there Lords And that the Novatians were the same with the 〈…〉 ways doubt from the Reasons before expressed grone of which you refutes and to which I shall add what 〈…〉 in Gabriel Prateolus de vit sict concerning the Novations p. 123. viz. That they affirmed Infants did not stand in needâ— Baptism Infantes non egere Baptismo And if this be neither to defend nor confess but to pass over all the matter in silence will easâ—ly be determined You come on afresh to excuse your slander of Naked dipping About naked dipping and tell us that it was not the way of most of them when you wrote that Book And that you heard of none of those few that for any considerable time continued it Sir this condems you notoriously that notwithstanding you knew it was not the way of most you should yet charge it to be their ordinary practise in indefinite and Universal terms which no Reader could understand otherwise then that it was the generall way of all Anabaptists and the ratifie because you thereupon levey your Arguments against Anabaptisty it self for the breach of the 6. and 7. Commandments charging Murder and Adubery upon it and I observe your craft in stuffing in the Quakers quaking c. as parallel Cases to make the Reader think the matter of equal probability But Sir I am satisfied your conscience knows and it is evident enough to others that you only delude the world by your similiturdes there being not the least colour of proof or shadow of evidence nor scarce same which you call a lyar to be produced that ever any such practise hath been amongst us The Quakers having not only own'd their quaking in Print but thousands of eye witnesses in readiness to attest the same it denied by them whereas neither word nor witness can be produced for Anabaptists naked dipping And you are not ignorant that Samuel Fisher in that Book of his recommended by you did upon your first broaching of this slander challenge all the world to bring fofth any one faithful witness to confirm the same if they could Therefore for shame go not about to palliate so wretched a misreport and spend no more of your learned non-sense to extricate your self But rather honestly repent that ever you broacht it You would now alter the state of the question p. 50 which it seems must be not whether you reported such â—â—thing that 's too evident to be cluded nor whether it was true this too to your shame is made our to be your lye But whether you did well or ill to believe it And you tell us you would disbelieve it but you cannot To the question as you now state it I hope an answer from your own pen will be satisfactory It is in your Christian Directory p 156. Fame is too ordinary a lyar and they shall be lyars who will be its messengers c. And a little further you thus express your self If you know 〈◊〉 not to be true or that there be not sufficient evidence to prove it you are guilty of lying and slandering Interpretatively though it should be true because it might have been a lye for ought you know more of this Mr. Danvers quotes 2 Reply p. 118. worth your notice though you superciliously slight it Pray consider another Answer to your question Exod 23 1. You say you are not able to dis believe it What are you indeed hardned in your unbelief can neither Scripture notorious evidence nor your own pen convince you that you ought not only to dis believe but also repent for false report which you have no other ground for but that fame which you call a lyer If you be such conviction proof your case is desperate But Sir you pretended you had more then common fame for your report Your very words are p 131. plain Script We dispute not against bare words but experiences and known practices For their naked dipping is a known thing and the wickedness that hath followed on some and that some have dyed on 't And to excuse this you tell us p. 53. Review That you never alledged your own experience But Sir this will not excuse you from the sentence your own tongue passes upon you viz. That you are a lying Messenger of lying same and lying reporters For you put the question Christ Direct p. 156. How know you whether the thing reported is true Is it only because a credible person spoke it But how did that person know it to be true might not he take it upon trust as well as you and might he not think a person to be credible that is not And how commonly doth faction interest passion or credulity make the person incredible in one thing who is credible in another c. Can you avoid this condemnation from your own mouth having pronounced your self an interpretative lyar if not blushing more becomes you then to wast more Ink in palliating so pilpable a falshood You say you are past doubt that you have read of their Baptizing naked in Forreign writers p. 53. But what then was not your calumny of English Anabaptists and must Forreign writers be believed by you when yet you can produce none against known practice at home I am weary of further exposing so temerarious an accuser But what need I say any more hereto since Mr. D. has in so many particulars in his 3. Reply so substantially detected your falacy and falshood herein discovering that all your endeavours to extricate your self has but involved you into surther guilt Therefore Sir suffer me in conjunction with your other Monitors earnestly to exhort you to Review lay to heart this your slanderous way of writing and be prevailed with once in your life to retract some of your bad and particularly amongst other of your calumnies let not your slanderous Reviling of the Vanists and Anabaptists be forgotten by you And in the mean time that you 'l cease justifying or palliating such impieties which will do nothing but inhance your reckoning in the day of Accompt You come next to avoid About his Paper left with the Clerk as well as you can the use made of the paper lest with the Clerk telling us the motive of it was your pitty to two Parishes containing a million of souls consider whether you are not out in your Arithmetick of which not above sixty thousand can bear in the Parish Churches which induced you to be as busie in propagating the Gospel near Whitehall as the Jesuites you say to their just praise are in America Whatever your motives were God and your own heart knows But in my opinion you have fitted your self ad amussim with parallel preachers your justly praised Jesaites For you have taken much pains to preach their Gospel as several learned pens have made out You tell us the substance of your declarations viz. That you did not meet to worship God with any other manner of worship then what is according to the
Liturgy and practise of the Church of England and though you did not read your self but another didâ—t it was because you were not able which if you were you would do it Answ Mr. Danvers charges no more upon you then what you confess here viz. Your profession of Conformity to the Liturgie and practice of the Church of England 2. You would evade this by telling us that he that saith the Lords Prayer doth not use another manner of worship then the Church but I appeal to your conscience whether by the words of your declaration you would not have the Conforming party understand that by your Reading you meant the common-prayer-Common-prayer-book if so is it not wretched equivocation and do you think God will be served with such deluding reservations And whether you did not pen your declaration in such ambiguous and equivocal terms as on the one hand to blind the Conformists make them think you theirs so on the other hand to excuse your self to the Non-consormists by telling them you meant the Reading the Scriptures and so cunningly play an Ambidexter in Divinity And so your reading some part of the Scriptures it may be the Lords prayer ten Commandments Epistle and Gospel for the day c. as that once in Buckinghamshire may serve to elude the Conformists because read out of the Common Prayer Book but if taken notice on by a Nonconformist then it was only reading the Scripture not Common Prayer And for observing hereof you so violently fly in the face of Mr. D. You tell us you are not able to read your self But what why Reader if thou art a Conformist he means Common prayer but then he could hear it read well enough If thou art a Non conformist he means the Scripture But Sir are you not able to read the Scriptures Can you have leasure and ability to write voluminous Directories Bodies of Divinity Catholick Theologies and no time nor leasure to read the Scripture It seems your Divinity is no Scripture Divinity As for your talk of a considerable part of the writing being left out I must profess I cannot believe you my incredulity is grounded upon firmer evidence then your flander of naked dipping if you desire to know it 't is like you may The matter of fact charged your own pen acknowledges which at present is enough You say you are no greater adversary to the Liturgy then Mr. Hildersham Knowstubs Ball Bradshaw Paget and Mr. Gifford were Answ What adversaries they were to is I have not leasure to examine But I know what adversary you have been to it I can to refresh your Memory tell you that In your Book dedicated to Rich. Cromwell Protector Prief p. 17. you said that most that are serious in practical Christianity were against such formal ways of worship And the spirit of prophaness comply'd with it c. p. 36. you said English Episcopacy gratified the Devil and wicked men that the rabble of ignorant persons worldlings Drankards Haters of Godlyness were very Zealous for them c. p. 3â—8 you called the Church of England the sink of all the other Churche in England The Bishops Government you called Ceremonious impositions Usa pation and pretended Office First disp p. 457. Have you not said in your Savoy Conference of which you are said to be the Penman but certainly you were an approver if not the 〈◊〉 that tâ—â—â—e are no Records of known credit for any 〈◊〉 for the first 3â—0 years p. 11. And have you not given 60 exceptions against it of which some were that it 〈◊〉 little from the Romish formâ— p. â— part 1. That it Unites only in a dead Religion p. 23. That a Coat may be made for the Moon as well as a Liturgy framed suited sufficiently to the variety of places times subjects c. p 55 And this is the friend ship you exprest to the Liturgy and the Bishops when you were in your highest elevation But now you complement them by the titles of the Right Reverend Fathers in God c. in the Account of the Savey Conference As to Mr. D. leaving out any part of the Paper was not your exception but for his grosly falsifying it and which your own Book seller at first told me was respecting the alteration of that clause viz. I would accordingly read the same For I would accordingly read my self and which Mr. D. rectified by a copy affirmed to be from the Originall in the Clerks hand and with all the little cause given you thereby for so severe a Remark and doubtless had there been any such gross falsisication or any considerable clause left out we should have heard of it in words at length before this Sir Your disease seems to me to be the more incurable in that you have turned scorner since your admonition Mr. Danvers in his 2. Reply gave you a very demonstrative one and which I suppose you can find no equivocations to shift off which is wonderful therefore you take no notice of it But you say you will hear some Scriptures he sends you to And you draw such mock-consequences from them as if they were not pertinent to your case But if you please I 'le give my self the trouble to draw consequences more pat from them and leave you to apply them 2 Cor. 6.4 5 6. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to approve themselves Ministers of God in much patience afflictions necessities distresses c. Ergo say you Did R. B. do ill to come out of the Goal when he was put in or not put himself in again p. 61. No Sir that 's not the right Ergo but Ergo R B. did ill to slink his neck out of the Collar and inveigble a poor Country Minister in to suffer for him in the common Goal â— For I very well remember that giving that Country Minister that was clapt upt in your stead avisit in the Gate-house he slewed me a copy of the Warrant by vertue of which he was takenâ— which was against Richard Paâ—ter of the parish of St. Giles but when they sound you were withdrawn they blotted out your name and interlined your Deputy-sufferers name just over it And if you have not reimburs'd his charges 't is just you should 2. The second text is Act. 20 1â— 1â— 13. Paul preached till break of day c. Ergo say you R B. should not preach in the Country you deny the Consequence adding that perhaps Mr. Danvers meant as 't is like he did Act. 21.13 Paul was ready to be bound or die at Jerusalem Ergo say you R. B. did sin in a voiding it oft before c. Whether this consequence be applicable to you I shall not now dispute but I may safely draw this consequence Ergo R. B. should not avoid preaching in the City to insnare another nor avoid being bound to bind another 3. The third is Matt. 10.38 He that taketh rot his Cross and followeth me is not worthy of me Ergo you
wrongs Dr Owen insinuating that Mr. Danvers and he are unworthy men for wresting Authors words at such a rate adding that Dr. Owen suâ—poses Infants visibly in the Covenant as the seed of parents visibly so Reply That Mr. Hutchinson truely and faithfully quoted the Doctors Exerâ—itation word for word I can truly affirm and he that will confer the quotation with the Doctors Book will find it so Therefore how can he be said to wrest the Doctors words Mr. Whâ—ston should recal that rash and inconâ—iderate expression 2. What the Doâ—or supposes to Infants being in the Covenant in his Judgement or practice concerns not the matter in hand But I am certain he has not a word of that nature in that Exercitation nor in the whole Book that I can find And I am as certain that the Doctors discourse of the Covenant wholly excludes them from any such title And if Mr. Whiston can no better reconcile the Doctors words to hâ—s Practice he had better have held his peace Next he denâ—es that he caâ—â—s Mr. Danvers his Book all forgâ—ry c. By which I see he needs a good memory And I refer the Reader to Mr. Whistons second Book p. 56. where he sayes that Mr. Danvers his Book will remain as a publique evidence of his forgeries falsities c. So Pref. 1 2. he calls it a meer cheat supported by fraud and guile pref p 4. false and disingenious proceeding from immodesty to impudence p 8. â—â—rgeries designed to deâ—eive unwary Readers p. 10. and p. 8. of the Book he calls Mr. Danvers a knowing falsifier without the actual fear of God before his eyes p. 55. A downright falsifier p. 47. c. Producing amaze of Nonsensical words p. 69. one of the most unworthy and disingenuous men that ever put Pen to paper p. 136. and more of this railing stuff Which whether it comports with Mr. Whistons profession or suits with Gal. 6.1 Eph. 4.31 Tit. 3.2 Exod. 23.1 let his second thoughts inform him And how pitifully he hath made these high and extravagant Charges appear is already very evident And that Book he loads with these railing Epithites will stand upon Record as a substantial confutation of this Ridiculous practice Mr. Whiston labours to support And that Worthy person he traduces in the esteem of persons eminent for piety quality and parts deserves a quite contrary Character then those uncivil scandalous and ill-applyed reproachful terms Mr. Whiston disgorges Discovering nothing more then that he railes upon and reviles him because he cannot answer him as his other Antagonists Mr. Wills and Mr. Baxter did before him supplying the want of Reason with Rage and Malice Perhaps hee 'l tell us that he wrote all this in the spirit of meekness But for my part hee 'l hardly perswade me to believe it nor will it gain credit with any sober person unless he has that Grecian saith spoken of by Plautus in Asin Let him therefore if it be his humour please himself with such language and deny it when he has done I have almost done with him His Epilogue is somewhat pleasant He tells Mr. Hutchinson That if he can procure him a Certificate that his Book deserves a more full consideration he shall be gratified That 's a notable Confutatian indeed from a wordy Author of Controvery 'T is discreetly done however to slight the Book he cannot answer And I think he is like to have but little more provocation from us for he has already said too much to little purpose FINIS A JUST REPROOF TO THE Clamorous Cavils OF Mr. OBED WILLS the Turbulent Appealer Wherein the vanity of his Rash Censure of the BAPTISTS Answer to that his frivolous Appeal made to them against Mr. Danvers is detected and his unjust Charge of Ignorance and Partiality is refelled By Thomas De-laune one of his abused Judges Prov. 9.7 8 9. He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame and a blot and hatred Rebuke a wise man and 〈◊〉 â—ill love thee and be yet wiser Printed Anno Dom. 1676. The Preface MR. VVills in the Prologue to his Appeal that the world may see he walks by pattern produces the Example of the Quakers Appeal to the Baptists against Mr. Hicks as his Precedent And I confess he has in some things exactly followed his Copy For as the Quakers with great Outcry and Conndence provok't the Baptists to examine the Controversy then in hand and to pass their Sentence so with like heat and vehemence Mr. VVills falls into the same strain of rash and unrighteous accusation against Mr. Danvers And as the Quakers when a just Sentence was past against them evidencing their Clamours to be Calumnies yet like obstinate and incorrigible accusers fall foul upon the persons they themselves had before invested their Judges and with great wrath and severity arraign and condemn them for speaking Truth So Mr. VVills with Quaker-like insolence because the persons Appealed to did not please his Spleen in condemning Mr. Danvers right or wrong brands them with Ignorance and Partiality in a Paper lately published Intituled Censura Censurae That the Baptists acted with Christian equity and fairness in their Examination of the matter in Controversy and with great care end pains search't into the Authors quoted I am as sure of as I can be of any thing being an eye-witness to and assistant in that work And that their Answer to Mr. VVills was so Modest that it is beyond the exception of a sober man the thing it self impartially considered will evidence If it be enquired why the Subscribers of the Answer to Mr. VVills do not all concern themselves in a Vindication I answer That they have already done what 's needfull in giving their Judgement in the things they ought to take cognizance of And I know no Law that oblidges them to the drudgery of confuting the Cavills of such an inconsiderate decuser They are persons ingaged in a greater and more necessary work and to give themselves any further interruption in such a contest is thought to be a needless task and an intrenchment upon their more weighty Affairs Having something else to do then to attend the drudgery of drawing the saw with such a lamentable trifler I am I confess the weakest of them yet Providence has been pleased to cast this task of their Vindication upon me And Mr. VVills himself has given me a particular challenge and provocation in making some exceptions against me distinct from the rest which I am oblidged to say something to And I hope if what I offer be demonstrative the Reader will express so much equity as to judge of the matter in dispute from the evidence and reason of it and not from the Authority or Number of the parties contending To chose an opinion by voices is not safe Error when it becomes the darling of a man of parts and such are frequently its Patrons is set off with all the imbellishments which the Schoolmen and Sciences
himself in its spoil But to the matter 1st Mr. Danvers having quoted a passage from Bellarmine to shew that Apostolical tradition was esteem'd the principal ground of Infant Baptism it seems omitted that saying deducitur evidenter ex Scripturis And Dr. Fields saying after such another expression that the Scriptures deliver us the ground of it Mr. Will 's though he pleads for himself in the like case Vind. p. 7. accuses him for it App. p. 162. To which 't is said that in all such cases to prevent Cavil and offence it were better if the intire sentence were alwayes exprest But the Circumstances that made this appear to us to have no great weight in it were these 1st Mr. Danvers sets down Rep. p. 74. these words of Bellarmine omitted before of which we were bound to take notice being a Book precedent to Mr. Will 's his appeal and before any reproof for the omission as we can find 2ly It is evident the Jesuite urged Tradition for their practice of Paedobaptism And that phrase was but a faint Insinuation that it may be gathered from Scripture viz. Joh. 3.5 and such mistaken places And the quotation was pertinently enough applyed if Mr. Will 's his example were a sufficient excuse for those that imitate him in giving only what Authors say to the matter in hand But in Mr. Danvers his Answer in his Rejoynder p 25. here are two new errors charged 1. That he sayes he quoted Bellarmine under the head of Tradition 2. That he quotes the passages before omitted under the head of Consequences p. 74. Reply 1st 'T is true the term Tradition is not mentioned in the Contents of that Chapter but there is that that 's equivalent viz. The Scriptures total silence about Infant Baptism with the necessity of Scripture warrant to Authorize every Ordinance For both which branches several Authors are produced And Bellarmine for the first which he expresly owns viz. That there is no express Scripture for it though he pretends it may be deduced from thence That Mr. Danvers quotes that passage Rep. p. 74. as before Mr. Will 's owns being not able to contradict it And though the Chapter or Section has not the term consequence mentioned no more then the other Tradition Yet the Marginal note expresses it to be a Tradition as they word it gathered from the Scriptures which is the same with them as Consequence So that upon the whole matter it doth nor appear how this charge can be advanced to any other title then trivial and insignificant nor can we expect that labour can turn to any great account that 's spent in consulting such a meer Catching at words 2ly 'T is true we find not Dr. Field expresly quoted in that 74th page Yet it is to be considered that it is plainly referr'd to For Mr. Danvers drawing a Parallel between the Popish and Protestant Paedobaptists sayes thus p. 74. Do the Papists affirm that notwithstanding it is a Tradition or custome of the Church yet that it is plainly enough gathered out of the Scriptures viz. from Circumcision for which he quotes Bellarmine And then adds so doth Mr. Will 's for the Protestants say who in p. 105 106 107 108. Infant Baptism gives their sentiments from Rivet Calvin Dr. Field the later in this very quotation word for word all which Mr. Danvers sums up that notwithstanding there is neither precept nor practice expresly written in the Scripture yet it is gathered thence by consequence as coming in the room of Circumcision and therefore that Infants have a right to Baptism from the right that Infants had to Circumcision Mr. Will 's p. 105. Now Mr. Danvers referring to the place where Mr. Will 's quotes the Protestants one of which was Dr. Field referred necessarily also to Dr. Field there which the matter disputed must needs lead the enquiring Reader to And though it were better in order to prevent the Cavils of such as lye at Catch to be more express in references yet we conceive a Candid and Judicious Reader will have better thoughts of Mr. Danvers in this particular then what are suggested by an Antagonist that so ground lesly perserveres in his severe and unjust inculcations of unfaithfulness in Mr. Danvers and partiality in us and that without stronger demonstration then such frivolous Instances as this and what are ejusdem farinae 2ly As to the passage of Dr. Owen Mr. Danvers his answer is full and proper and satisfactory doubtless to any ingenious Reader as appears in his Reyonder p. 25 26. It being indeed needless to add any more thereto 3ly Mr. Will 's Appeals to the Reader p. 22 23 Whether the passages about Lydia Beza and Ames App. p. 167. be so trivial and insignificant as we make them And which is also left to be determined at that Tribunal whether they be not indeed so Or have evidenced enough in them to prove Mr. Danvers a forger Next he Renews his Charge of Self-contradiction against Mr. Danvers viz. That if he made the ground of the Corinthians scruple 1 Cor. 7.4 To arise from the instance of putting away strange Wives in Ezra and Nehemiah's time it was a plain contradiction to make the words else were c an Argument ab absurdo because from those Instances they could conclude no otherwise but that their children were Bastards and to be put away And then desires such of us as know what an Argument abassurdo is to exercise our reason about this matter and again affirm it no contradiction if we can and the Instance trivial and insignificant Reply What Mr. Will 's calls a contradiction here appears not so to be but the contrary For the Jews being under a strict inhibition to marry with strange wives or mix with the Gentiles as appears Ezra 10.2 c. and Neh. 13.27 c. Yet transgressed against the Lord in that particular and began a Reformation in Ezra's time Which practice of old questionless gave ground to the Corinthians scruple whether the believing husband or wife may cohabit with the unbelieving Yokefellow Which doubt the Apostle Resolves in the affirmative as if he had told them 't is true you were strictly prohibited under the law to cohabit with strange wives but that was under a Dispensation which is now relaxt And the end of such a prohibition viz. to keep the people of whom according to the flesh the Messiah was to come unmixt with the Idolatrous Nations is now come to pass as so the cohabiting with a strange or unbelieving Yokefellow which was then a sin is not so now and the issue of such a marriage is not illigitimate now as it was then Therefore the relation is mutually sanctified else that is had not the Gospel dispensation taken off the legal inhibition aforesaid and the Relation were not so sanctified your children were unclean that is the issue of an unlawful bed but now the Gospel dispensation allowing this Cohabitation are they holy that is
goes on p. 9. and tells us that being called to a Review he remembers our Saviour himself was a Church-member in his Infancy even the head though he said in his Plain Scriptare p. 62. that 't is disputable whether ever Christ was a Church-member properly or no And if an Infant was capable of being the head King Priest and Prophet relatively though yet he had never ruled sacrificed or taught then there is nothing in the Infant age which maketh it uncapable of being members subjects and Disciples of Christ Answ 1. This vain plea is already sufficiently answered by Mr. Tombs And to me what Mr. Baxter urges seems to make more against then for his Paedo baptism For if Christ whose title to the headship of Churchmembers in his Insancy was undoubted was not for all that baptized till at age to set a pattern for us in our approaches to that Ordinance then certainly it is an audacious practise to baptize Infants whose title to Churchmembership and Discipleship is impossible to be made out with parallel clearness and that too in exprest dissonancy to that great and most illustrious example of our Christian Baptism 2ly To argue from Christs headship that Children should be baptized is a meer non-sequiter Christ in his Infaney was head of the Church but not in acts exercito so for ought we know Infants may be members of his Mystical hody yet are no actual Disciples till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith And invisible Membership being uncertain to us can be no ground for Baptism Besides as Mr. Tombs says by this Reasoning an Infant in the womb may be a visible member because then Christ was head of the Church and an old man should not be a member for Christ was not an old man And I may add that Infants by this argument should be Prophets Priests and Kings in their Infancy as well as Church-members because Christ was so But Mr. Baxter will not be hasty to make this Conclusion Mr. Baxter queries are not Infants members of other societies families the Kings subjects And why not Christs as well as the Kings Answ So are Pagans Children unbelievers Children c. members of Families Kingdoms c. therefore they also by this Medium should be Baptized 2ly There is a Characteristical mark that distinguishes the Church of Christ from all other societies It must consist of visible Saints 1 Cor. 14.33 Act. 2.41.47 There must be a right dispensation of the word and Sacraments Act. 2.41 Math. 28.19 From every member of this society there is required a profession of his faith and a holy conversation Act. 8.37 1 Pet. 3 16 17 Rom. 10.10 Math. 3.36 Act. 19.18 Now no Parity of Reason drawn from the Constitutions or practise of other societies or corporations is of any force to obtrude any Law upon this society so distinct from all others It must be governed by its own sanctions which are no where to be had but in the word of Gâ—d From a close conformity to which no parallels framed by our carnall Reasoning must sednce us In agreement to our definition of a visible Church Mr. B. thus exprefies him self in his Book of Bpatism p 87. A self society of persons separated from the world to God or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called out of the world c. And Dr. Featly p. 4. A particular company of men professing the Christian saith known by two marks the sincere preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments And how this Definition can agree to a society of which the Major part are ignorant Babes let them judge Wollebius in his Compend Theol. Edit Cantabr 1642. lib. 1. c. 25. p. 135. defines a visible Church Caetus hominum verbo sacramentis ad gratiae statum vocatorum a company of men and women called by the word and sacraments to a state of grace This book is in great repute in the Univerfities and commonly first read by young students in Divinity and if we adhere to this definition Infants are excluded because they are not called by the word to a state of grace And though the term Sacraments be redundant in the Definition yet 't is certain Wollebius held that the bare application of the Sacraments converts not to a state of grace but in conjunction with the effectual preaching of the word And all Divines agree that Ecclesia a Church coming of a Greek verb that signifies evocare to call from is Caetus hominum ex universo genere humano collectus seu evocatus per Evangelium a company of people gathered or called from the universal race of mankind by the preaching of the Gospel And the greek is derived of the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a congregation He says p. 11. he could theeasilier bear with our delay of external Baptism if we did not deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life Answ That we deny all Infants their part in the Covenant of life is a false suggestion we charitably hope and our hope is built upon the free grace of God that though the Scriptures clearly reveal nothing of their salvation or Damnation forasmuch as none can be saved but by Christ Act. 4.12 And that all are guilty of sin Rom. 5.14 Infants by the presentment of the satisfaction of Christ are saved the free gift coming upon all Rom. 5.18 Of this satisfaction there is a two-fold application 1. by Faith in the Adult 2. without Faith to dying Infants by vertue of the election and free grace of God Rom. 11.7 5.18 And if we question how Infants dying after Baptism are saved we must have recourse to this way it being owned by Protestants that Baptism doth not conser grace nor wash away Original sin And if we determine nothing positively in this matter Mr. Baxter should not find fault with us he telling us in his Christian Directory p 821. That almost all Infants cases are to us obscure He says p. 12. That we lay such grounds as destroy and exclude them by a sentence of damnation because if we add them not to the Church we exclude them from salvation Answ This language is spoke without book We limit not salvation to the pale of the Church as this Dictator doth We have no rule to add any to our Churches but such whose professions give us ground to Judge that they belong to the Lord being Converted We pass no such damnable sentence upon any that are not joyned to us we hope the best and our judgement we pass when called to it according to appearance de non apparentibus de non exiftentibus tadem est ratio Is the language of the Schools 2ly This is Mr. Baxters own harsh Divinity to destroy and exclude Multitudes of Infants by a sentence of Damnation when he holds that the vast progeny of such as are in his conceit unbelievers have no right to the Baptismal Covenant and Church membership and consequently according to his
well known that Mr. Baxters tongue is no slander I would particularly demonstrate either those evils he insinuates us to be guilty of and led unto by our principle are none of ours and that through grace we are kept from such opinions or practises as our publick Confessions and Conversations are ample testimonies of and which none but a man of Calumny would charge us with But in the consciences of all sober dissenters we question not but we shall be freed from an imputation uttered in heat and that looks with such an aspect as if meer malice had given it birth And as these particulars are the meer product of that peevishness and anger he is commonly in when he corrects these bauling and Crying Children as he calls us More Proofs p. 2. 3. and so scarce worth our notice so I observe he blesses God for delivering him from some things which yet he was foully guilty of as the 3. particular viz. A proud overvaluing of his own opinion c. And the 4. viz. having a hand in all the turnings and overturnings settings up and pulling down praying and unpraying owning and disowning bloody days and thanksgiving for them c. And that in a more notorious degree then any of the persons he accuses as is already to his shame made out from his own pen. So that I could retort these particulars almost generally upon him for he deserves much of that Character he vainly boasts he is free from but such applications we find by experience do him little good and therefore at present I spare him And whether he be not fallen point-blank into his 9. particular viz. That when once prepossession prejudice and Interest of Reputation had ingaged him in so bad a cause as Infant Sprinkling he studied all that he could rakâ— together to maintain it and to have stretched all his wits to have opposed all that is brought against it c. let his Conscience determine I desire the Reader to note that it any passages of his are past without Animadversion they are either such things as are largely confuted already or else apparently frivolous and so not worth mine nor the Readers time A Postscript to Mr. Richard Baxter shewing the Vanity and Equivocation of his Return to Mr. Danvers his Third Reply Sir THat worthy person at whose Invitation you say you published your Review being now with the Lord And your accosting Mr. Danvers so Cowardly when I verily believe you knew him to be under such Circumstances as necessarily obliged him then to wave further contest with you are two motives to qualifie your wonder at my appearing in both their vindications And I assure you I know no cause of repentance for the undertaking unless my disability in defending them renders it not so compleatly done as their own more able pens might have done it Therefore Sir notwithstanding the hazard I undergo of being branded with those râ—aiting Epithetes you dispence with great freedom amongst your Monitors I will make bold to tell you that it were more safe for you to have returned a private answer to that private Letter of Mr. Hutchinsons and have performed your promise of silence to Mr. Danvers then in the first to expose your ridiculous thread-bare Plea to a new scanning and in the Second to give a notable Instance that you are like that pompious Cardinal that would not be a slave to his word Your general exclamations against Mr. Danvers your charging him with strange heaps of untruths without any Reply to his demonstrative and large defence and taking no notice of the gross falshoods he proved you guilty of and his delineating you in your several true shapes and colours that your disguise may no longer delude us will scarce pass for Oracles with such as know that such language is become a Second nature in you Sir I am satisfied these things are evidenced to your just conviction else you being such a proficient in the talking faculty and one that can Hector it at such a rate in more minute and unnecessary wranglings would let us here on 't on both ears But since you are silenced in such matters as evidence your tongue to be no slander we need say but little more Are not you the man who without the least reverence or regard to truth had the boldness to publish to the world in your Key to Oath p. 312 c. That Sir H. V. was a Papist and a Jesuite and had brought his wicked and corrupt opinions from Italy and how the Papists were strong in England under his maâ—k And that he had his hand in chief in the Kings death And that notwithstanding your many Reproofs for those horrid and notorious Forgeries and slanders and the many calls given you to repentance and satisfaction for such impieties yet have not you hardned your self against all admonition therein to this day as though your tongue and pen was your own to use how you pleased against any man Are not you the man who accused that worthy and Learned Mr. Bagshaw of eighty untruths in the compass of a few pages when scarce one could be made appear with any demonstration And if you suffer your milk to boyle over at such a rate and be so lavish with a slanderous tongue and pen against others have we not cause to conclude your clamorous and rayling out cries and invectives against Mr. D. to be of the same stamp especially since you please only to give us your own word for them Do not you tell us p. 47. That you had detected voluminous untruths in Mr. D's former Book and p. 49. That the very first Paragraph of the latter hath more then one or two lies in it And yet neither shew the insufficiency of his defence to the former nor give the least demonstration of the latter â—nd is not this a very convincing way and who but Mr. B. think you appropriateth to himself such mediums But lest you should be thought wholly silent as to particulars you are pleased to condescend to give us one particular instance wherein Mr. D. has not answered your charge telling us p. 48. His accusation of the Novatians the neither defendeth that you see nor confesseth to be aslander but silently passeth all the matter by And is not this very strange that you should so punctually call him to an account for this one being in so great an Arreare with him there being so many Forgeries and falshoods of farr greater moment he hath laid at your Door which you have neither confessed nor defended But what cause you had to fall upon him for this supposed omission let the Reader judge For Mr. D's having in his 2 Reply in answer to you defended the Donatists some of his witnesses against your cavils whom he had in several particulars made to appear to have been one in principall with the Novatians as Treat p. 223 c. And 1. Reply p 1â—6 Doth in p. 49. 2. Reply tells us in
as are acknowledg'd and allow'd making good that which is doubtfull by that which is certain and clearing that which is obâ—â—ure by that which is evident The Word of God is our Common Book let us search into it for that upon which we may ground our own belief and by which we may overthrow error Regula est mensura sui obliqui The Scripture sufficiently delivers us the positive truth which is enough for as whatsoever rightly followeth thereupon is true so whatsoever clasheth with or contradicteth the same is false No Science gives us any certain account of Negative Propositions for as much as to go about to number them all would be both an infinite and also an unprofitable useless piece of work Therefore such as go about to establish an opinion because not expresly forbidden in Scripture as Mr Walker seems to do p. 218. whose words are Never stand hunting for a Scripture for it so long as there is no Scripture against it do not consider that they undermine the securest ground we stand upon against the invaders of Religion For by that argument as Dr Owen well says ten thousand things may it made lawfull there being no express Scripture sorbidding the upstart inventions and impostures of Seducers by name and circumstance And what a croud of such corruptions have crept into the worship of God under this pretext in times of Superstition under the Antichristian servitude All the use we can make of Antiquity is either in matter of fact viz. whether such an opinion was in being in their time or matter of right viz. whether it ought to be so For this later no sober person will take any of the Antients to be competent Judges for that were to slight the Word of God and bestow the prerogative that belongs to it upon frail man which the Fathers themselves durst not usurp Therefore it rests that we can make no further use of them then to witness matter of fact And though we find them avouch a matter of fact yet that proves not that the thing is lawfull As for instance we find Cyprian the earliest pretended Patron of Paedobaptism in the 3d. Century if that Epistle to Fidus be a legitimate piece of his make mention of Infant Baptism and if that proves the lawfulness of that practice it will also prove the lawfulness of Infants receiving the Lords Supper because the same Cyprian asserts it to be necessary for them in order to their Salvation lib. 3. test ad Qui. c. 25. And Maldonate affirms in Joan. 6. num 116. that this opinion of Augustine's and Innocent the first 's prevail'd in the Church about 6â—0 years que scil sententia Augustini Innocentii primi sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia Eucharistiam etiam Infantibus fuisse necessariam Therefore that practice of Infant Commanion being as gray-headed as their Baptism deserves equal veneration with it It appears by this that it is worth enquiry upon what grounds those alledged Patrons of Paedobaptism went for if they have erred in the Reason of the foundation it will be easily believed they did also in the building Cyprian held Baptism simply necessary to salvation lib. 3. Ep. 8. ad Fidum So Jerom contra Pelag. and Austin l. 1. de peccat mor. remiss Si ergo ait ut tot tanta divina testimonia concinunt nec salus nec vita aeterna sine baptismo corpore sanguine Domini cuiquam spectanda frustra sine his promittitur parvulis That is Therefore if so many and so considerable divine testimonies agree that none must expect salvation nor life everlasting without Baptism and the body and bloud of the Lord without these it salvation is vainly promised to little ones This was the Universal ground and motive of the Fathers that assert Infant Baptism for many hundred years And as for their warrant 't is certain they built their practice upon Tradition not written being no more able then other men to find a word of Instituio for it in Scripture where it is not 'T is true that word Tradition is general signifying all Doctrines written or unwritten 2 Thess 2.15 But 't was by the Fathers as 't is now accommodated to signifie a Doctrine not written yet supposed to be Apostolical which if allowed to every pretender would bring miserable confusion into Religion and soon metamorphose it into an adulterated Form of humane Invention Mat. 15.9 10.16 Act. 5.19 Gal. 1.9 Now all those Fathers that practised Paedobaptism as an Apostolical practice not written as most have indeed done that being their best plea are justly to be reputed ours and of our side for they judge it not from Scripture therefore fetch its rise from Tradition which because it cannot bear the weight of an Institution the whole building is to fall for by flying for refuge to Tradition they do with us affirm that there is no better ground for Infant Baptism then humane Tradition which is indeed none at all And thus all the Testimony and Authority of these Fathers becomes ours There hath been we own such a thing as the Traditions of Christ and the Apostles which are of the highest and greatest authority but they were such things as afterwards were committed to writing by the Evangelists and Apostles other Traditions we avow none but esteem them Apocryphal So that it follows as I said that such as avouch Infant Baptism from Tradition acknowledge in so doing that there is no better authority for it and so conclude with us that it hath not the Scripture for its foundation And so those that give it to Infants as simply necessary to Salvation will be of no authority against us nor of any credit to their cause because the building must be levell'd according to the foundation and that being false they are necessitated to the mistake of their building And if there were any force in these authorities for Infant Baptism why should it not regulate our practice in the other Sacrament which was as anciently given to Infants as the other and says Dr. Taylor p 231. they were honest that understood the obligation to be parallel and in some places to this day as Brerewood in his learned Enquiries affirms viz. by the Jacobites Christians so called in great numbers in Syria Cyprus Mesopotamia Babylon Palestine so by the Habassines inhabiting Ethiopia and the Armenians c. so that if Antiquity be our guide it will lead us to administer the Supper as well as Baptism to Infants and if it fail in the one 't is to be suspected in the other I see not why the Supper should be a greater mystery then the other or the ceremony more significant or that the Duty of examining should need more of the use of Reason then believing repenting and confessing our sins 't is as natural and proper to Infancy to be nourish'd as to be born therefore as capable of the ceremony of their nourishment as of their birth