Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
B21030
|
A rejoynder to Mr. Wills, his Vindiciæ wherein the antiquity for believers and novelty of infant baptism is further confirmed : as also his groundless appeal distinctly answer'd, and the forgeries and mistakes boasted of, still found to be his own : with an appeal to his conscience about the same / by H. Danvers.
|
Danvers, Henry, d. 1687.
|
1675
(1675)
|
Wing D227
|
48,348
|
89
|
of Scripture p. 95. And that out of Dr. Field That the grounds of it were taken out of Scripture p. 155 1. Ed. were also omitted from his own grounds aforesaid Because I there quoted both of them under the Head of Tradition they both with so much positiveness asserting Infants Baptism so to be yet you 'l find that when I speak to that Head of Consequences from Scripture I quote them boâ—h as Reply p. 74. Lastly Dr. Owens And lastly As to that of Dr. Owen p. 175. which with Estius Ainsworth and Ames I brought to prove the Seed of Abraham Gen. 17.7 respected the Spiritual Seed only viz. the Elect who were to partake of the Spiritual Promises and not the Carnal Seed as Paedo-baptists generally take it which the Dâ— doth so fully and at large evince And therefore that Clause he excepts against was by his own Rule well enough left out that speaks to another thing Though I confess had I suppos'd that the omitting it would have been any injury to the Dr. or just offence to any man or any wrong to truth I should have mentioned it and which I may well do without any prejudice to the cause I maintain For if I had been to prove that Circumcision thaâ— External Administration of the Covenant which the Jews had belonged to their Carnal Seed I should have mentioned that but in as much as the other was the matter in hand I know not that it was so hainous to omit it Mr. Wills in his own Case being Judge It is our belief that as the Dr. says the external Administration of the Covenant viz. Ciâ—cumcision did belong to Abraham and his Carnal Seed the Jews under the legal Administration yet it follows not therefore that Baptism belongs to his Carnal Seed under the Gospel Dispensation And therefore the omitting that Phrase which is not at all disputed betwixt us could not be from any injurious design And therefore I conceive I deserve not the severe rebuke he is pleased to give me for the same viz. That I am therein guilty of much dishonesty ☜ and that it is such an unworthy carriage that be never observed the like in any man Though truly if I should have put it in I know not what advantage Mr. Wills could make of it at another time except he concludes that the same â—ederal right to the Carnal Seed is continued under the Gospel as it was under the Law and gives the same right to claim the same priviledges now as that did to the Jews before If so surely John Baptist did greatly mistake himself when he forbad them Baptism upon that consideration bids them not to say within themselves that they were the Children of Abraham for that must not now serve their turns it being only Fruits meet for Repentance that that must qualifie them for the Baptism of Repentance and Gospel-Ordinances and Privileâ—ges and not their old Carnal Priviledge to be Abrahams fleshâ—y Seed in which they mainly boasted whereon â—hey bolsteâ—ed themselves And sutable heâ—eto doth Dr. Owen himself very excellently tell us in his 6. Exercit on the Heb. p. 56 Tom. 1. viz. That the misapprehension hereof was the main thing that confirmed the Jews in their obstinacy and unbelief that being only a peculiar Priviledge to that fleshly Seed for the bringing forth of the Messiah into the World and that when he was come that Priviledge fell and all Ordinances suited thereto expired and new Ordinances of Worship more suitable to the Gospel were appointed c. That whole Exercitation being written with so much Judgement and Spirituality I would earnestly recommend it to Mr. Wills and Mr. Whistons Considerations and all other of their minds who would upon like misapprehesions have Gospel-Ordinances and Priviledges still entailed upon the fleshly Seed upon that old federal right which was only Typical as well observed to us and done away having done its business when Christ came into the world that greater Priviledges and better Ordinances suited to the Gospel dispensation might take place Jesus Christ as the Dr. so well tells us in his Cat. p. 106. Requiring Regeneration as an indispensible condition in a Member of his Church a Subject of his Kingdom For his Temple is now to be built of Living Stones 1 Pet. 2.5 viz. Men spiritually and savingly quickned from their Death in sin by the Holy Ghost whereof they are partakers made a meet Habitation for God Eph. 2.21 22. 1 Cor. 3.16 2 Cor. 6.16 pag. 103. God hath appointed Saints to be the seat and subject of all his Ordinances having granted the right of them to them alone 1 Tim. 3.15 But this by the By which may not be unseasonable upon this occasion Thus I have dispatch'd the first Head not doubting but I have given ample satisfaction therein II. His Second Complaint against me is for adding to Authors Adding to Authors without the Distinction of a different Character whereof he gives seven Instances Answered 1. Generally This is a Charge that I think may concern most Writers and 't is confess'd that many times it falls out that through the inadvertency of Writers or carelessness of Printers that Quotations out of Authors are not alwayes written in a different Character whereby the Reader is at a loss many times whether he reads his Author or another Man that he refers to And which is the fault as Mr. Wills knows of the Magdeburgs of the Bazil Impression and the fault of Mr. Wills his present Book which I could abundantly eviâ—ence if I would be Critical and troubâ—e the Reader with such Impertinencies And wherein any such omission has been in any of my Writings I can truly say they have not been wilful but my trouble to find and of which I shall be more careful for the future and so will I hope my Corrector But to be more particular to your 7 Instances viz. Those Two added to the Magdeburgs are truly their own 2. Particularly though not so immediately following in that Page That other of Chrysostom was purely my own and should have been distinguished That which he calls my adding to Jerom positively saying they are none of his words though I tell you that he saith it is is Mr. Wills his grofs mistake for he will find they are his own words in his Annot. upon Mat. 28. Tom. 9. Edit Paris Anno 1546. viz. Non enim potest fieri ut corpus Baptismi recipiat Sacramentum nisi ante anima fidei susceperit veritatem i. e. For it cannot be that the Body should receive that Sacrament of Baptism till the Soul hath before received the verity of Faith That to Lydia is not an adding to the Scripture but my own sense of the words concluding that only Believers in her Houshold were Baptized of which I speak at large in my Reply p. 184. That to Beza's is easily understood not to be his by any ordinary Reader And that to Ames
their principles and practise evinceth Secondly for Misrendring that passage out of Calvins Institutes before accounted for in the appeal to be the objection of fools when Calvin owns the same to be his Judgement Thirdly for Misrendring a passage out of Austins 3. B. de Anima fathring that upon Vincentius Victor that is not there said of him â—ourthly for translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify only an Infant without understanding p. 11. Inf. Bapt. when the contrary is true as appears 2 Tim. 3 4. Thou hast known the holy Scriptures a Child there is the same word Lastly whether your solemn Appeal to the Searcher of hearts 7. Hypocrisy that you have no malignity to my Person having ground to hope I am a Godly Man and in your Preface to Vind. that you love me as a Brother though erring and had much rather convince then shame me can be well reconciled to sincerity and not rather speaking lyes in hypocrisy when it is considered First how you have declined all fair Brotherly waies of receiving satisfaction choosing rather in this publick manner to reproach and slander me upon hear-say 2. Jeer and Scoff at me 3. to Raile upon and Revile me in that unchristian manner you have done speaking so much evil of me falsly 4. proclaiming me with your Associates in the Gazette and in the Catalogues where you know I cannot follow you for my vindication 5. And at last so groundlesly disorderly not to say maliciously to Appeal to the Baptistâ— against me as a person that has added contumacy to my mistakes and evils All which is recommended to your Conscience in the sight of God and all that are conscienciously concerned with you leaving it to your choice which of your promises you will keep whether that in the conclusion of your first Pref. Vind. To answer me by silence because you will not gape against an Oven Or that in the end of your last Preface viz. That if I can make it appear that you have wronged me herein as you can truly say you did it not willingly So you faithfully promise to make me publick satisfaction by acknowledging your mistakes FINIS ERRATA PAg. 8. l. ult r. enjoyned p. 10. l. 28. r. Rhenanus p. 14. l. 32. r. obloquy p. 18. l. 13. dele rhe and the Comma at Doctor l. 23. r. to speak l. 26. r. words p. 19. l. 28. r. by them p 21 l 15 dele that p. 35. l. 27 r. ought so to do p. 38 l. 1. r. codice p. 41. l. 16 19. r. Aquinas p 51 l 19 r philautia p. 52. l. 8 r malevolent l 17 r. Munster and p 55 l 21 r that they l 32 r for p. 65. l. 23. dele of p 67 l 19 r every l 25 r venemous p 70 l 12 r Osiander p. 73. l. 8. for do now r. do not you l. 27. r. Eunomium p 74 l 8 r Nazianzen equalizing l 9 and 18 r Aquinas I desire the Reader where I mention to Mr. Will 's in p 2 Pref. and p. 51 53 the mistakes I own not to understand it exclusive of those few slight and immaterial ones not mentioned there as that of the Canon of Constant which I my self found to be spurious that of Chrysostom's not being in a different Character my translating the passage of Nazianzen metaphrastically putting Zonaras for the Magdeburgs that of Mr. Baxters work for be no such cause A POSTSCRIPT by H. D. FOR the Readers better and more full satisfaction after the great cry against me for Forgery and prevarication by my Antagonists I have here given you together this brief account of all the mistakes of moment that I have met with from any hand And which the Reader is desired to correct in the Treatise as he meets with them which are as followeth viz. 1. Of my own or Friends discovery p. 55 56. for Eastern r. Western p. 139. for Erasmus r. Beza p. 124. dele what is produced from Lanafrank about Beringarius and p. 68. and 115. and Index dele the Canon of the Council of Constant as spurious 2. Of Mr. Baxters finding out p. 223. for 3 4 book against the Donatists r. 4 book p. 286. 294. for Cochleus r. Walden 3. Of Mr. Wills's p. 75. for Aquinas r. Albertus p. 116. dele Deodans and for Hincmarus r. Sericius p. 117. r. Magdeburgs for Zonaras p. 155. for work no such cause r. be no such cause p. 287. dele Pelagius and Vincentius Victor These being all the errors of any weight I have yet met with from any The judicious Reader will be more able to discern 1. Whether here be any Forgery or Prevarication or any wilful abuse or misleading the Reader as with so much virulence suggested or any other over-sight or mistakes then such as usually attend other writings and therefore whether all the clamour and out-cry of my Antagonists discovers not more of malice then matter and is the result rather of prejudice and passion then a zeal for the candid investigation of truth To lead from the main question to things not to the purpose and make a heavy stir about them is the right Method of Cavillers and which my Opposites take with me in this controversie 2. Whether since the Exceptions appear to be so insignificant and immaterial to the great point contended about and no weightyer objections made good after so severe a scrutiny and troubling the World with the dust and pudder made about them the Question in debate be not fully given up viz. That it is now clearly manifest that there is no Primitive Antiquity for Infants Baptism nor no Record to make it appear that it was practiced as Christs Ordinance for the first 300 years The truth whereof having not only been evinced by unanswered Arguments and Demonstration but from their own Pens being constrained at last to acknowledge That except in case of danger of Death there is no Record in the History of the Church for the necessity thereof in those first times Therefore the Reader is desired to take notice what ground we get herein and how far this consideration tends to justifie our practice viz. 1. That the Baptizing of Believers after profession of Faith is not only evidenced by express precept and example from the Scripture the true and only way whereby Christs Ordinances are establisht to Protestants but by the universal consent of all Ages our very Enemies being Judges 2. That the Baptizing of Infants is neither to be made good by any express precept or practice from Scripture nor as an Apostolical Tradition for these first and purest times as our Adversaries also acknowledge though they would insinuate as if they could consequentially deduce it whereas no natural nor un-forc'd consequence can be inferr'd in its favour from Scripture or primitive Antiquity but absurd and illogical non-sequiturs proving nothing so much as the weakness of the cause they endeavour to support So that it necessarily and undeniably follows That