whose condition he bewails which was the generality of the body of the Jews or 2. Some conceive by children of the flesh he meaneth not in this place children by natural generation but such as trusted in outward fleshly priviledges and by children of the promise put in opposition to them is meant true Believers which are indeed the true Seed in whom the word takes effect and who were figured forth by Isaac Si sensum mysticum spectes non ii qni ex lege justitiam quaerunt sed fideles sed quod promissionis filius intelligantur is quos diximus secundum literam ingelligi apparet ex vers 9. This is a truth saith Beza but not apposite to this place for Paul doth not here distinguish Ahrahams children from others by their Faith as in the fourth of Romans Quia vero promissionis filios interpretantur eos qui fidei amplectuntur promissionem dicunt quidem quod res est sed non satis appositè loquuntur Neque enim Paulus boc loco filios Abrahami a caeteris distinguit ex fidei nota ut supsa c. 4. sed de primariâ cansa◠id est de ipsius fidei fonte gratuitae videlicet electionis aeterno proposito disserit Beza in Locum but disputes of the primary cause even of Faith it self which is the eternal purpose of God according to his Election of Grace verse 11. So that the Apostles express Doctrine is that Election and Salvation is not from works but free Grace But the Opposerss of Infant Baptism have always perverted the scope of Paul in this place as if he intended it of outward Church priviledges not to be had by being born of believing Parents which the Text has nothing to do with as every unpartial and judicious Reader will apprehend Nay this very place proves the quite contrary for the Apostle makes two sorts to be within the visible Church viz. Some are of Israel that is in mans cyc these partake of the outward priviledges v. 4.5 Others are Israel that is the true spiritual Seed that belongs to Gods Election and obtain the saving Promise So Gal. 3.8 The Gospel was preached to Abraham and the Covenant made with him is the same for substance with that we live under and as persons were under it then so is it now it is not streighter now and larger then but the same And the like appears verse 14. and 17. the Identity of the Covenant is there manifest which is a truth destructive to the Opinion of Antipaedobaptists and therefore they so strike at it Having thus examined the Expositions which according to his Imagination the Scripture it self puts upon the Seed spoken of Gen. 17.7 and discovered his great mistake I could do it too very fully as to most of the Authors following which he saith do give in their concurrent sence with his upon the Text. The first named is Calvin upon Gen. 17.7 who saith that it is manifest that the promise understood of spiritual Blessing pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham but to the Spiritual as the Apostle himself saith Rom. 4.9 c. In this I find the Author guilty of shameful Oscitancie and it is intollerable for any man thus to impose his mistakes upon the Reader The words are not Calvins but Estius his Answer to Calvin who again and again in his Comment upon Gen. 17.7 asserts the promise to be made to Abrahams natural and fleshly Seed and to all of them for thus he saith Nunc videndum est quem populum designet Falluntur autem qui putant solos hic electos notari They are deceived who think it to be meant only of the Elect Again clara est Pauli Doctrina de naturalibus Abrahoe filiis quod sint Sancti rami quia ex sancta radice prodierint Rom. 11.16 the Doctrine of Paul shews clearly 't is understood of the natural children of Abraham for if the root be holy so are the branches Then afterward Quare nihil certius est quà m Deum foedus suum pacisci cum filiis Abrahae qui naturaliter ex eo gignendi erant Wherefore nothing is more certain than that God made his Covenant with the children which were naturally to be begotten of him And then answers the Objections that may be made against it from Rom. 9.8 Neque repugnat quod dicit Paulus The cause of this mistake in our Author is meer carelesness for he never examined Calvin but finds in Mr. Tombes his Examen pag. 50. This passage quoted by him viz. Estius annot ad Gen. 17.7 Colligit hìnc Calvinus eo ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad eum pertinere promisstonem Abrahae factam that is hence Calvin gathers that the promise belonged to the children of Abraham as they were his natural or carnal Seed To which Estius replies thus Responsio manifesta promissionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam non ad carnale semen Abrahami pertinere sed ad spirituale quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretatus est Rom. 4.9 Which is according to the Authors Translation It is manifest that the promise underdood of spiritual blessings pertaineth not to the carnal Seed c. here I might pass some observations upon this mistake of the Author 1. That he is very careless in quoting Authors and taking one for another and that the testimony he cites for himself is against him 2. That he and his party and the Jesuites and Papists agree very well in the interpretation of those Scriptures that relate to the Covenant The Author lies open to the lash also in what he quotes out of Amesius de praedest For Amesius speaks but just half of what he sets down in one and the same character and the promise that he disputes of there against the Remonstrants is that in the ninth of Romans 8. So that it is not ad idem for we are speaking of that Gen. 17.7 God said indeed he would not establish his Covenant with Ishmael but with Isaac Gen. 17.27 but by Covenant there is not meant the Covenant we stand in to God in regard of our persons for our own personal benefit but the Covenant of special Prerogative to Isaac that Christ should come of and the Church remain in his posterity Next folows the dismal Consequences which as he saith the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is attended with But they are only imaginary not real ones Quicquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis as the man thinketh so the Bell c. But let us hear what they are 1. If God made his Covenant with the Posterity of Believers as this Doctrine asserts then saith he all the Posterity of Believers should certainly have grace bestowed upon them Reply No such matter for we have proved they may be said to be in Covenant in regard of external prividledges only and not partake of the spiritual grace or saving benefits of the Covenant Which saith he Mr. Blake doth confidently
last being joyned together in History as the two first great Preachers of the Albigenses and Waldenses the first was a Priest the last a Monk hated and persecuted very much by the Romish-Church These being driven out of several places where they stoutly opposed the Popish errors were at last received at Tholouse in Provence and they that followed their Doctrine were called Petro-Brusians and Henricians Now to prove these to be against Infant-Baptism the Author in conformity to his old friend Mr. Tombes betakes himself to the Ecclesiastical Historians that have written of the State of the Church in the several Centuries since Christ for from them must we fetch our light touching matters of Fact in the Countries where they lived or from such who have made it their peculiar work to write the History of the Waldenses as Perin c. The Protestant Century-writers are either the Magdeburgensian Divines or Lucas Osiander I shall give a brief account of what they say of the Waldenses concerning the point under debate and so leave the Reader to judge on which side the truth lyeth whether on ours or our Opposites and shall premise this caution that the Reader do not mistake and take that to be the judgment of those Writers concerning Peter Bruis and Henricus which they transcribe out of the Popish Records Councils Edicts c. And what they relate of them they have it from two Popish Abbots viz. Bernard and Cluniacensis 1. Concerning Bernard the Magdeburgenses tell us Cent. 12. c. 5. that he in his 66th Sermon in Cantica flyes out against these men accusing them to be Hereticks he chargeth them 1. To be Manicheans 2. To deny the Lawfulness of Oaths 3. That 't is unlawful to Baptize Children 4. That it is unlawful to eat any thing quod ex coitu generatur and accordingly saith Bernard they denyed the lawfulness of eating Flesh and Milk These were then a terrible sort of Fellows if we may believe that old Superstitious though otherwise devout and some think Pious Abbot who is commonly known by the name of St. Bernard And certainly if these Petro-brusians were guilty in these things they were even Monsters in nature What to deny our little ones both Milk and Water too O Cruelty But as these good men cleared themselves from these false imputations and calumnies so also do the Magdeburgenses in their History speak highly of them and that which is sufficient for their Vindication The other cited by the Author is Lucas Osiander Cent. 12 262. And I doubt some prejudice to his cause Osiander may arise from citing him Whatsoever Osiander saith concerning Peter Bruis and Henricus of their being against Infant-Baptism he taketh it out of the Works of Peter Cluniacensis another Popish Abbot and he doth Calumniari fortiter lay very many abominable errors to their charge and among others he accuseth them of this Venial one of denying Infant-Baptism Now if any credit may be given to this Abbot it must be per totum throughout in all or else in nothing And verily if his Testimony be valid as Mr. Tombes would have it accounted and the Author from him our opposites need not glory in such Waldenses that they comported with their opinion nor we be troubled at their dissenting from us Let us now look into the wicked and false Testimony or Account this lying Abbot gives of those two precious Ministers Peter Bruis and Henricus as Osiander takes it out of his own Writings Exorta est progressu temporis vires acquisivit haeresis Albigensium Ea Romae primo caepisse putant postea verò in comitatu Tolosato etiam intra viros Illustres longe lateque sparsa dicitur quin etiam in Angliam penetrasse scribitur Dogmata haec illis attribuuntur inquit Osiander 1. Baptismum abjiciunt 2. Corporum resurrectionem negant 3. Carnem comedi prohibent 4. Christum non esse Deum nec assumpsisse de Virgine sed de Caelo carnem duxisse 5. Ecclesiam non posse aliquid possidere nisi in communi c. There arose and in progress of time gathered strength the heresy of the Albigenses that is said to take its rise at Rome then dispersed far and wide over the Country of Tholouse that amongst men of quality moreover they say that it got into England They are charged to hold these Opinions saith Osiander They cast of Baptism meaning that of Infants They deny the resurrection They forbid eating Flesh as Bernard before They say Christ is not God neither took he flesh of the Virgin but brought it down from Heaven That the Church should possess all things in common By this time I suppose we may conclude that these Waldenses were vile persons or Cluniacensis a lying Abbot and this latter we do not in the least question Furthermore as if the Author had never enough of him he tells us that the Magdeburgenses set down the Assertions of Peter Bruis against Infant-Baptism Transubstantiation Tombe's Examen pag. 25. Worshipping of Images Purgatory which are distinctly and at large answered by Peter Cluniacensis But you must know he had never any personal conference or dispute with him But that I may not remain in the Author's debt for what he quotes out of the Magdeburgenses I shall requite him with what I find in Osiander who tells us that the said Cluniacensis doth profess twice in his Writings that he would not accuse the Waldenses upon uncertain report but from their own Writings nay farther he chargeth them that they denied the Divine Authority of the Old-Testament and all the New except the Gospels Evangelium creditis Epistolas Fauli cur non Suscipitis Respondetis quia non adeo certa nobis autoritas est earum i. e. You believe the Gospel why not also the Epistles of Paul your answer is because the Divine Authority of them doth not so certainly appear to us And upon that account saith Osiander Cluniacensis spends two whole Chapters to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures against them I shall conclude this with Mr. Marshal's words to Mr. Tombes upon his quoting Cluniacensis to the same end as my Antagonist doth He saith that Reverend Minister that reads that railing Book of Petrus Cluniacensis will find that he acknowledgeth most of what he layes to their charge to be upon the report of others Now me thinks the Author should blush at his indiscretion for introducing such a Popish Calumniator for an evidence in this matter and if he believe this Abbot slandred Peter Bruis and his followers in these things I hope he will excuse the Reader if he believe he did noless when he chargeth them to be against Infant-Baptism that Children who dyed before they could actually believe were damned which is another Article Cluniacensis brings in against them one as true as the other I see by this that when men are engaged in a cause and wedded to an opinion they will not
6.6 and alledgeth 't was God's Ordinance that the people of Israel should swear by his Name Deut. 16.53 And lastly for Infant-Baptism the matter in dispute Perin gives this account pag. 15. which I desire the Reader to observe it because we have so ancient a declaration of their faith in this particular That they being constrained for some hundred years to suffer their Children to be Baptized by the Priests of the Church of Rome they deferred the doing thereof as long as they could having in detestation those Humane inventions which were added to the Sacrament which they held to be but pollution thereof And forasmuch as their Pastors were many times abroad imployed in the service of the Churches they could not have Baptism Administred to their Infants by their own Ministers For this cause they kept them long from Baptism which the Priests perceiving charged them thereupon with this imposture viz. That they were against Infant-Baptism Which saith Perin not only their Adversaries have believed that is the Papists and from hence came all that Bedrole of Decrees Councils Decretal Epistles and Edicts against them but also others saith he who have well approved of their Life and Faith in all other points amongst the number of which we must reckon Mr. Tombes and the Author of this late Treatise of Baptism now under examination This ample account given by such an excellent impartial Historian so many years since before the World was so troubled with disputes about Baptism and from one of their own Country-men a man unconcerned as to interest or dissenting parties in this controversy and being so faithful in his relations of the Faith and sufferings of the Waldenses that he was never that I could hear of questioned or suspected will undoubtedly be credited by all ingenious Persons and is sufficient to dismount thousands of those Canons Edicts c. the Author brings Besides this that I may if possible undeceive the Antipaedobaptists who are hardly brought to believe any thing that is against them I will add two other Testimonies from whence we may conclude the Body of the Waldenses were not against Infant-Baptism one of them is Luther the other Bullinger both of which have written smartly against Anabaptists and would never have given such a large Encomium of the Waldenses had they apprehended them to be touched with the error of denying Baptism to the Children of Believers Luther professeth that he hated the Waldenses whilst a Monk as desperate men until he knew their piety and truth of their Belief by their own Confessions and Writings whereby be perceived that those good men were much wronged and that the Pope had condemned them for Hereticks being rather worthy of the praise that is due to the Martyrs And Bullinger that wrote a Book against the Anabaptists saith in his Preface to his Sermons upon the Revelations That above 400 years since the Waldenses have made Profession of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout France Italy Germany Poland Bohemiah and other Kingdoms 4. If this be not enough to cleer the Waldenses from what the Author would have us believe from the Testimony of their Enemies the Papists we are willing to give him full measure pressed down and running over and that is by the Testimony which they give of themselves in their Publick General Confessions of Faith We have before shewn the Author could find nothing in any of their Confessions against Infant-Baptism let us now see whether we can find any thing for it First they purge themselves from the imputation of denying Infant-Baptism Hist Wald. Lib. 1. c. 4. p. 15. So Lib. 1. c. 6. p. 43. and shew the reason why for some hundred years they forbore it as before he that writes the History professedly sets down in his 3d part of it the Doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses and particularly what their Faith was touching Baptism in these words of their own viz. And whereas Baptism is Administred in a full Congregation And for this cause it is that we present our Children in Baptism which they ought to do to whom the Children are nearest as Parents c. In the year of our Lord 1535 an Assembly of the Waldenses from all their Valleys met at Angrongne Perin Hist Wald. L. 2. Cap. 4. pag. 57. and there was signified what they understood of their Brethren of Provence and Daughine namely that they had sent into Germany their Pastors George Morell and Peter Mason to confer with Oecolampadius Bucer and Capito touching the belief which they had time out of mind Mark hereby the way how unworthily the Author Prevaricates and endeavours to blind the Reader pag. 329. of his Book as if all the Waldenses were declining or Apostatizing towards the Antichristian Abomination of being present at Mass if some of them of Provence were faulty yet this Assembly at Angrongne stood fast in the Truth where saith Perin when they had read certain Letters of encouragement sent from Oecolampadius both to those of Provence Dhugtony and to themselves Afterward concluded on certain Propositions and Articles of Faith which were read and approved signed and sworn to by all the Heads of the Families and their Pastors with one mind and consent to Conserve Observe Believe and retain amongst them inviolably without any contradiction as being conformable to the Doctrine which hath been taught them mark it from the Father to the Son for these many hundred years out of the Word of God If therefore among any of these Articles we can find Infant-Baptism owned what becomes then of all the Crack that the Author makes as if they had been of his judgment The Articles there agreed on were in number 17 too long to be inserted the last is about Baptism and thus it is to a Syllable Article 17. Touching the matter of the Sacrament it hath been coneluded by the H. Scriptures that we have but two Sacramental signs the which Christ Jesus hath left unto as the one is Baptism the other the Eucharist which we receive to shew what our perseverance in the faith is as we have promised when we were Baptized being little Infants This is the Confession of the Faith of the Assembly at Angrongne where a letter was read from Oecolampadius to those of Provence who it seems out of fear were sometimes present at Mass with the Papists or at least some of them who did in heart doubtless abhor it but how doth this prove they were not heartily for Infant-Baptism And because the Letter is so Excellent a Disswasive from any Complyance with Superstitious and Idolatrous Worship I shall here insert it Oecolampadius his Letter to the Waldenses of Provence 1530. WE understand that the fear of Persecution hath made you to Dissemble in your Faith and that you bide it Now we believe with the heart to Righteousness and confess with the mouth to Salvation But they that fear to Confess Christ before the World shall not be received
applanded by the Author who was Contemporary with Munzer is one Balthazar Huebmer a Dr. in Waldshnot a great Preacher of this way in Bohemia and Moravia who was taken Prisoner with his Wife by the Emperour's command who was himself burned at Vienna and his Wife drowned for Hereticks in the year 1528. This is Mr. Tombes again Mr. Tombes Examen pag. 23. But because we have such an ample Character of this man I have been the more curious in enquiring what account we or him in History and before I shall enter upon that I shall tell thee Reader that the Author minds me with what I lately met with in a Book intituled plus ultra being an Examination of Dr. Heylins Discourse of the Reformation of the Church of England the Examiner observes that when the said Dr. speaks of Harding the Jesuit a base Apostate and grand enemy of the Gospel it is with terms of honour and reverence as Dr. Iohn Harding one of the Divines of Lovain and the most learned of the Colledge pag. 128. but when he speaks of those Glorious Lights of the Reformation 't is barely Luther Zwinglius Calvin in like manner we have here one Balthazar Huebmer a Dr. in Waldshnot a great Preacher of this way in Bohemia c. when in a leaf or two before we have no venerable Title given to those famous Divines of the Reformation but 't is plain Luther Zwinglius Calvin I have met with this Huebmer in several Authors without the Title of Dr. which made me think he was a Dr. of H. D. his Creation until I found it in Mr. Tombes to be otherwise in his Examen pag. 23. who sayes that Zwinglius gives him that stile in his Epistle before his answer to his Book about Baptism be it so and if he were regularly admitted to that degree I think he was the first and last Dr. that ever was of the Anabaptist judgment Concerning this man Mr. Tombes relates out of one of Zwinglius his Epistles that Huebmer came to Zurich and there made a Recantation but it appears he was afterwards taken by the Emperour and burnt at Vienna for what cause I know not saith Mr. Tombes Then farther he relates more of what he finds in Zwinglius his Epistle to Gynoraeus viz. We approve dexterity and moderation in a man but in that man I wish I were deceived saith Zwinglius I never perceived any thing in him but an immoderate thirst after profit and glory Mr. Tombes concludes modestly and sayes only this I leave him to his judge to whom he stands or falls This Huebmer is called by Melchior Adam Princeps Catabaptistarum the chiefest of the Anabaptists and the head of them that disputed with Zwinglius at Zurich Alpha eorum fuit Balthazar Hubmerus Apostatà iterum iterumque factus qui Zwinglii beneficio liberatus tantis convictis vtrum bene de se meritum onerare nebulo non dubitavit ut apologiâ satisfacere fratribus habuerit necesse Melch. Adam pag. 30. and he tells us he was an Apostate several times who being freed out of Prison by Zwinglius his endeavours was so ungrateful as to load him afterward with such reproaches that Zwinglius was fain to write an Apology for himself to satisty the Brethren That Learned and Godly man Bullinger says of him that whilst he was pastor at Waldshnot the whole Cit became proselytes to his opinion and that they banished out the Citizens that were men of good conscience and sincere and drove them from their possessions by which means the Gospel which did there excellently flourish was utterly rooted out Spanhemius hath this of him That Bul-Diol Huldricus Zwinglius that valiant Champion of the Truth confuted that Turbulent fellow who by his words and writings had troubled the consciences of many and yet at Zurich recanted his Error and did forswear the Tennents of the Ambaptists Spanhem c. â—â— But he was burnt at Vienna for an Heretick saith the Author whereas his Tutor Mr. Tombes saith be knows not what he was burnt for and this might have been his lot if he had been for Infant-Baptism they do not use to distinguish of men that go under the notion of Protestants all are in their account Hereticks and deserve burning that are not of the Church of Rome Sad instances you shall have by and by and unless I mistake we do not find in our Martyrologies very many of the Author's judgment to have suffered death purely for their opinion of Antipaedobaptism and in truth I have not faith to believe ever any one did as for those which suffered in Henry the 8th his time we shall find it was for some other causes and usually as the rest of Protestants for denying the Real presence in the Eucharist and the Popes headship After this he tells us out of Comenius the distresses that befel the Anabaptists upon the defeat of Frederick by the Emperour's forces at Prague how that the Enemy began the year after the victory with the Anabaptists in Moravia and banished a great company of them c. To which I have this to say that they dealt kindly with them in comparison of their dealings with the Godly Ministers that were for Infant-Baptism for as soon as ever Fredrick Elector Palatine the Defender of their Faith and Persons was defeated the faithful Ministers of Christ as in the Marian dayes were the proto-Martyrs It was the precious blood of those men that was first spilt and the Antichristian cruelty shewed it self most barbarously against them Divers of them were shot to death excruciated and tortured with new-invented Torments covering some with hot burning coals twisting about the fore-head of others knotty Cords and with a stick straining their heads till their eyes were ready to start out cruelly burning one with his Wife broiling another to death with a fire made under him cutting another in small pieces hanging another by the privy members being 70 years old with his Books fired under him and at last shot through the body and slain another being above 70 years old was brought into the market place laid upon the fire and burnt to death Thus the poor Ministers in every place suffered all banished out of Prague twenty one out of Cuttenburgh many Citizen's accompanying them one of which preached on that Text They shall cast you out of the Synagogue all the multitude present bewailing their loss with great lamentations Thus did they deal with them at Boslavia Radecium Zaticum and in other places and some were stifled and poysoned with the stink of Prisons Comenius Clarks Martyrology pag. 183 184. see all this in Comenius his History of those persecutions which is Translated and in Clark's Martyrology taken thence As for that which follows That the Anabaptists which were banished out of Moravia into the neigbouring Countries of Hungaria and Transilvania were of the Waldensian stock he hath nothing for it but a Conjecture And whereas he adds that these