quae dicimus esse in Catholica Baptismum illic tantum recte accipi Item alia duo dicimus esse apud Donatistas baptismum non autem recte accipi Harum sententiarum tres nostrae tantum sunt unam vero utrique dicimus That is Two things we say that there is Baptism in the Catholick Church and that there only it is rightly received Also two things more we say that there is Baptism with the Donatists but that with them it is not rightly received of these sentences three are only ours and one is common to us both Austin held it a sin to be baptized among Schismaticks to joyn with their Sect but not a nullity § 12. Hereupon he addresseth himself to evince the sinfulness of their Schism and unchristianing all the Churches And indeed he seems to think that though Baptism was among them yet hardly Salvation And his argument though I think we must abate for mens passions and temptations is worth the Separatists consideration that baptism that destroyeth remitteth he calls it not sin is not saving that which is without love remitteth not sin But Schismaticks saith he have not love For Nulli Schismata facerent si fraterno odio non excaecarentur Annon est in Schismate odium fraternum Quis hoc dixerit Cum origo pertinacia Schismatis nulla sit alia nisi odium fraternum That is None would make schisms if they were not blinded by the hatred of their brethren Is there not the hatred of brethren in Schism What man will say so Whenas both the Rise and the Pertinacie of Schism is no other than the hatred of brethren But blind zeal will not let men know their own hatred when yet they defame their brethren as no brethren and endeavour to have all others think them so bad as not to be communicated with and separate from them on that account § 13. The main subject of all the rest of these seven Books of Austin is to answer the Donatists claim of Cyprian and his Carthage Council as on their side and to answer all the sayings of him and the several Bishops of that Council The plain truth is this In the first age the Churches were so sober and charitable as not to account every erring brother and party Hereticks but such as subverted the Essentials of Religion And some of these corrupted the very form of Baptism The baptism of these the Church took for null and baptized such as they pretended to have baptized Cyprian and the other African Bishops knowing this and being much troubled with heretical Churches about them stretched this too far and rebaptized them that such Hereticks baptized as did not change the form of Baptism but incorporated men into their corrupt societies The Donatists took advantage by this example and all the Reasons of the Council to go so much further as to take the Catholicks for Hereticks or unlawful Churches and rebaptize those that they baptized Austin answereth all the Councils reasons but praiseth Cyprian as a holy Martyr and no Heretick though mistaken § 14. And it is not enough for me to say that all these Books of Austin have not a word of what he speaketh as controverting Infant-Baptism with the Donatists but moreover he bringeth the Donatists agreement with the Catholicks in the point of Infant-Baptism as a medium in his arguing against them Lib. 4. c. 23. shewing how much baptism availeth in that Christ himself would be baptized by a servant and Infants that cannot themselves believe are baptized Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli Infantes baptizantur qui nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam ore confiteri ad salutem quod latro potuit Quinetiam flendo vagiendo cum in eis mysterium celebratur ipsis mysticis vocibus obstrepunt tamen Nullus Christianus dixerit eos inaniter baptizari That is Which all the Church holdeth when little Infants are baptized who certainly cannot yet with the heart believe to righteousness and with the mouth confess to Salvation And yet no Christian will say that they are baptized in vain Thus he argueth against the Donatists If the whole Church hold Infant-Baptism and no Christian will say that it is in vain though they themselves believe not and confess not then you should not say all baptism is vain because we Catholicks administer it or because it is received in our Churches The whole tenor of Austins charitable language to the Donatists and the scope of this place sheweth that he here pleaded universal consent and by all the Church and no Christian includeth the Donatists And so he oft argueth against the Pelagians who though they denied original sin durst not differ from the whole Christian world by denying Infant-baptism but pretended that it was for the conveyance of Grace though not for remitting sin § 15. And Austin next addeth Et si quisquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat Quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur tamen veraciter conjicere possumus c. That is And if any one in this case of Infant-baptism ask for Divine authority Though that which the universal or whole Church doth hold and was not instituted by Councils but was ever held is most rightly believed to be delivered by the Apostles authority yet we may truly conjecture c. and so he passeth to the Scripture argument from Circumcision § 16. Here note 1. That this was no controversie with the Donatists 2. Nor with any other Sect but hold by all the Church 3. That he only saith as in a Parenthesis that that which all the whole Church holdeth and did ever hold not instituted by any Council is justly taken for an Apostolical tradition which I think few Protestants or sober Christians will deny Who can imagine that Timothy Titus Silas and all the whole Church in the Apostles daies and ever since should hold and agree in any thing as a part of Christian Doctrine or Worship which they had not from the Apostles Had the Apostles so little charity as not to endeavour to rectifie any of their errors 4. Note here that the Donatists never denied this that Infant-baptism was ever held by the whole Church to that day and not instituted by any Council And were not Austin the Donatists and the whole Church liker to know the universality and Antiquity of the thing than the Holland or English Anabaptists about fourteen hundred years after them 5. Note that he bringeth Scripture for it also § 17. Indeed I find some that before those times had been above Ordinances and against all baptism but none against Infant-baptism as unlawful Therefore Augustine saith elsewhere that it is easier to find Hereticks that deny all baptism than any that change the form of baptizing so sure hath the Tradition of universal practice
received the Scriptures the Christian Faith Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick Churches who had no such thing as the Baptizing of Infants among them Answ No such thing in the Asiaticks Churches He might as well say There is now no such thing in England But perhaps hee 'l say that he meaneth in the Apostles time or soon after Of which you have tryed part of his strength But when he hath studied well Bishop Vshers Primordia who saith all that is to be said for our Antiquity he will find no proof that we had our Religion from the Apostles or any in their time § 36. But ask the man whether Asia it self long before the dayes of Gregory had not Infant-Baptism And whether they received not the Scriptures and Religion as certainly from the Asiatick Churches and so from the Apostles as the Britains did And whether this will prove that at that time they were against Infant-Baptism If not why will it prove the same of the Britains § 37. His second Argument is Because they so fully prized and faithfully adhered to the Scripture c. Answ What will not partiality say 1. You must believe him that Scripture is against Infant-Baptism And then the controversie is at an end 2. You must believe him how closely they adhered to Scripture if you can when you have read Gildas who is translated into English their neighbour one of them the only certain historian that knew them who describeth them as I have said as most flagitious heinous wicked men Though I hope they amended after Gildas dayes yet that shewed you how they held to Apostolick discipline or Scripture The book is so very small it is but equal to intreat him to read it before he use this argument again 3. You must believe him that all that prize and adhere to Scripture are against Infant-Baptism Read and try whether there be not greater evidence that Cyprian Athanasius Nazianzene Chrysostome Augustine the Aegyptian Monks and other such strict persons in those ages at least the Novatians and Donatists in his own judgement prized the Scripture than the Britains And doth it follow in despite of their own professions and practises that all these and the rest such were against Infant-Baptism § 38. Were not this as good an argument Luther Calvin Zuinglius Bradford Hooper all the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes c. prized the Scriptures Ergo they were all against Infant-Baptism Yea even Independents and Presbyterians and all that prize and cleave to them now in England § 39. 3. He addeth Because they did so vehemently reject humane Traditions in the worship of God especially all Romish Rites and Ceremonies this as before undeniably appearing to come from Romes ordination and Imposition Answ 1. Vndeniably is a word that shameth you to every intelligent Reader that understandeth Church history Will you not confess your self that Cyprian and that Carthage Council Nazianzene Basil Augustine c. were for Infant-Baptism were all these Papists or Romans Can you prove any Roman Ordination of it before all these 2. How know you that they so vehemently rejected humane Traditions in the worship of God Did they not use the Asiatick Ceremonies Did they not precisely observe Easter and place Religion in keeping it on their own dayes Had they not Bishops and were they not Monks And do you gather by Gildas that they were such as you dream And did they not Plead Tradition for their difference from Rome 3. And were not the Scots then of their mind and as much against Traditions as they and more against vice and formality in and after Colmans and Columbanus dayes And are not the Independents more against Traditions now than the Britains were And are they therefore Anabaptists § 40. He addeth 4. Because Constantine the Great the son of Constance and the famous Helena both eminent Christians in the yeâ—r 305. was not Baptized till he was aged as before A clear proof that the Christians in Britain in those dayes did not Baptize their children Answ Some will laugh at these things but I had rather mourn for the poor peoples snares 1. It 's false that Constance was a Christian at least when Constantine was young No regardable history maketh him any better than a moderate favourer of the Christians 2. It is not proveable that Helena was one in Constantines Infancy 3. There is no probability that he was born in England as many Learned men have proved 4. It is certain he was educated and lived in other Lands 5. He was no Christian in his youth himself nor professed it till after he was Emperor The sign of a Cross appearing in the skies and his victory thereupon is said to be the means 6. He lived long at Rome and Constantinople and elsewhere before he was Baptized And was that a certain proof that none of those Countreys were for Infant-Baptism no nor for Baptism at Conversion neither because Constantine was not Baptized 7. He kept in with the Philosophers having one at his Table familiar with him to hold all parties to him 8. And many in those times thought that all sin being pardoned at Baptism they must live much strictlier after they were Baptized and were in much more danger by their sin and therefore would not be Baptized till old as Constantine when he was like to die And now where is this mans clear proof that the Britains were Anabaptists § 41. 5. Saith he Because of the Correspondency and unity that were between the French Christians after called the Waldenses and them viz. Germanus and Lupus Answ What abundance of untruths will one mans head hold 1. He would make the ignorant believe that the French Churches that sent over Germanus and Lupus were such as after were called Waldenses When yet before he citeth Perin saying that the Waldenses were the off-spring of the Novatians banished from Rome Beda Hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 17 18 19 20 21. tells us briefly that the Britains being infected with Pelagianism by Agricola the son of Severianus a Pelagian Bishop sent to France for help as being unable themselves to dispute the case The Bishops of France in a great Synod agreed to send Germanus Bishop of Altissiodore and Lupus Bishop of Trecasse brother to Vincentius Lerinensis Prosper in his Chronicle tells us that Germanus was sent by Pope Celestine by the instigation of Palladius a Deacon Vsher reciteth and rejecteth not Baronius his conciliation that it was done by the Pope and French Bishops Germanus and Lupus come over and work miracles by the way and here Germanus carried a box with him of the Reliques of all the Apostles and many Martyrs Beda c. 18. This he layeth to the eyes of a blind maid and cured her suddedly which confounded the Pelagians These Reliques he buryed in St. Albanes Sepulchre And instead of them took with him some of the dust where St. Albanes blood had been shed which remained red till then And after
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
life which Christ undertook is lawful such words which he spoke such deeds which he did are lawful because he did them being not proper to the Mediator But will it thence follow from the negative that no calling no thoughts no words no deeds are lawful which Christ used not A single man that hath no Wife or Children may be proved capable of Church-membership because Christ that was such was the chief Church-member that is the head But will it follow that a married man therefore may be none Christs example will prove that a child of God may seem forsaken may be crucified as a Malefactor but not that no other are Gods children Mr. T. I deny not that Christ in infancy was head of the Church nor that he was the Prophet of the Church in Infancy understanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by designation nor that he in some respect to wit of Rule and protection was the head of the visible Church even of that part which is not elect yet I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body in the Scripture acceptions which is by his spirit he is the head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect Reply 1. And will not the Reader be satisfied with these concessions Mark Reader that he granteth that Christ an Infant was the Churches head and thus far as he mentioneth of the Church visible and that he was the Prophet of the Church because he was so habitually and by designation Why even so it is that we say an Infant may be a Member a Disciple a Christian habitually and by designation though I would use a fitter word here than habitually If this much be a reason for the denomination in one why not in the other Yield Sir or be not angry with Mr. Gataker 2. And then what brought in your denial of spiritual membership to the non-elect Would you have made your Reader believe that it was any thing to the question And when will you prove that neither 1 Cor. 12. nor any other Scripture calleth those members that have but such common gifts of the spirit as tongues miracles prophecie c. rejected Matth. 7.23 And that Christ never talkt in John 15. of branches in him not bearing fruit and some cut off from him and withered I am sure it was a whole Church visible that had carnal contentious wranglers against the Apostles in it and men that were drunk at the Lords supper c. of whom Paul saith 1 Cor. 12.15 18 20 22 23 26 27. that they were the Body of Christ and members in particular and common gifts are mentioned as their Character Mr. T. That the humane birth and infant state is sanctified by Christs is not true for then it would be holy to all Reply I deny your consequence There are several causes concur to the same sanctification Christs Birth and Infancy are but a remote preparatory cause of powerful sanctification which is ever to individual persons as all things are pure to the pure and when they are capable subjects by natural existence and Parents consent then from all the causes together results the holiness of that state As Christs death and merits sanctifie us but not immediately nor alone But Divines use to take this word sanctifying in an initial preparatory sense as it signifieth the making of such a thing or state fit for holy use As Temples and Utensils are said to be sanctified when designed to be used holily before the use But must they therefore be so used by all No but by the Priests and Worshippers So they use to say that Death and the Grave are sanctified by Christ How Not to all or any of the ungodly But the curse is taken off and they are hallowed for the holy advantage of the faithful So is it as to his Birth and Infancy Mr. T. Nor do I conceive any truth but gross falshood in that speech Had God excluded the Infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the Head first an Infant For this doth suppose this the only end or chief end and more in Gods eye than the saving of sinners Reply I prove that gross falshood to be true thus That state or age which God visibly included and actually made the chief visible Church-member in he did not exclude from the visible Church But the Infant state God visibly included and actually made the chief visible Church-member in Therefore the Infant state God did not exclude from the visible Church The reason of the Major is because to include and exclude are contraries The Minor he confesseth If he say that it may be included and excluded in several persons I answer I here spoke but of the State or Age of Infancy as such to prove that qua talis an Infant is not excluded For if qua talis then it will hold ad omnes universally and then Christ had been excluded And therefore the Age is not excluded as such if included in one For it must be a total exclusion And therefore if he will prove our Infants excluded it must not be qua tales as Infants but for some other reason when he câ—n find it and so the Age or state is not excluded 2. But what man else could have gathered that then this must be the only or chief end and more in Gods eye than the saving of a sinner Is there any more included in the assertion than barely that God would not have made an Infant the chief member if he would have excluded Infants as Infants Who câ—uld hence have found out that God hath various degrees of intention And we must dispute which is chiefly in his eye and that this was only or chiefly in his eye more than saving sinners Let them dispute what is chiefly in Gods eye that can better distinguish of those volitions which are all but his simple essence but let them do it on better reasons than these Mr. T. I deny that Christ as man in infancy was the Prophet of his Church visibly and in actu exercito Let Mr. â— when he will assault there will appear in his contradiction vileness and manifold falshoods Reply That one little and was cunningly put in to bring you off by taking visibility and exercise conjunctly But are your followers so critical as to discern the knack 1. Neither do we say that Infants are learners in actu exercito and so what is this to the matter 2. But Reader I can prove to thee if thou be impartial though not to Mr. T. that it is neither vile nor false that Christ in Infancy was the Prophet of his Church visibly though not in actu exercito That which was declared by Angels from Heaven and by revelation to Mary Zacchary Anna Symeon and by Prophecie by them to others is to be called visible But that Christ was the Head and Prophet of the Church habitually and by designation as Mr. T.
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
subjects of Baptism Will he make the Church of his mind by such palpable falshoods as these But he adds He saith that persons are first to be Baptized with that he calls the insensible Baptism before water c. Answ 1. Utterly false It is his own forgery Wickliff saith no such thing that it must be first Nay I doubt he saith quite contrary as I have recited Ideo duo baptismi priores sunt signa Antecedentia ex suppositione necessaria ad istum tertium baptismum flaminis See here how far this man is to be believed 2. But though Wickliff called Water-Baptism an antecedent sign yet most Protestant Writers I think hold that believers Infants have by virtue of Gods Covenant the Baptism of the Spirit that is a seed or disposition to future gracious acts if they live and that they are in a state of salvation before they are Baptized being the children of the faithful by them dedicated to God by heart-consent and that Baptism is but the publick solemnization of the same Covenant and delivery of the blessings by way of investiture Let Mr. D. read but all the testimonies cited by Mr. Gataker in his book of Baptism against Dr. Ward and Bishop Davenant and he will see this is no opinion proper to the Anabaptists And I scarce believe that he can prove me and all Protestants that hold that opinion to be therefore against Infant-Baptism How then would it have proved Wickliff so 4. He saith that Wickliff saith that Baptism doth not confer but only signifie grace given Answ 1. And what 's that to prove that he was against Infant-Baptism 2. And how proveth he this Why Fuller out of Cochleus saith so Answ 1. But Cochleus is one of the most notable Lyars of all the Papists that opposed Luther and hath left his Calumnies to posterity And must he be believed against Wickliff 2. And Fuller wrote but about twenty years ago And must one of our neighbours tell us what Cochleus saith was the opinion of Wickliff when we can read his words our selves 3. But to make this like its fellows even this much is untrue Fuller tells us no such thing out of Cochleus but tells us that Gregory charged Wickliff with eighteen Errors Tho. Arundel with twenty three the Council of Constance with 45. Tho. Waldensis with 80. Dr. Lucke with 266. and Cochleus with 303. and then he reciteth 62. out of Waldensis where the words are 4. And Waldensis is known to be a false accuser of him in many particulars though a learned Papist 5. And even this Waldensis that saith his worst and sought to make the most of his errors never here accuseth him as denying Infant-Baptism And would he not have done it had it been true But Mr. D. that by this trick which he is so ready at can make Heresies and Hereticks also too easily tells us of a popish Heresie viz. for Baptism to take away all sin to confer grace to work regeneration and save the soul as still held by them that teach young children to say that by their Baptism they were made children of God members of Christ and Inheritors that is heirs of the Kingdom of heaven Answ 1. By this it seems the English Protestants and all the rest that take this to be true doctrine hold a Popish Heresie 2. Let the Reader peruse Gataker against Davenant of Baptism and he will find almost all the ancient Fathers Latine and Greek of the same judgement And what a pleasure is this to the Papists to be told that almost all the ancient Writers held their heresie And then indeed Where was our Church and the Kingdom of Christ before Luther or rather before those whom he opposed 3. It is unquestionable true doctrine that as Marriage-consent in private layeth the first ground of Marriage rights which by solemn Matrimony are openly and regularly delivered by investiture which perfecteth the title even so the Heart-Consent or Covenanting of the person or parents for Infants doth lay the first ground of Christian right which is solemnized and perfected regularly by Baptism which by the way of tradition or publick investiture doth take away all guilt of sin Sacramentally regenerate and save and make us children of God members of Christ and his Church and heirs of heaven who were so before by a Private initial right of which the Church did take less cognisance And one would think that no Anabaptist should deny this called Heresie as to the adult 5. He next addeth from Wickliff They are fools and presumptuous which affirm such Infants not to be saved which die without Baptism so Fuller words it out of Cochleus Answ 1. False still It is not out of Cochleus but Waldensis 2. And what 's this to the question of Infant-Baptism He adds And Wickliffs own words as c. 2. de Trialog Quod desinentes parvulos fidelium sine baptismo c. Answ Still false 1 I have before transcribed the words out of the Printed book which are far otherwise 2. It is not desinentes but qui quicquam definiunt 3. It is not of all children dying without Baptism but of those that could not have it being prevented by death when it was desired 4. He saith this of those that determine that they are saved also 5. And instead of c. 2. this is lib. 4. c. 12. 6. He saith That all truth is contained in the holy Scripture and that which is not originally there is to be accounted prophane And that we are to admit of no science or conclusion that is not proved by Scripture testimony and that whoever holds the contrary opinion cannot be a Christian but flatly the Devils Champion with more such cited partly out of Cochleus by Fuller false again and partly de Verit. Script a book of Wickliffs which I have not and I conjecture he never saw For 1. I told you before the very words of Wickliff that condemn only such abuses of outward signs as shew him to be of a contrary opinion 2. Will any sober man believe that he damned all as no Christians but Champions of the Devil that thought that some Conclusions Physical Mathematical Metaphysical Medicinal Logical c. may be true that are not proved by Scripture testimony and so that almost all Christians in the world are no Christians 7. Saith he That he slighted the Authority of General Councils as Fuller out of Cochleus c. Answ 1. False again as to the Author 2. But what is that to Infant-baptism But his direct proof is out of Waldensis saying that Wickliff saith that children are not sacramentally to be baptized Answ 1. I have not Waldensis at hand but have little cause to believe Mr. D. 2. And Fuller who undertaketh to recite Waldensis charge hath not a word of any such sense 3. If bitter Papists so accuse him is it therefore true Judge by his own words Indeed Wickliff held that sacramental baptism saveth none young or old without the baptism
it a Monster and proving it contrary to it self and professing that he ought not to believe it But yet lest it should be true he goeth on to prove the truth of the Scriptures as he doth Infants salvation and Baptism § 9. Now I leave it to the Reader among many uncertainties which of these he will believe most probable 1. That all the parties were slandered 2. Or that Peter and Henry were slandered by occasion of the mixed Manichees or by the vulgar lying levity or Popish malice 3. Or whether Peter and Henry were guilty as some now though the rest were not 4. Or whether they and the Albigenses and Waldenses really denyed all Infants salvation and Baptism their very pretended words being cited 5. Or whether they were slandered as to Infant-salvation and not as to their Baptism 6. Or whether all this rose not from their denying the salvation of the children of all the wicked as ex opere operato by the Baptism of the Priest and their refusing to bring their own children to be Baptized by such Priests and their telling the wicked at age that their Infant-Baptism would not save them Believe which of these you find most cause § 10. III. As for Bernard 1. Though a holy man yet his conceit that Papal unity was necessary and that the Dissenters caused confusion transported him with such prejudice against them as we have now against the vilest Sects 2. He was acquainted with Cluniacensis and might believe him 3. He took things on trust as he did 4. He chargeth even the secret hereticks that he writes against as holding it unlawful to swear and yet lawful to forswear rather than reveal their case Serm. 65. 5. And that in secret they are reported to commit filthy wickedness not to be named 6. That he heareth that some of them reject Pauls writings and the Old Testament 7. That they lived scandalously with Women and he talketh as if it were impossible for men and women to dwell together and yet to be chast 8. Yet sheweth that he most uncharitably suspected them saying Si fidem interroges nihil Christianius si conversationem nihil irreprehensibilius quae loquitur factis probat Videas hominem in testimonium suae fidei frequentare Ecclesiam honorare presbyteros offerre munus suum confessionem facere sacramentis communicare and did they deny Infant-Baptism then Quid fidelius Jam quod ad vitam moresque spectat neminem concutit neminem circumvenit neminem supergreditur pallent ora jejuniis panem non comedit otiosus operatur manibus quibus vitam sustentat Vbi jam Vulpos And what 's the proof against them Vinearum demolitio testatur vulpem Mulieres relictis viris viri dismissis uxoribus ad istos se conferunt clerici sacerdotes populis Ecclesiisque relictis intonsi barbati apud eos inde textores textrices plerumque inventi sunt Annon gravis demolitio ista Annon opera vulpium haec And the way he appoints for their purgation is to put women out of their houses 9. Serm. 66. he chargeth them for being against Marriage yea that they took filthiness to be only in having Wives 10. And with forbidding to Marry they joyned abstaining from meats and so holding devilish doctrine But that some allowed Marriage only to Virgins but not second Marriages That they abhorred Milk and all that was made of it and all that was procreated by generation and that de insania Manichaei That they held themselves only to be the Church and derided them that Baptized Infants yet he himself writes largely Ep. ad Hug. de Sancto Victore for the salvation of persons that have faith and die unbaptized through necessity alledging Ambrose Austin Cyprian And concludeth Infants saved by others faith as they were guilty by others sin 11. In Epist ad Hildefonsum he saith of Henry by name that he was an Apostate that made a trade of preaching to live by in necessity and what money he could get of simple people and women more than found him food he spent in playing at dice or other more filthy uses that after his daies applause by the people he was found at night with whores that he thus left every where such a stink behind him that he could come but once to a place naming many Cities Now let the Reader judge if Bernard be to be believed what a man this was If not what his testimony is worth AS I am writing this the Hawkers are crying under my window Mr. Baxters Arguments for Believers c. The men that cite Authors at this rate cite me against my self with the like confidence Because I have proved in my Treat of Confirmation the necessity of personal Profession in the Adult And he that will think that such dealing as this doth need an answer and that if the Adult must make an intelligent profession Infants must not be Baptized let him be ignorant for I have not time to satisfie him FINIS Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated by Scripture and Antiquity in Answer to Mr. Henry Danvers with a full detection of his Misrepresentation of Divers Councils and Authors both Ancient and Modern c. By O. Wills Sold by Jo. Robinson at the Golden Lyon in St. Paul's Church-yard * Satan will not consent that you should soberly read the Books * Including the Donatists * It seems by some citations out of it after that he hath read it and yet speaks thus * Which the Heathens used to Children * Not so much as Mr. Tombes is among the Anabaptists for writing for Parish Communion * p. 372. ed 2. Read Rom. 14. and judge * That is of death * viz. If he will * That is determine an uncertainty