Selected quad for the lemma: truth_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
|
witness that speaketh lies and him that soweth discord amongst Brethren Prov. 15.18 He that beareth false witness against his Neighbour is a maul and a sword and and a sharp Arrow Prov. 19.9 A false witness shall not be unpunished and he that speaketh lies shall not escape Deut. 19 16 18. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong the Judges shall make diligent search and behold if the witness be a false witness and hath testified falsly against his Brother then shall you do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his Brother so shalt thou put the evil away from among you Which I shall conclude with that serious word Dr. Stubs speaks to Mr. B. upon like occasion and which I desire you to lay to heart If he be a slanderer who wrongs his Neighbours credit either by unjust raising or upholding an evil report against him surely you have cause to lay your hand upon your heart and to toke shame to you self And if this be the mark of those that shall dwell in the Lords Tabernacle that they are such that neither raise nor take up a reproach against their Neighbour Psal 15 3. What will become of You Mr. Wills and where with whom must you dwell to Eternity if God do not humble you for your slanderous and lying Tongue and Pen â— Prevarication Fourthly are you not truly found guilty of Prevarication in many particulars the thing you so notoriously and falsly charge upon me which is according to your own definition p. 7. Vind. To coneeal what ought to have been declared on purpose to deceive And of which I shall give you a few of many Instances that might be produced viz. First Is it not manifest as I have undenyably proved and in your own word by Mathematical Demonstration that you left out so many of the most considerable passages of the Waldensian Confessions as p. 45. 2 part Inf. Bapt. and for which you have given no satisfaction though you was so earnestly called upon by my self as well as Mr. Tombes for the same Secondly by leaving out part of that Confession you took out of Bishop Vsher p. 119. Vind. which Hoveden calls the Waldenses I the Popish Inquisitors you only taking part of it which declares for Infant Baptism to save them and yet you can tell us at another time that the Waldenses affirmed that it profited them not for salvation That the better to hide the cheat can now tell us in their excuse that this was a dark time 500 years since but in the mean time conceal that other part which bespeaks it wholly Popish viz. for the Mass Popish-Priesthood Real presence Penance c. which Vsher is so faithful to give and which I have at large discovered to Mr. B. your Partner in that evil p. 84. 2 Reply Thirdly by repeating every syllable of that Quâ—tatiâ—n p. 169. Vind. called Calvins yet leaving out the last Clause Estius Annot. on Gen. 17.7 which you know is there as Treaty p. 176. Vind. And yet so often upraid me for not calling it Estius's not only in your first Book but 3 times and very unmercifully too in your last Fourthly by Concealing so much of the Translation of that out of Calvins Instituâ—es that you might the better deceive your English Reader and make him believe it was the Objection of Fools and not owned by Calvin himself which his next words as I have demonstrated and you very well knew doth Fifthly by that injurious dealing with me in that Quotation of mine from Spanhaemius and Osiander p. 326. of my Treat you only take notice of what Spanhaemius speaks to part leave out what I say Osrander saith to the rest and reprove me for my mistake p. 104. Iuf. Bapt. and though I called upon you in my Replyâ— for satisfaction Pref. and p. 148. yet you return ne not one syllable in your last Sixthly by that injurious leaving out what you in your first p. quot from my 20. p. of Reply which speaks it to be quite an other thing then you make it to be and thereupon charge me with prevarication if not madness and contradiction which was an ill beginning that you should so stumble at the threfhold as though I quoted Austin and those Antients downwards to prove that the practise of Inf. Bapt. was not in those Centuries when I say the quite contrary and tell you expresly that I quote them only for their sayings which speak so fully for Adult Baptism only contrary to their express practise And then by affirming again and again that I contradict my self in owning the Antients were for Infants Baptism and denying there was Antiquity for it whereas the foregoing words in my 19. p. enumerates them from Austin and not the Antients of the former Centuries whom I claim for Beleivers Bapt. only Seventhly by the like injurious dealing with me p. 57. Vind. taking part of a saying of mine in Treat p. 101. and leaving out the next following words in p. 102. rendring me thereby ridiculous and then call me at your pleasure when I am so wholly innocent in the matter viz. I justify my self in my Reply p. 36. from that falshood you charge upon me supposing me to say that dipping was changed into Sprinkling the 3. Centurie when I only say that the Magdeb. do tell us that many corruptions about Bapt. was creeping in amongst the rest I mentioned as I saw cause that of Cyprians Letter to Magnus about Sprinkling for dipping But withall do say they tell us they do not find any one person was then Baptized with any of their corrupt Ceremonies having indeed as they soy no authentik proof of the Baptizing of any one person whereby I say it may be conjectured their corruptions were then more in the notion then practise which afterwards came all of them to be in use You are pleased to repeat my former words about their beginning to alter the forme from dippin to spinkling and leave out all my latter words both what I so fully speak in the Treat and my Rep. also And then as p. 51. I suppose Reader thou hast seldom met with the like ridiculous contradiction in any Author So that he is the Man that hath cause to be ashamed and is found very unfaithfull in speaking forwards and backwards at his pleasure yea that which is manifestly false and then denying in the same breath so adding one salsehood to another And therefore whilst you judge me so worthy of reproof for prevarication though not at all proved by you and you your self so guilty thereof as so fully evidenced doth not this following Scripture concern you Rom. 2.1.23 Therefore thou art inexcusable O Man whosoever thou art that judgest for wherein thou judgest thou condemnest thy self for thou that judgest doth the same thing But we are sure the judgement of God is according to truth against them which commit such
things And thinkest thou this O Man that judges them which do such things and doth the same that thou shalt escape the judgement of God Verse 21. Thou therefore which teachest another teachest thou not thy self thou that preachest a Man should not steal dost thou steal So thou that teachest a Man should not prevaricate why art thou guilty of so much prevarication and so self judged and condemned therein And fifthly is it not evident that you are hanously guilty of Forgery 5. Forgery viz. pretending Authors say so and so when they say no such thing or the quite contrary Of which I shall give you few Instances First do not you affirm p. 45. Vind. that Walden sheweth from Wickliffs works that he was for Infants Baptism whereas he abundantly saith the quite contrary and your own Pen is constrained at another time to acknowledge as p. 125 172. Vind. Secondly do not you positively affirme thaâ— Austin saith in bis third Book De Anima c. 13. that Vincentius Victor his opinion was that Infants that dyed Baptized went immediately to Heaven whereas there is no such thing said either in that or any other Chapter that I can find Thirdly do not you say that Rainerius in the Catalogue of the Waldensian errours brings not one word of their denying Inf. Bapt. as p. 67. Inf. Bapt. whereas he expresly saith in that Catalogue that they affirmed Inf. Bapt. was nothing worth and that Gossips that undertook for them knew not what they did for which see Rep. p. 125.131 Fourthly do now affirme that Dr. Taylor in his Book called Consideration of the Practise of the Church and Dr. Hamond in his Letter of Resolutions had given answer to those Arguments produced by me out of his Liberty of Prophecy against Infants Baptism as p. 36 37 98 of your Infants Baptism whereas in p. 53 c. of my Reply it is fully made out from both their words that they do confirme those Arguments to be good that are therein brought against the principle Arguments the Paedobaptists bring for that their practâ—se Fifthly do not you prodvce Basil to be an Eminent wotness for Infants Baptism in the fourth Century as p. 136. Whereas there is never such a word to be found in any of Basils writings that doth yet appear Sixthly you do positively affirme from the acquaintance you had with Father Basil that he in his third Book Contr. Vnomiam in the very next lines after those words I had repeated of that quotation declared himself to be for Infants Baptism And for my omitting the same call upon the Reader to have a caâ—e henceforwards how they tru t my quotations fâ—r the palpable abuse done to that Father and for a fallacy and falshood upon the Reader p. 13. Inf. Bapt. And again in his Preface charging me for curtailing and leaving out part of that Sentence of Basils About which I got a Friend first to write to you to know where to find it to which you replyed that * You charged me not for misquoting but for partially quoting and misapply it but could not direct to the page for which manifest injury done to Basil and me also in that your severe Reflection I called for satisfaction as p. 48. Reply But all that I can get yet from you is this that you mistoâ—k only a name Basil for Naziazen p. 61. Vind. Equilizing my mistake of Albertus for Aquinus with it p. 183. Which I cannot take for due pay First because it was not a bare slip in haste but a thing justified by you in coold blood when I gave you time to deliberate upon it by sending so civily to you that you might have an opportunity to rectify it or clear your self Secondly by your extenuating it as though it was just like my mistaking Albertus for Aquiquinas which I can by no means admit for that was a quotation for you to prove for Infant Bapt. which cannot demonstrate any wilfulness in me nor that I could have any end in the mistake nor was it improved to your prejudice whereas that of yours was a great proof against me highly boasted of by you to discover your reading and acquaintance with that Father and improved much to my disgrace and often and very severly inculcated upon me Therefore I do expect from you more fuller satisfaction therein and your due humiliation for such a notorious miscarriage As well for your vainglorious boast as your trampling so upon me Seventhly in like manner was your dealing about what you own to be your mistake only of a Century respectiong Peter Bruis p. 53. Inf. Bapt. out of Osiander which was not only so but the sever lashes you gave me about it viz. That you see by this that when Men are ingaged in a Cause and wedded â—o an opinion they will not refuse the most sordid and shamefull waies to promote it fall in with slanderous Papists and take up what they say to defend their opinions witness my Antagonist And at this rate you go on chastising of me and all upon your own gross forgery and mistake For which Sir I expect your repentance you did not mistake a Century only but Christianity Civility and Common Honesty also and you did not only abuse me but Osiander Cluniacensis Peter Bruis and yet have you the confidence to tell me p. 131. that you could retort upon me that I belyed Calvin I belyed the Truth and by that forgery I would cover and hide and abuse the World with a cheat and much more my own Conscience by that piece of folly and falshood Whereas is now manifestly appears that I did put Estius his name to the Quotation and therefore there could be neither cheat abusing of the World forgery nor falshood in the matter which doth but heighten your crime and makes more work for Repentance which I also duly call far from you And therefore to further the same desire you to read and consider the following Scriptures Lev. 19.11 Ye shall not lie one to another Prov. 14.5 A faithful witness will not lie but a false witness uttereth lies Eph. 4.25 Wherefore puting away lying speak every Man truth with his Neighbour Col. 39. Lye not one to another Psalm 119.69 The proud hath forged lyes Jer. 9 3. They bend their tongues like bows for lies but are not valiant for the truth With the Scriptures before mentioned Rom. 2.1 2 3 21. Because you have proclamed me such a forger and judged me for the same but has yet made no proof thereof And sixthly are not you guilty of Mistranslation 6. Mistranslation and Misrendring Authors For Instance First That notorious passage about the Minists which you translate quite contrary to Truth viz. that they were for Resistance in the Munster way and for distroying the wicked by force of Armes in order to the setting up the Kingdom of Christ p. 99. of Inf. Bapt. when the quite contrary is there said and the constant knowledge of