Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_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
|
a subject either capable of receiving or conveying Grace to the Soul But he saith I abuse Mr. Baxters words who saith That Baptism can be no such cause whereby I do as he saith attribute Non-sence and Absurdity to him and that there is neither Innocency nor Truth in so affixing it If to work no such cause be such an error it is a venial one and I can say not wilful but certainly this Man would make notable work with me if he had matter to work upon But what just cause of Complaint or Appeal in all this I profess seriously I see not Misplacing Quotations VI. The 6th is for picking out of Authors here and there and joyning them together as if they were one intire Sentence whereof he gives four Instances To the 3 first viz. Mr. Baxter Dr. Owen Answered and Dr. Taylor I say I have put down nothing but their own and what is congruous one thing answering properly and naturally with another which if it did not we should I presume have heard of And for what relates to himself which is the 4th I have done him no wrong the Pages mentioned by me viz. p. 36 38 101 131 132. I have particularly examined and desire the Reader so to do and let him judge betwixt us whether he doth not in those Pages compared again and again say That as there is no Scripture expresly commanding so neither is there any Scripture excluding Infants from Baptism nor any Scripture that saith there was no Infant Baptized each Page I would have put down but that I would not burden the Reader which you find exprest by me in my Reply p. 63. and the several Pages particularly exprest I refer to And what good cause is given to complain of me in this I see as little as the former VII The 7th is for asserting notorious untruths Notorious untruths giving Instances of Eight The first for affirming 1. Answered That Antiquity it self so much boasted of is altogether for Believers and not for Infants Baptism 1. About Antiquity for Infant Baptism an Assertion as he saith so notoriously false that I have confuted my self in owning the ancients asserted it This is already answered again and again I hope to satisfaction viz. That primitive Antiquity is only for Believers and not for Infants Baptism and the Ancients in latter not former Centuries onely for Infants Baptism 2. About Christning a Dead Child The Second for saying That a Child that dyed unbaptized was taken up and Christned putting in the Margent a dead Child Christned the Boy was not taken up and Baptized Dead but after he came to life again he was Baptized In the first place I conceive there is no untruth in my rendring the words Is puerum sine Baptismo mortuum resuscitarit ex mortuis tandem Baptizarit That a Child that dyed unbaptized was taken up and Christned being not exclusive of the sence Mr. Wills would have it bear But 't is the Margent that saith a dead Child Christned he mainly quarrels at which indeed is wholly mine and therefore my sence or explanation of my own words is to be received which admits of a Two fold or double Interpretation viz. either that Child that was Dead now Christned and so not to be blamed in Mr. Wills own sence Or if I should intend the Child then dead when Christned I know no reason but I may have my liberty of Conjecture as well as Mr. Wills And the rather because though resuscitare be generally understood to raise to life yet the phrase here may without any such palpable absurdity be understood a taking up from among the Dead or out of the Grave especially because such an Interpretation so exactly agrees with their then usual practise to Baptize the Dead that dyed unbaptized which certainly is more likely and far more agreeable to truth then that such a Miracle was wrought of raising to life Besides why may not the Dead be sometimes used for the Grave as the Grave is often Metonymically used for the Dead and Death as I could instance with great variety had it been necessary So that this latter should I persist in it is so far from being blameable that it is indeed very probable and therefore Reader take it which way you will no such notorious untruth as he talks of can hence be justly chargeable upon me The third notoâ—ious untruth he saith I assert is from the Magdeburgs Cent 13. p 419. viz. That the Magd do say 3 About Gulielmus blasphemy that as to the form of Baptism Gulielmus added to the Father Son and Holy Spirit the Virgin Mary viz. I baptize thee in the Name of the Omnipotent Father Son and Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary which saith he is another notorious untruth for the Magdeburgs say nothing of the Virgin Mary but which of us speak truth let the Reader judge The words of the Magdeburgs are these in the Cent and p above-said viz Male Gulielmus ad Formam Baptismi addidit Mariam 〈…〉 Baptizo te in Nomine Patris Omnipotentis Filii Spiritus Sancti Beatae Mariae Virginis De Bapt ejus part c. 2. Magd. Cent 13. c 419. i e. Gulielmus wickedly added Mary to the form of Baptism I Baptize thee in the Name of the Omnipotent Father Son and Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary in his 2. ch of Bapt. and its parts Therefore if this be not daring temerity I know not what is To the 4th that the Donatists were against Infant-Baptism 4 About the Donatists which he saith is as true as that a Dead Child was Baptized and that Pope Innocent was the first Inventor of Baptism and Antiquity altogether for Believers and not for Infants Baptism What ground I had to affirm the Donatists were against Infants Baptism I have given at large enough at least if not to make it good yet to free me from a Forger Whether the Child taken up was living or dead when Baptized what I writ being capable of being iâ—terpreted either way is left to better judgment that I any where have said that Pope Innocent was the first Invetor of Infants Baptism is I presume Mr. Wills his Invention not to be maâ—e good from my writings I do indeed say p. 111. And this was that Innocent who was the first great Patron and Imposer of this Invenâ—ion viz. In his Canon in the Milevitan Council and so saiâ—h Dr. Taylor Grotius Strabo p. 107. as well as my self that Infants Baptism was never determined nor enâ—oyned nor imposed till thâ—n And whether Antiquiâ—y viz. of the first Centuries was not for Be ievers and not for Infants Baptism Let Mr. Baxter himself wi h what hath been said deâ—ermine 5 About Lanfrank The 5th about Lanfranks Testimony one of my witnesses to prove Berengarius denyed Infants Baptism is I fully acknowledg my mistake which a Person of quality a worthy Friend
A REJOYNDER to Mr. WILLS his Vindiciae 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 That the words of Tertulian and Nazianzen shew it was long before all were agreed of the time or Necessity of Baptizing Infants before the use of Reason in case they were like to live to Maturity It was thought less needful to give it viz. Infants Baptism a particular express mention in the Records and History of the Church viz. In those times Mr. Baxter in his More Proofs p. 279. By H. Danvers Matth. 5.11 And shall say all manner of evil against you falsly for my names sake Job 16.10 They have gaped upon me with their mouths and have smote me upon the cheek reproachfully Psal 119.42 I shall have wherewithal to answer him that reproacheth me for I trust in thy word Printed for Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle near the Royal-Exchange 1675. The PREFACE BEfore I had finished with Mr. Baxter I was first assaulted by a new adversary one Mr. Whitston and again by my old Antagonist Mr. Wills not suffering me scarce to take breath and three to one you know is odds But hearing that Mr. H. a meer stranger to me had undertaken Mr. Whitston I have obtained so much leasure to consider what our 3d. Triumvir hath further to say to me And whom I find upon a serious perusal instead of giving that due satisfaction my sober Reply and all good men might expect from him for his manifold detected errors in Antiquity abuse of Authors scurrility and indignity to my person a meer stranger to him injurious reproaches to the whole party of Baptists as well in this as other Nations not only loading the professors thereof with his slanders but the profession it self as leading to Blasphemy and Immorality is pleased notwithstanding to come forth in this wrathful self-justifying and revengeful Spirit abounding still in his repeated and renewed errors and reproaches as though an impenitent standing by error was the best way to defend truth and to recriminate others the fairest way to clear himself justifying that Malefactor who fell foul upon his Prosecutor Judge Jury and Witnesses as the best way to save himself And with the Chaced Fox raiseth a Dust to make his escape Dealing just with me as the Heathens did with the Christians of old putting them into Bears Skins and then set the Dogs upon them or as the Papists have done with worthy Mr. Fox for detecting their errors and cruelties have decry'd him as such a Forger that none ought to converse with him But Mr. Wills will find himself under a disappointment truth is not so to be baffled nor innocency foil'd he will yet meet with a Vindication of both in his farther just detection and reproof These few Pages therefore do first truly discover to you notwithstanding the great noise and clamour of mistakes that the question discoursed betwixt us is certainly lost and given up by him and that the Antiquity so much boasted of is wholly for Believers not Infants Baptism With a serious and particular Answer to his groundless frivolous Appeal discovering withall that he is truly guilty of those crimes and many more that he would so injuriously father upon me though what he discovers to have been my errors I fully own which are few and very inconsiderable mistaking 2 or 3 names one for anâ—ther viz. Aquinas for Albertus Sericius for Hincmarus not hitting a Popes Name and not taking Walden to so good advantage as I ought for myself that of Lanfrank mentioned before and wâ—ich are all of any weight that I know of none of them hurting us in the least and and are so frivolous that an ingenious man would scorn to have mentioned much less to have made such a dust about But in the mean time I must acknowledge it is very sad the World should be troubled with such stuff as though such accusations recriminations and discovery of nakedness was for their edification which I can truly say is very grieving to me and were not the truth of God likely to suffer by my silence I should rather have born his reproaches and slanders than have made any return to him And therefore what I have done on my part to prevent such mischiefs and inconveniencies I think will be necessary to give you some particular account of having before only given you a hint thereof viz. how much I have endeavoured with Mr. Wills to rectifie mistakes and mis-understandings in a more Private Friendly Christian way that we might save the world this unnecessary trouble Know therefore that my first Treatise of Baptism having slept about 12 Months without any publick notice and being ready to come forth with a 2d Edition I improved my utmost interest with all sorts to procure what Objections did rationally lye against it that if I had committed any mistakes I might rectifie them having been constrained to take several things upon Trust for want of opportunity to examine them by their Originals And therefore did Apologize in my Preface for Candor that if by the multitude of Quotations through so ancient a Track they might find any particular mistake mis-quotation or mis-applicatoon they would not so dwell or insist upon it as to reject the truth of all the rest that are full and clear and without exception the way that Carpers and Sophisters take and the Method that Papists have all along taken in Reply to our Protestant Writers though did assure and so I can say with a good Conscience that I have not willingly given any such occasion and truly at last after all the malicious scrutiny clamour and noise that has been made it is matter of Admiration that no more has been brought forth Mr. Wills having discovered but those few before mentioned Mr. Baxter but one that had any significancy And Mr. Whitston not one Therefore hearing That Mr. B. had something to say against it I ventured as I have told you to send to him and understanding that Mr. Wills had spent some time in the Oxford Library to trace my Authorities and found me tardy in many I sent Two or Three Messages to him to admit of some Converse about it but in vain then upon the coming forth of the 2d Impression I sent Mr. Wills one of them with this following Letter SIR I Understand you have some Exceptions against my Treatise of Baptism especially the Historical Part and particularly about the Waldenses and that you intend speedily to print the same I having Sir printed a 2d Impression and therein made some alterations and very considerable additions especially as to the Waldenses have taken upon me the confidence to send you one and which if it may tend to your satisfaction may save the world your self and me the further trouble