doubtless whatsoever it is is little beholding to such an Advocate as thinks to reconcile men to it by abusing dissenters As for the alteration I have made I gave the world an account of the reasons and grounds of it in my Retractation of Separation published in the year 1659. which was before the turn of times and in my perswasive to Peace and Vnity since published And if this Author could have solidly discovered the insufficiency of those reasons and grounds to justifie such an alteration and my present practice he would have done his cause better service in my opinion than he hath done in his Treatise by labouring to support it by a misrepresentation of persons and their opinions As for me I can truly say I have had great satisfaction and peace in my own mind touching the alteration I have made upon those grounds not only at other times but even then also when I have been near unto death in my own apprehension As for the other person he mentions with me I suppose he may e're long give the world an account of that alteration he also is charged with as great fault Will. Allen An Admonition to Mr. Danvers SIR YOur vehement importunity having greatly injured me by occasioning the loss of some of my time who have none to spare upon this writing which else would have been needless you must bear with me while I desire you sometime alone to answer these Questions seriously to your Conscience Quest 1. Whether the untruths in matter of fact which you confidently publish be not of so stupendious a magnitude as should have affrighted the Conscience of a Turk or Pagan When no less than four whole Bodies of men are so slandered by you the Donatists the Novatians the Old Brittains and the Waldenses each containing it 's like many hundred thousands And when so many whole Books not particular sentences only are falsified accordingly 2. How great a number would your untruths appear were they all gathered and enumerated to you When in all the lines which I have examined I have met with so few that are not guilty of them 3. When you accuse my Admonition to Mr. Bagshaw and thereby shew that you read it should not the eviction of fourscore undeniable untruths in matter of fact have been a warning to you to avoid the like 4. Whether you do not more by such notorious scandal to dishonour your self and all that are such and hinder your own successes than many writings against you could have done 5. Whether you do not scandalously tempt men to justifie the contempt of Tender Consciences and what is done and said against them by many publick Revilers on the other extream when your Conscience pretending tenderness can swallow such Camels while it cannot endure our Infant-blessings 6. Whether men can judge it probable that such voluminous notorious Forgers and Slanderers have so much more illumination than all other Christians as to be meet men to call all the Christian world almost to be new Christned and to unchristen almost all for about thirteen hundred years to leave out the controverted time 7. Would you be believed in other things that can deliberately in two Editions do thus 8. Is it like that God will bless such unmanly scandals to the Churches good unless as sin by overruling providence may occasion good Are these likely means to propagate truth 9. What is the matter that men that can do all this cannot Conform What durst I not subscribe to if I durst do all this 10. Is it not a dishonour to your rebaptized Churches to be so polluted and to have so loose or partial a discipline as to suffer such publick scandals as these and to retain such a member as you and not bring you to repentance or excommunicate you Have our worst Parish Churches many greater scandals If pride partiality and passion will not let your Conscience work upon these things but you will turn them into gall instead of repentance at least I offer them to the Consideration of others to prevent or remedy their infection And remember which you have told the world now in Print that you sent your Bookseller to me to know what I had to say against your first Edition before you published the second And I have here partly told you what I was not so idle as to answer your Reasons knowing how little a part they are of what Mr. Tombes hath said more largely And that I answer him at all is long of you who would not let me hold my peace I heartily desire your Recovery from the unthankful error and your Repentance for the sinful means of propagating it and for your injury to our early Rights and blessings The Third Part OBSERVATIONS ON Mr. Danvers REPLY TO Mr. WILLES Detecting his impenitent proceeding in false Accusation in hope of his Repentance and the undeceiving of others and to warn this Age to take more heed of the common sin of HASTY RASH JUDGING of things which they have not throughly examined partially taking them on their Leaders trust By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonathan Robinson 1675. A PREMONITION REader there are two stumbling-blocks to be taken out of thy way which I had rather have had no occasion to mention The first is the Name and Authority of that very worthy and excellent man Doct. T. Barlow S. Th. Prof. in Oxford which Mr. D. over and over citeth as for his cause Of which till he think meet to speak for himself I only mind thee that 1. It is a secret Letter to Mr. T. which they cite 2. That it is unlikely that he that subscribeth the Articles and Liturgie of the Church of England is against Infant-baptism when the Art 27. saith The Baptism of Young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the Institution of Christ II. There is another worthy and eximious Doctor of the same University Doct. Th. Tullie who having thought meet in a Latine Treatise of Justification to endeavour at large in a zeal for Orthodoxness no doubt to confute my supposed errors in my Aphorisms about twenty two years ago revoked taking no notice of the many Treatises since written by me on that subject but only of a late Epistle to Mr. Allens Book he hath also thought good to warn young men to take heed that they do not rashly receive my Theology as bringing forth novel paradoxes because I hold some guilt in Children of their nearer Parents sins exclaiming O caecos ante Theologos quicunque unquam fuistis It seemeth that this Famous Learned man knew not that this was Augustins judgement and many another ancient and modern Writer's and that he is less for the Letany than I that subscribe or declare not full assent who heartily pray Remember not Lord our offences nor the offences of our fore-Fathers c. This having some respect to the subject of this Book I thought meet
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-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
eight Copies in England which omit twenty three of the Epistles which are commonly received and it 's most credible by other Copies are Genuine And yet none of these leave out the Epistle to Fidus about Infant-baptism § 57. And whereas he saith that Cyprian urged not Tradition I answer there was no cause For the question was not whether Infants should be baptized much less whether they were to be dedicated in Covenant to God and to be Church-members but only whether they should be baptized before the eighth day For Fidus thought that at one two or three days old they were so unclean as made them unmeet for baptism and that the eighth day was the time of their purification which Cyprian and the sixty six Bishops confuted and shewed that Gods mercy accepteth them from the beginning without respect to legal days And what use was here for a plea from Tradition for Infant-baptism which was not denied § 58. And it seems to me to be a great evidence that the Tradition of the Church was then for it in that this Council of Bishops before true Popery was born so unanimously determine of the day or time and not one of them no nor Fidus himself that raised the doubt did so much as raise any scruple or question about Infant-baptism it self at all which sure they would have done on such an occasion if any or many Christians or any Churches had denied it No wonder therefore if Augustin so long after say that no Christian taketh it to be in vain § 59. Yet again I will confess that the words of Tertullian and Nazianzen shew that it was long before all were agreed of the very time or of the necessity of baptizing Infants before any use of Reason in case they were like to live to maturity For I am perswaded that the Apostles and first Ministers were so taken up with the Converting of Infidels Jews and Gentiles that the case of Infant-baptism was so postponed and taken but as an Appendix to the baptism of the adult as that it was thought less needful to give it a particular express mention in the Records and History of the Church The Churches made no question of Infants Church-membership as being undoubtedly in the promise and devoted to God by all faithful parents And they took not baptism at first for their first Covenanting or Consent but for the solemnization of it and so not for Infants first real state of relation to Christ and right to life which was before it as it was to believers before baptism but for the solemn investiture in those rights And so Greg. Nazian Or. 40. giveth this brief definition of baptism that it is nothing else but a Covenant made with God for a new and purer kind of life And hereupon many who thought Infants Church-members visible and safe upon their Parents Covenant consent thought that the time of solemnization was so far left to prudence as that as the Israelites did Circumcision in the wilderness it might be delayed a few years by such Parents as desired it till children could somewhat answer for themselves § 60. Yet after my review of this controversie upon their urgencie I find no proof brought by any of these men that ever one Church in the world was without Infant-members that had Infants nor one person in the Church against Infant Church-membership and baptism from Christs days till the Waldenses about eleven hundred or a thousand years except that Tertullian who took them for Innocent and therefore Church-members did in some case advise the delay I say I find not one Christian or Heretick against it unless you will impute it to them that were against all baptism which Infidels also are And though I verily believe that the Waldenses were not against Infant-baptism nor is there full proof that any in their time were yet because I am loth to judge the Papists utterly impudent lyars I think it most probable that in the Waldenses days and Country there was a sort of odious Hereticks that denied Infant-baptism and the Resurrection and held community of Wives and other abominations reported all together by their opposers in those times CHAP. V. Mr. Danvers's great Calumnie of my self refuted § 1. MR. D. pag. 134. Ed. 1. saith thus Yet is not Mr. Baxter ashamed to fix such an abhominable slander upon the Baptists of this our age of baptizing naked which it seems was so long the real practice of the paedobaptists and about which he spends three whole pages to aggravate the heynousness of their custom which he is pleased to father on them And though I am perswaded he cannot but be convinced that the thing is most notoriously false and brought forth by him rather out of prejudice not to say malice rather than any proof or good testimony he ever received thereof yet have I never heard that he hath done himself his injured neighbours and the abused world that right as to own his great weakness and sinful shortness therein in any of the many Editions of that piece which I humbly conceive as well deserved a recantation as some other things he has judged worthy thereof § 2. Answ To live and die impenitently in so unprofitable a sin and unpleasing to any but diabolical natures as is the belying of others is a very dreadful kind of folly I would heartily wish that Mr. Danvers and I might meet and help to bring each other to repentance by a willing impartial examination of each of our guiltinesses herein § 3. I never look to speak to them thus more nor long to any man on earth and in this station and with these thoughts I must profess not thinking it lawful to belie my self that in the year 1647. or 1648. or both when Anabaptistry began suddenly to be obtruded with more successful fervency than before I lived near Mr. Tombes in a Country where some were and within the hearing of their practice in other parts of the land And that in that beginning the common frame of Ministers and people was that in divers places some baptized naked and some did not And that I never to my best remembrance heard man or woman contradict that report till this man did it in this writing And that no Anabaptist contradicted it to me that I then or since conversed with And that thereupon in 1659. I wrote against both sorts those that baptized naked and those that did not And after all this when Mr. Tombes answered my book and those very passages he never denied the truth of the thing though he did not so baptize himself unless he have any where else since said any thing of it which I never saw or heard of And I appeal to impartial reason whether he would not then at the time have denied it had it been deniable And whether this man now twenty five or six years after be fitter to be believed in a matter of fact than common consent at the present time And
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.
More PROOFS OF INFANTS Church-membership AND Consequently their Right to BAPTISM Or a SECOND DEFENCE of our Infant Rights and Mercies In Three Parts The First is The plain Proof of Gods Statute or Covenant for Infants Church-membership from the Creation and the Continuance of it till the Institution of Baptism with the Defence of that Proof against the Frivolous Exceptions of Mr. Tombes And a Confutation of Mr. Tombes his Arguments against Infants Church-membership The Second is A Confutation of the Strange Forgeries of Mr. H. Danvers against the Antiquity of Infant-baptism And of his many Calumnies against my Self and Writings With a Catalogue of fifty six New Commandments and Doctrines which He and the Sectaries who joyn with Him in those Calumnies seem to own The Third Part is Animadversions on Mr. Danvers's Reply to Mr. Willes Extorted by their unquiet Importunity from an earnest Desirer of the Love and Peace of all True Christians By Richard Baxter London Printed for N. Simmons at the Princes Arms and J. Robinson at the Golden-Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard 1675. The PREFACE Reader THe first year of my Ministry I fell into a doubt about Infant-Baptism and I was so ignorant as not to understand the nature of that solemn Covenant and Investiture and the Parents duty of entring the Child into the Covenant with God and what the Vow was which then was made when time and light had satisfied me I retained as charitable thoughts of the Anabaptists as of almost any that I differed from About 1646 1647 1648. they made more stir among us than before Mr. Tombes living near me we continued in peace not talking of our difference For I purposely avoided it in publick and private unless any asked my opinion At last his Converts came to me and told me that if I would not answer him in writing they must take it as an encouragement to them to be Baptized and confessed that he sent them or that they came by his consent To avoid long writings one dayes dispute was thought a shorter way That dispute with many additions I was necessitated to publish with some returns to some after arguings of Mr. T.'s He wrote what he thought meet on the other side I thought I had done with that work for ever But in 1655 he sent to me again and drew from me the Letters here recited These without my consent he published with an answer in the midst of a great Book I left his answer these nineteen years or thereabouts without any Reply as also the rest of his books against me I thought it not lawful for me to waste my precious time on things so little necessary A man may find words at length to say for almost any cause I partly know what can be said against this and every book that I have written And I know what I can Reply And I partly foreknow what they can say to that Reply and what I can further say in the defence of it and so talk on till we have wrangled away our Charity and our Time and must all this be printed to ensnare poor readers But at last Mr. Danvers hath laid a necessity upon me I had silently past over all his vain Reasonings and all his accusations of my writings and all his falsifications of Authors had he not called me so loud to repent of slandering some for being Baptized naked And when I found it my duty to speak to that I thought it fit to say somewhat of the rest passing by what Mr. Wills hath done more fully in an answer to his book There are two sorts of men called Anabaptists among us The one sort are sober Godly Christians who when they are rebaptized to satisfie their Consciences live among us in Christian Love and peace and I shall be ashamed if I Love not them as heartily and own them not as peaceably as any of them shall do either me or better men than I that differ from them The other sort hold it unlawful to hold Communion with such as are not of their mind and way and are schismatically troublesome and unquiet in labouring to increase their Party These are they that offend me and other lovers of peace And if God would perswade them but seriously to think of these obvious questions it might somewhat stop them Qu. 1. How inconsiderable a part of the universal Church they hold communion with And unchurch almost all the Churches on Earth Qu. 2. Whether they can possibly hope that ever the Church on Earth will Unite upon their terms of rejecting all their Infants from the visible Church and renouncing all our Infant Rights and Benefits conferred by the Baptismal Covenant of grace Qu. 3. And whether if they continue to the worlds end to separate from almost all the Churches and unchurch them their employment will not be still to serve the great enemy of Love and Concord against the Lord of Love and Peace and against the prosperity of faith and godliness and against the welfare of the Church and souls and to the scandal and hardening of the ungodly THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART THE Preface pag. 1 Mr. Tombes's first Letter p. 5 B.'s Answer to it Ibid. Mr. T.'s second Letter p. 8 B.'s Answer to it p. 9 Mr. T.'s third Letter p. 10 B.'s Answer is divided by Mr. T. into Sections His Answers are confuted Sect. 1 2 3 4. The many Questions to be handled Quest 1. Infants were once Church-members p. 13 Sect. 5. Quest 2. It was not only the Infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church-members p. 18 How far the Sichemites were of Israel and Church-members p. 21 Sect. 6 7 8 9 10. Of other Nations Ibid. Sect. 11. The Israelites Infants were members of the Church Vniversal p. 26. Sect. 12 to the 18. Infants were members of the Jews Church as well as Commonwealth p. 28. Sect. 18. Quest 4. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging Parents to enter their Children into Covenant with God by accepting his favour and engaging and devoting them to God and there was a promise of God offering them his mercy and accepting them when devoted as aforesaid c. p. 31 Sect. 19 c. Visible Church-membership what it is And that it is a benefit p. 32 Sect. 22. Legal-right to Infants Church-state given by Gods Covenant Mr. T.'s confuted and the case opened p. 35 Sect. 23 24. This Right is the effect of Gods Law or Covenant p. 44 46 Sect. 25 26. The proof of Parents obligation to enter their Children into Covenant what we mean by a Law Mr. T. maketh nothing of Church-membership p. 46 50 Sect. 27. Precepts oblige to duty and the promises give right to benefits p. 54 Sect. 28. No Transeunt fact without Gods statute or moral donation or covenant made the Israelites Infants Church-members proved to Sect. 44. p. 56 Sect. 44 45. Infants Church-membership instituted by God at mans creation and the constitution of Gods
to collect the Printers Errata though I see divers and therefore must leave the discerning of them to your selves And I again admonish and intreat you that the detection of the extraordinary falshoods and blind temerarious audacity of Mr. D. be not imputed to the whole Rebaptizing party to whose Practice Gregor Magn. paralleleth Reordaining and that his crimes abate not your Christian Love and tenderness to others there being truly Godly wise and peaceable persons worthy of our Communion and willing of it of that party as well as of others Hearken not to them that would render the Party of Anabaptists odious or intolerable no more than to those Anabaptists who would perswade those of their opinion to renounce Communion with all others as unbaptized It is against this dividing spirit on all sides that I Write and Preach PART I. My private Letters to Mr. Tombes proving the Church-membership of Infants in all ages vindicated from his unsatisfactory exceptions The PREFACE § 1. THE occasion and time of these Letters is long ago published by Mr. Tombes himself in the third Part of his Anti-Paedobaptism page 353. and forward where he printeth the said Letters without my consent Had I found his Answers satisfactory I had changed my judgement and retracted that and other such writings long ago But I thought so much otherwise of them that I judged it not necessary nor worth my diverting from better employment to write an answer to them § 2. And whatever the singular judgement of that learned and excellent Professor of Theology mentioned in his Preface was or is concerning the arguments that I and many before and since have used for Infant Baptism and notwithstanding his opinion that it was introduced in the second Century c. yet so many wiser and better men than I think otherwise both of the cause and of Mr. T 's writings that I hope the modest will allow me the honour of having very good company if I should prove mistaken § 3. No sober Christian will deny but that Godly men of both opinions may be saved And then I think no such Christian that is acquainted with the History of the Church can choose but think that there are now in Heaven many thousands if not hundred thousands that were not against Infant Baptism for one that was against it And while we differ de jure yet without great ignorance of the state of the world we must needs agree that de facto the number in the Church of Christ in all Nations and Ages that have been against Infant Baptism hath been so small as that they make up but a very little part of the Church triumphant which though I take for no proof of the truth of our opinion yet I judge it a great reason to make me and others very fearful of turning rashly and without cogent proof to the other side I know the Churches have still had their blemishes but that they should all universally so err in the subject of Baptism and Christianity it self is not to be believed till it be proved § 4. Though Christ be not the Author of any of our errors he is the healer of them and he is the Effector as well as the Director of his Churches faith and holiness And yet to say that though thousands or hundred thousands are in Heaven that were for Infant Baptism for one that was against it yet Christ was against even such a constitutive part of his Church as accounted is not to be received without good proof § 5. For my part I must still say that after all that I have read for the Anabaptists and much more than such Catalogues as Mr. Danvers I do not at present remember that I have read of any one Christian that held the baptizing of Infants unlawful in many and many hundred years after Christ at least not any that denied not Original sin Though indeed the Pelagians themselves that did deny it much yet denied not Infant Baptism § 6. But of this enough heretofore I lay not my faith on the number of Consenters but in a doubtful case I think the way that almost all went that are in Heaven and took it as the very entrance of the door of life is safer caeteris paribus than that which few in Heaven did own And though on earth I have more approvers than Mr. T. I think mans approbation so poor a comfort as that I am sorry to read in his Preface and elsewhere how much he layeth upon it Alas were it not more for the good of others than our selves how inconsiderable a matter were it whether men value and honour or despise us and what we are thought or said of by each other when we are all on the borders of eternity where the honour of this world is of no signification § 7. In the answer which I must give to Mr. Tombes should I transcribe all his words and answer every impertinent passage I should needlesly weary the Reader and my self I will therefore suppose the Reader to have his Book at hand and to take his words as he hath given him them that I may not be blamed as concealing any of them And I shall answer to nothing but what seemeth to me to need an answer And for all the rest I am content that the impartial Reader judge of them as he findeth them For I write not for such as need an answer to every word that is written how frivolous soever against plain truth Mr. Tombes his first Letter SIR NOt finding yet that Law or Ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership which you assert in your book of Baptism to be unrepealed I do request you to set down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where you conceive that Law or Ordinance is written and to transmit it to me by this bearer that your allegations may be considered by him who is April 3. 1655. Yours as is meet John Tombes Richard Baxters Answer Sir I mean to see more said against what I have already written before I will write any more about Infant Baptism without a more pressing call than I yet discern I have discharged my Conscience and shall leave you and yours to take your course And indeed I do not understand the sense of your Letter because you so joyn two questions in one that I know not which of the two it is that you would have me answer to Whether there were any Ordinances or Law of God that Infants should be Church-members is one question Whether this be repealed is another you joyn both into one For the first that Infants were Church-members as you have not yet denied that I know of so will I not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you are now about it And much less that you should have the least doubt whether it were by Gods Ordination There are two things considerable in the matter First the benefit of Church-membership with all the consequent priviledges It is the
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
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
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
Papists baptism administred and received be nullities and all Papists to be rebaptized and all Protestants that were baptized by Papists are questions which I will not be so vain as to dispute with one that talketh at this mans rate But yet we have not done with the high charges of his Preface He saith Oh! were not those twenty Queries so much against the self-evidencing authority of the Scriptures in his Admon p. 142. in favour of Tradition a heynous provocation to say no more of them Answ It seems they were so to you But really did you read that book and the other to Mr. Bagshaw and yet not fear to follow him and out-do him in notorious untruths after so full a conviction and warning as was given him Think on it and again cry out But alas whereto will not men run left to themselves I there professed and proved to your friend Mr. Bagshaw that I was for and wrote for the self-evidencing authority of the Scripture and it is untrue that those twenty Queries or any one of them is against it· But seeing you think otherwise if indeed you hold the contrary to the assertions implied in those twenty Queries I am not at the end of the Catalogue of your strange Doctrines If you and my revilers own them so will not sober men e. g. XLIII Every Christian must see the Copies of the Scripture written by the Prophets and Apostles own hands Or at least must understand the Transcripts in the Original tongues XLIV God hath promised unerring infallibility to all Scribes in the world that write out the Bible and all Printers that print it Or at least to some of them and we may be certain who those are XLV Though the several Copies have a multitude of differences it is certain none of them are erroneous or mistaken XLVI Those men and women that understand not Hebrew or Greek may be certain only by seeing a Hebrew and Greek Bible without a Translators help that every word in it is the word of God XLVII Either he that will be sure which Copy is without mis-writing must first see all the Copies in the world that differ or else if he never see but one or few he may be certain that it is right in the words in which it differeth from all the rest which he never saw XLVIII No corrupt or mis-written Copy of the Scripture can come to a true Believers hands Or if it do he can infallibly tell us the Errata XLIX A true Believer that never saw the Originals can by seeing a translation judge of all the diverse readings in the Originals L. The Translators are either all infallible in translating or else a true Believer is certain which of them is and which not and which translation among many faulty ones is faultless LI. He that never saw all Translations but perhaps but one can by that one tell that it is truer than all the differing ones which he never saw LII All this of Copies and Translations is known to Believers either by Prophetical Revelation from Heaven or by the self-evidencing demonstration of the Copy and Translation which he seeth LIII Every true Believer without being ever told it by man can tell by the self-evidencing demonstration of the words that the Canticles and the Books of Judges Ruth Chronicles Jonah are Canonical and that the wisdom of Solomon Baruck Pauls Epistle to the Laodiceans Clemens to the Corinthians c. are not Canonical LIV. Either God will give faith to no one that cannot read among all the illiterate Kingdoms of the world where the Gospel is to be preached or else all that cannot read may without ever reading a word be certain by self-evidence which readings in the differing Copies and which Translations are true or false and which books and verses and sentences are Canonical and which not LV. Either God hath promised that every illiâ—â—â—â—te Christian that cannot read shall hear 〈◊〉 one else read every word of the Bible to him in Originals and Translations or one that he may judge or else by the self-evidence that person that cannot read nor never heard half the Bible read can certainly tell what words are truly or falsly written or Translated without ever hearing them LVI When the greatests Learned Linguists differ about a Lection or Translation as the Septuagint c. such as Lud. Capellus Usher Buxtorf Bootius De Dieu L' Empereur Walton c. or when such as Luther Althamer c. differ about a Canonical Book as James it is because they see not that self-evidence which every Christian may see that cannot read nor was ever told it that one part if not more do herein err while their judgements are contrary None of these fifty six are Articles of my Faith nor Gods Commandments that I can find I say not that these ignorant Revilers hold all these but I say that He and They that will openly exclaim against the contrary assertions as heynous errors or tell about among the receivers of false reports that I hold dangerous errors for saying the contrary to these doth either perswade men that all these are his Opinions or else that he is an impudent Hypocrite in reviling known truth as heynous error or else a rash Calumniator that dare reproach or speak evil of that which he understandeth not nor will not so much as by reading my plain words be at the labour to understand Perhaps some better minded person will say It casteth poor Christians into perplexity to hear such doubts about the Scripture readings and translations were they not better concealed Answ They are not to be talkt of unseasonably to uncapable persons They are not to be told the ignorant instead of a Catechism But they are all publickly known to the learned world long ago and told the ignorant people by the Papists to ill ends And if any one will perswade you to hold the contrary and make you believe that all or any of these absurdities and falshoods are the true Protestant Religion or any part of it and that they that hold the contrary are Popish it is time to vindicate the Protestant Religion and all sober godly Protestants from the scorn of such imputed dotages But this is the unhappy fruit of overdoing There are some men among us so overwise and overrighteous in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures that they would perswade us that it is sufficient to expound it self without a teaching Expositor and to preach it self without a Preacher and by consequence from their generals to Write and Print it self without a Writer or Printer and to bring it self down from the Apostles to every man without the hand or tongue of man and to preserve it self from corruption without the care of man and to translate it self without a Translator And that all Printed Sermons or books of Divinity all Catechisms all Sermon notes for memory all forms of Prayer yea the dividing the Bible into Chapters and Verses
here to give you notice that if God will I hope in time to give the world yet fuller satisfaction on both these subjects Justification and secondary Original sin Though I thought my unanswered Disputations of Justification and other Treatises had fully done the first And the publishing of some old Papers of Original sin I think will fully do the other OBSERVATIONS ON Mr. Danvers REPLY TO Mr. WILLS CHAP. I. The frightful Aspect of his Reply § 1. MY Answer to Mr. Tombes and Mr. Danvers being written about the same time as my Epistle to Mr. Wills his book hath since then been detained in the Printers hand whose delay hath allowed me the sight of Mr. Danvers Reply to Mr. Wills and the opportunity of animadverting on it before mine is come abroad And upon my most impartial consideration it reneweth the grief of my heart to think of these evils which it sets before me § 2. 1. That the souls of poor Christians should be under the Temptations of such writings and teaching as here we find Where such untruths in matter of fact are still justified with such a face of confidence and divulged as for God and for the souls of men that most ignorant persons may be tempted to think that Modesty and Charity require them to believe that they are real truths it being a harsh unmanly thing to judge that such a person can possibly be so hardened as to stand so boldly to all these things which have such publick historical evidence if they were all downright falshoods And it is a hard task for a writer to be put to answer a Christian and a Gentleman as Mr. Danvers doth Mr. Wills Repl. pag. 120. Know that hence you have a further discovery of the great unfaithfulness and want of conscience in the Author for daring thus to abuse the world with a Cheat and that which he knoweth to be a meer forgery of his own And pag. 122. Let it be judged whether he hath not injuriously belied Osiander belied Cluniacensis belied Peter Bruis belied the truth which by this forgery he would cover and hide abused the world belied and abused me But much more fear his own conscience by this piece of folly and falshood To be thus at Thou liest and Thou liest is an unsavoury work Yea in so few lines to give the Lie five times at least But for an ignorant Reader to believe what this Author hath done till he needs must is yet far harder Though we say He that will swear will lie and therefore we hardly believe a swearer yet if a man with many hundred bloody oaths should assert many particulars of publick cognisance we are ready to think it inhumane to suspect that the man is so inhumane as thus to swear if some of them were not true Alas for the poor Church of Christ that must have such sore temptations How shall they be withstood § 3. 2. And how sad is it that a Christian man professing not only Truth and Godliness but so much of these as to be above Communion with such as we should ever degenerate into such a thing as his present writing doth discover O what need have we to lay to heart that of Paul Rom. 11. be not high-minded but fear and to learn over and over Jam. 3. and Christ's words to the Sons of Thunder ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of § 4. And alas that ever the bitter voluminous Reproaches of the zeal of the present age should have such a scandal or stumbling block laid in their way to harden them in the justification of their reproaches as if our Zeal were the Cause or Cover of such heinous sins Woe to the world because of offences and woe to them by whom they come § 5. 4. But what a tremendous warning is this against the spirit of unwarrantable separation or true Schism when the same person shall venture upon all that is here written by him who yet taketh our Infant Baptism for a meer Nullity and the Christian world that hath no other to be uncapable of the Church-Communion of such as he Me-think this is a Pillar of Salt I well remember that one of the means of keeping my ancient Flock in Concord was the terror of these horrid opinions and wayes which the two or three that deserted us fell into CHAP. II. His impenitent false allegation of witnesses against Infant Baptism Tertullian c. specially Wickliff § 1. I have before said that I have said so much out of Scripture and Antiquity for Infants Church-membership and Baptism to which I have yet seen no Answer that should satisfie an impartial man either from Mr. Tombes Mr. Danvers or any other that I will not lose time and labour in replying to their frivolous exceptions And here I meddle directly but with the matter of fact because by ostentation of history Mr. D. would seduce the ignorant into the belief of gross untruths I began with Tertullian who is his first witness in his Catalogue reprinted here in his reply § 2. And why have we no satisfactory answer to these things so oft replyed 1. That Tertullians words prove that Infant-Baptism was then in use And it is the matter of fact that we are searching after 2. And doth he think that Antichrist was before Tertullians time 3. The opinion of Tertullian seemeth not at all to be against the Lawfulness of Infant Baptism in general but against the eligibleness of it in case of no apparent danger of death For I have oft proved that the judgement of that age and some following was that none should be compelled to be Baptized or to Baptize their Infants but they should themselves be chusers of the time For the conceit of the absolute necessity of Baptism to salvation came in afterwards And when the seed of the faithful are Holy and in Gods Covenant or Promise upon the Parents Mental dedication of them to God and so in a state of salvation no wonder if they were not so hasty and peremptory for the sudden Investiture into the Christian Church state when they took it to be but the publick solemnization of a Covenant really made and valid before And as Nazianzene is for Infant-Baptism long after in case of danger but else for staying three or four years till they can speak so Tertullian seemeth to prefer delay for such conveniencies as he mentioneth 4. And if Mr. D. doubt of this let him tell me why he saith cunctatio utilior 5. And giveth the reason from the inconvenience to the Sponsors 6. And why he also perswadeth the unmarried and young Widdowes to delay their Baptism till they are married or grow corroborate to continencie lest temptation carry them to sin And maketh this case of the like reason with that of Infants Did he think that it was flatly unlawful for maids and young widdows to be Baptized or only less safe and eligible except in danger of death The case is plain 7.
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
second proof is this Cassandra in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleve saith that Guitmund Bishop of Averse doth affirm that he did deny baptism to Little Ones c. Answ 1. Cassander in neither of his Epistles to the Duke of Cleve mentioneth any such matter But in his Preface to his Book for Infant-baptism to the Duke of Cleve he saith that Guitmund saith Quod inter caeteros errores parvulorum baptismum everterit quem tamen errorem in publicum non produxit quod eam blasphemiam ut Guitm loquitur ne pessimorum quidem hominum aures toleraturas sciret in Scripturis sacris locum ejus erroris tuendi penitus non videret Mark here Reader 1. Berengarius is not said to deny Infant-baptism but to overturn it that is by some consequence it 's like 2. He did not publish this his opinion but held it unpublished And how then did Guitmund know it 3. Was Berengarius as honest or as stout a man as he is supposed and yet when Infants were daily baptized would never speak out his thoughts of the evil of it 4. Either he baptized Infants himself or not If he did was he against it then What a Knave do they make him that so say If not his opinion must needs be published by his practice when they whose ears could not tolerate it would less tolerate the refusing of their Childrens Christning 5. Was that an honest man that would secretly hold an opinion which he knew he had no Scripture for 6. Note that even Cassander there tells us that indeed the Waldenses though agreeing much with the Catharists did yet both approve and use Infant-baptism p. 671. and that this error slept till his age when Stork and Muntzer raised it § 14. 2. But what need we ask Cassander what Guitmund said What childish play is this His own book is as common as Cassanders in Bibl. Patr. To. 6. p. 215. And Guitmunds words are these Berengarius opened those things by which he might please worldly men that love always if they may do it unpunished to sin to wit destroying as much as in him lay Lawful Marriages and overturning Infants baptism So that in one the Devil by his mouth perswaded the worst men that it was lawful to abuse all women and in the other Cassato baptismate Infantiae in profundum omnium malorum utpote postmodum baptizandis impune ruere Lege Epist Leodiensis Episcopi contra Berengar ad Henr. Reg. Franc. eisdem pene verbis eadem ipsa ibi scripta reperies that is making void the baptism of Infancie they might rush unpunished into the depth of all evils as being afterward to be baptized Read the Epistle of the Bishop of Liege to H. R. of France against Berengarius and there you shall find these same things written almost in the same words And now Reader judge further 1. Whether this Papist who never knew the matter himself and whose book sheweth him a silly bitter fellow professing to transcribe or take his words from the Bishop of Liege who took it from fame be to he believed in his accusations of such a man when Lanfrank that disputed with him before the Pope nor the Pope himself nor any of the many Synods that examined him and constrained him to recant ever mention such a thing Were these Persecutors think you blind or merciful herein 2. If he be to be believed in this why not in the first article of the lawfulness of abusing all women commonly 3. Do not the very words quantum in se and everterit and cassato baptismate open the case that malice gathered this as a forced consequence only of some words of Berengarius It is like because he defined a Sacrament to their dislike which Lanfrank reproveth him for And so sottish a fellow was this Guitmund that his fellow Papists are put to disown him for saying that their Eucharistical Host cannot be corrupted or putrifie or be eaten by Mice or any Bruits but only seemeth so to be ib. p. 230. l. 2. § 15. His third proof is In the Bibl. Patr. Paris p. 432. it is recorded that Durandus writes the denying and as much as in them lay the destroying the baptism of Infants c. Answ 1. Did this man ever see the Books he citeth who citeth pag. 432. of the Bibl. Pat. as if were but one Tomb or Volume that long ago was eleven great Volumes and now many more It is like Marg. le Bignes Edit is that he meaneth The Epistle is Tom. 3. p. 319. of the Bigne Paris 1624. The Author saith Vsher de succes Eccl. p. 196. is falsly called Durandus and is Deoduinus or Dietwinus His words are Fama supremos Galliae fines praetergressa totam Germaniam pervasit jamque omnium nostrum replevit aures qualiter Bruno Andeg. Episc item Berengarius Turonensis astruant Corpus Domini non tam Corpus esse quam umbram figuram Corporis Domini Legitima conjugia destruant quantum in ipsis est baptismum parvulorum evertant This is it that Vsher cited 1. You see here is nothing but a Papist Prelates tale to a King upon far fetcht fame 2. Charging him equally yea more with destroying marriage 3. And saying but quantum in se of baptism 4. And part of the fame is that the King had called a Council to examine these things which Council never taking notice of any such matter confuteth the fame And doth Mr. D. the great enemy of Antichrist perswade poor Anabaptists to believe such fellows and tales as these § 16. In his Reply he addeth fourthly Thuanus witnesseth that Bruno Arch-Bishop of Triers did persecute Berengarius for denying Infants baptism as p. 242. Answ 1. Again he tells us of Thuanus and tells not where as if we must read over five volumes in folio to be able to disprove such a Tale-teller as this But he saith Vsher saith so de success Eccl. pag. 252. But all still is false my book there hath not such a word Vshers words are pag. 207. and them also he most horribly falsifieth They are but these Brunonem queque Trevirorum Arch. Dioecesi sua expulisse quosdam ex Berengarii Sectatoribus qui illius Doctrinam in Eburonibus Atuaticis aliis Belgii populi◠disseminabant narrat Thuanus That is Thuanus saith that Bruno Arch-Bishop of Trevers expelled out of his Diocess some of Berengarius's followers who sowed his doctrine c. so that here is no talk of persecuting Berengarius but some of his followers nor a word of Infant-baptism Was ever such a reporter as this man before taken for a credible person I confess I remember not that ever I read the like among Papists or any other Sect. In Thuanus the words are found in his Epistle to the King before all his works excellently disswading him from blood and persecution and there is not one syllable of Infant-baptism but only that which Vsher cited yet durst this man justifie
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.