dr. Prideaux saith in his Lat. Councils that Peter Bruis and Arnold of Brixia were in the second Laterane Council censured for the heresie of rejecting Infant-Baptism c. Answ I have seldom read an Author whose Proofs are liker one another 1. Why must we be told what Dr. Prideaux saith of the acts of an old Council as easily known by us as by him 2. Reader there is not the least proof of any such matter medled with in that Council Peter Crab doth not so much as name that Council Binius only tells you that the Acts of the Council are not extant but that Abbas Vrspergensis and Otto Frisingensis give us some account of what they did whose words have not a syllable about any such subject but only that they condemned the Schismaticks who adhered to Peter Leo an Antipope 3. But how came Dr. Prideaux so to mistake Answ Those Papers of Dr. Prideaux were posthumous shreds which whether he would have owned we cannot tell But that which he saith is that there were thirty Canons lately published as that Council's which Bellarmine himself rejecteth as false And seeing I never saw that forgery I cannot say whether any such thing be in it which Prideaux's words recite But it must be from that or from nothing And is this a good proof for Prideaux to tell you what a forged writing saith which Crab and Binius and Bellarmine eject or take for false 4. But what if that Council had so accused Bruis and Arnold are they to be believed of them But there is no such thing proved § 8. His next proof is from Bernard of whom I need to say no more than what Cassander Vsher and others have oft said that it was the foresaid Manichean Hereticks called Catharists that Bernard describeth by the name of Apostolick And that he went by fame as Leodiensis did which falsly accused the Albigenses among them as guilty of the same heresies And that the same Bernard accuseth those that he spake of of other heinous things If you believe from him that the Albigenses were guilty of the one you have the same testimony that they were guilty of the other § 9. His next proof is the report of a late Papist Jos Vicecomes l. 2. c. 1. Whom he also after mentioneth in his Reply who as truly numbreth Luther Calvin and Beza with the adversaries of Infant-Baptism If such witnesses be his proof he could not have chosen better for his turn than him and Cochleus and some such calumniators of which sort I could name him more § 10. His last witness is Dr. Hammond confesseth that Peter Bruis and Henry his Scholar and the Petrobrusiani and Henricani that sprung from them opposed Infant-Baptism Answ 1. Not a word of Dr. Hammonds books is cited to prove this but Mr. Tombes his Review And must we know of Mr. Tombes what Dr. Hammond held No wonder then if I and the world must learn what I hold my self and what I have written from such as Mr. Danvers and Mr. Tombes And why not also from all the rest that have written against me 2. I think it not worth my labour to search over Dr. Hammonds books to see whether he hath said this or not seeing I know that he was my neighbour and lived so lately that he had no other means to know what these two men and their followers held than what we and others have as well as he You must give us elder proofs than this 3. And if it were asserted by him or proved by others it were no proof that the Waldenses denyed Infant-Baptism but it would only follow that Bruis and Henry were Manichees and not Waldenses which seemeth to be the mistake of their later accusers at least § 11. Pag. 120. He proveth Mr. Wills guilty of unfaithfulness want of conscience cheating forgery and after pag. 122. of manifold Lying Because 1. He knoweth that Cluniacensis hath given no such wicked and false testimony c. And how proveth he that For both Osiander and the Magdeb. from whom he had it give an account of Fifteen particulars c. Answ 1. Doth that prove that Cluniac hath no more 2. Do they say that those fifteen are all 3. And doth that prove that Mr. Wills knew it who never saith that he ever saw Cluniacensis book as it seems Mr. D. did not 4. Doth Mr. D. himself know it of a book never read See how this accuser proveth Lyes For my part I have not at hand either Cluniack or Osiander or the Magdeb.
it a Monster and proving it contrary to it self and professing that he ought not to believe it But yet lest it should be true he goeth on to prove the truth of the Scriptures as he doth Infants salvation and Baptism § 9. Now I leave it to the Reader among many uncertainties which of these he will believe most probable 1. That all the parties were slandered 2. Or that Peter and Henry were slandered by occasion of the mixed Manichees or by the vulgar lying levity or Popish malice 3. Or whether Peter and Henry were guilty as some now though the rest were not 4. Or whether they and the Albigenses and Waldenses really denyed all Infants salvation and Baptism their very pretended words being cited 5. Or whether they were slandered as to Infant-salvation and not as to their Baptism 6. Or whether all this rose not from their denying the salvation of the children of all the wicked as ex opere operato by the Baptism of the Priest and their refusing to bring their own children to be Baptized by such Priests and their telling the wicked at age that their Infant-Baptism would not save them Believe which of these you find most cause § 10. III. As for Bernard 1. Though a holy man yet his conceit that Papal unity was necessary and that the Dissenters caused confusion transported him with such prejudice against them as we have now against the vilest Sects 2. He was acquainted with Cluniacensis and might believe him 3. He took things on trust as he did 4. He chargeth even the secret hereticks that he writes against as holding it unlawful to swear and yet lawful to forswear rather than reveal their case Serm. 65. 5. And that in secret they are reported to commit filthy wickedness not to be named 6. That he heareth that some of them reject Pauls writings and the Old Testament 7. That they lived scandalously with Women and he talketh as if it were impossible for men and women to dwell together and yet to be chast 8. Yet sheweth that he most uncharitably suspected them saying Si fidem interroges nihil Christianius si conversationem nihil irreprehensibilius quae loquitur factis probat Videas hominem in testimonium suae fidei frequentare Ecclesiam honorare presbyteros offerre munus suum confessionem facere sacramentis communicare and did they deny Infant-Baptism then Quid fidelius Jam quod ad vitam moresque spectat neminem concutit neminem circumvenit neminem supergreditur pallent ora jejuniis panem non comedit otiosus operatur manibus quibus vitam sustentat Vbi jam Vulpos And what 's the proof against them Vinearum demolitio testatur vulpem Mulieres relictis viris viri dismissis uxoribus ad istos se conferunt clerici sacerdotes populis Ecclesiisque relictis intonsi barbati apud eos inde textores textrices plerumque inventi sunt Annon gravis demolitio ista Annon opera vulpium haec And the way he appoints for their purgation is to put women out of their houses 9. Serm. 66. he chargeth them for being against Marriage yea that they took filthiness to be only in having Wives 10. And with forbidding to Marry they joyned abstaining from meats and so holding devilish doctrine But that some allowed Marriage only to Virgins but not second Marriages That they abhorred Milk and all that was made of it and all that was procreated by generation and that de insania Manichaei That they held themselves only to be the Church and derided them that Baptized Infants yet he himself writes largely Ep. ad Hug. de Sancto Victore for the salvation of persons that have faith and die unbaptized through necessity alledging Ambrose Austin Cyprian And concludeth Infants saved by others faith as they were guilty by others sin 11. In Epist ad Hildefonsum he saith of Henry by name that he was an Apostate that made a trade of preaching to live by in necessity and what money he could get of simple people and women more than found him food he spent in playing at dice or other more filthy uses that after his daies applause by the people he was found at night with whores that he thus left every where such a stink behind him that he could come but once to a place naming many Cities Now let the Reader judge if Bernard be to be believed what a man this was If not what his testimony is worth AS I am writing this the Hawkers are crying under my window Mr. Baxters Arguments for Believers c. The men that cite Authors at this rate cite me against my self with the like confidence Because I have proved in my Treat of Confirmation the necessity of personal Profession in the Adult And he that will think that such dealing as this doth need an answer and that if the Adult must make an intelligent profession Infants must not be Baptized let him be ignorant for I have not time to satisfie him FINIS Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated by Scripture and Antiquity in Answer to Mr. Henry Danvers with a full detection of his Misrepresentation of Divers Councils and Authors both Ancient and Modern c. By O. Wills Sold by Jo. Robinson at the Golden Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard * Satan will not consent that you should soberly read the Books * Including the Donatists * It seems by some citations out of it after that he hath read it and yet speaks thus * Which the Heathens used to Children * Not so much as Mr. Tombes is among the Anabaptists for writing for Parish Communion * p. 372. ed 2. Read Rom. 14. and judge * That is of death * viz. If he will * That is determine an uncertainty