Gen. 5.2 Male and Female created he them and called their name Adam in the day when they were created But to some of your Instances which I wonder to find urged by a Person of Gravity and Learning First as to the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which surely you cannot but know is so common to both sexes and not limited to the Masculine Gender as always to understand thereby the Man only as you say For it is not said Mark 16.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that believeth and is baptized is not the She fully comprehended therein also And 1 Cor. 7.30.31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They that weep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They that rejoyce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They that buy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They that use this World Doth the Article in all these and a 100 places more of the like nature that might be produced so limit it to the Masculine Gender that only men and not women are to be understood I hope you will not say so And is it not said 1 Cor. 6.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They two shall be one flesh the Article doth equally respect both But so much for the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it comprehends both sexes and not the Masculine only as 1 Cor. 7.20 Let every Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abide in the same calling wherein he is called And Jam. 1.14 Every Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed surely must comprehend every Woman to or else it would be strange Divinity Thirdly The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same as Jam. 2.2 For if there come into your Assembly a Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having a gold Ring c. Is not a Woman to be understood also thereby And Jam. 1.8 A double minded Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is unstable in all his wayes And is not a double minded Woman so also We might trouble the Reader with the rest of your Instances of this kind but let these satisfie So that Sir you see your Exceptions to my Examples are utterly insignificant for here were Women Disciples and Believers in Praying together for the Spirit and afterwards receiving the same together also continuing together in the Apostles Doctrine Fellowship and Breaking of Bread and Prayer neither can your pretended limitation of Masculine Words and Articles you see relieve you or invalidate our Authority And in confirmation thereof we may add Act. 20.7 That the Disciples came together to break bread Women being as much Disciples as Men. Act. 9.36 And it is also said 1 Cor. 11.18 20. That the Church came together to break bread Women being Church-members as well as Men Act. 8.12 though debarred some Priviledges as 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.11 12 13. For there is neither male nor female but all one in Christ Gal. 3.28 And being many are one Bread and one Body Believing Women being as much of the Body of Christ as believing men 1 Cor. 10.17 And who are enjoyned to keep Christs Precepts and Commandments left in charge for all Disciples as well as the Men Mat. 28.20 This of Breaking of Bread after Baptism being none of the least of them And who must give account for disobedience and neglect of duty as well as the Men. And as your own Conscience seals to the truth hereof so you are force also to declare it telling us How unpleasing it is to you to raise Arguments against a known Truth being as you say as much for Believing womens receiving the Lords Supper as the men Thus have you my Proofs for Womens receiving the Lords Supper and the Verity thereof confirmed by your self Therefore in the next place we shall try whether you have as clear or as you say more full proof for the Example of Infants Baptism and as to which you give the following Instances Viz. First That Lydia was Baptized and her Houshold Acts 16.15 It is not said that any of her House were Converted besides her self Secondly The Houshold of Stephanus 1 Cor. 1.16 it being apparent that House in Scripture doth comprehend Children 1 Sam. 20.15 2 Sam. 9.1 Exod. 1.21 c. Therefore you say Let impartial persons judge whether this doth not carry as much if not moâ—e probability and evidence in it than what hath been brought for Womens receiving the Lords Supper and not lyable to such Exceptions from the Context nor from any other Scripture Wherein I joyne issue with you in the Appeal beseeching you and all men to consider First Whether there be one Infant so much as named to be in either of those Housholds much less that any were Baptized in them But we have Women expresly mentioned to be of the Number of the 120 Disciples upon whom also the Spirit was poured in the day of Penticost to whom the 3000 were joyned and who together broke Bread also Secondly Are Children as expresly owned to have right to Baptisme and enjoyned thereto and capable to descern the spiritual Mysteries thereof and to act Faith therein being Believers part of the Church and Members of the Body of Christ as Women are expresly owned to have right to the Ordinance of the Supper and enjoyned thereto and capable to descern the spiritual Mysteries thereof and to act Faith therein as being Believers part of the Church and Members of the Body of Christ Thirdly Is Infants Baptism acknowledged by us to be a known Truth and that it is unpleasant to us to raise Arguments against it as you have in express tearms done for Womens receiving the Lords Supper So that here is not the least paritie or comparison to be made betwixt the one or the other there being not the least considerable pretence to imagine that any Infants were Baptized because t is said that Housholds were First Because though it is true that Infants may belong to the Houshold so may the heathen Idolaters Wife and Servants and that Children are said to be in some Housholds yet there are many Housholds wherein there are no Children and it is not proved that there was one Infant belonging to either of these two Housholds Secondly In the four Housholds mentioned to be Baptized in Scripture they are said at least in three of them if not in the fourth also to comprehend only such as were taught Believers in those Families or Housholds As 1st Concerning the Jaylor Act. 16.32 33 34. It is said They spake the Word to all that were in his House and that He viz. the Jaylor Believed in God with all his House 2ly Crispus Act. 18.8 And Crispus believed on the Lord and all his House 3ly Stephanus House that was Baptized 1 Cor. 1.16 are called the first-fruits or Achaia that addicted themselves to the Ministery of the Saints which no Infant was capable to do And the 4th is the Houshold of Lydia where we have good ground to conclude
of Pope Caelestine against them for the same Twelfethly The Decrees and bloody actings of Pope Innocent the third against them for the same The writings also of several learned Men of these times that opposed the Waldenses in this point and charged the whole party therewith viz. Eckbertus Erbrardus Ermigendus Cluniacenses Bernard Durandus Thomas Walden And to whom we add some others of great eminency that have come to hand viz. Ermingerdus Ermingerdus who wrote his Book contra Waldenses in this Age wherein he chargeth them in these words Dicunt etiam quod nulli nisi proprio ore corde hoc Sacramentum pâ—tat potest prodesse Inde adducentes hunc errorem quod parvulis Baptismus aquae nihil prosit They say that the Sacrament of Baptisme can profit none but those who with their own proper mouths and hearts desire the same from whence they draw the error that water Baptisme is not profitable to little Children Vet. Bib. Pat. Tom. 5. p. 1250. And Rainerius Rainerius in his Book contra Waldenses saith De Baptismo dicunt quod ablutio quae datur Infantibus nihil profit item quod patrini non intelligent quià respondeant Sacerdoti Concerning Baptisme they say that that which is given to little Children profits nothing and that the Gâ—ssips understand not their Responses to the Priests Bib. Patr. Tom. 13. pag. 300 301 c. And which evidence I desire the Reader to take the more notice of because Mr. Wills doth so positively deny that Rainerius in the Catalogue of their errors gives not the least hint of any such thing no not one word of their denying Infants Baptisme which he saith is very strange if he had understood any thing thereof Wills p. 96 97 98. You have also Favâ—n Favin the French Chronologer testifying that in these times viz. twelfth and tâ—irteenth Century the Albigensâ—s did deny Infants Baptisme esteeming it superstitious Against all which he gives no particuler exception only saith these two things First that whereas I cite two Canons of Pope Alexander the third that was but just about the rise of the Waldenses who were so called from Peter Waldo of Lyons about 1160. as Perin informeth And which is evidence as he supposeth against the former Decrees inferring that those mentioned to be made before that time were before they were a People And Secondly in pag. 60. saith That tâ—eâ—e is no coâ—vincâ—ng prâ—of to be fetcht from hence of their being against Iâ—fants Baptisme because they were their Enemies calumniating malicious Papists that loaded them with all manner of reproaches to render them odious And that unless some one doth out of their one mouths give better â—vidence he shall believe with Mr. Marshal that this Doctrine of opposing the baptizing of Infants of Believers is an Innovation no ancienter then the Anabaptists in Germany and for which he quotes Joseph Vice-comes L. 2. c. 1. pag. 103. in Mr. Wâ—llâ— pag. 60. 2. part 1. Waldense so called from the Vallyes from Ancient time To both which I say First to the first Exception you will find that Beza tells us that they mistake themselves that say they were called Waldenses from Peter Waldo in as much as they were so called from the place of thâ—ir abode in the Valleyes as at large you have it in mine pag. 338 342. And that Claudius Sciscelius Counceler to Charles the Great in the eight Century mentions them by that name in his Book contra Waldenses But however the People or Sect of the Waldenses were known or distinguished by several names as the People of Lyons c. as Eusebius tells us p. 340. And set forth in story under divers names in several Ages as Doctor Vsher tells us and which you have more particulerly p. 338 c. And to the second that there is convincing proof offred from the Decrees of Popes Kings and Councels Mr. Marshals grant let Mr. Marshals grant suffice who in pag. 63. of his Defence for Infants Baptisme saith thus I shall desire you to shew that any Company nr Seâ—t if you will so call them have denyed Infants Baptisme produce if you can any of their Confessions alledge any Acts of any Councels where this Doctrine was charged upon any and condemned in that Councel And which I presume is substantially done both from their Confessions of Faith and from Acts of Councels also where such were condemned And as to that Quotation out of Vicecomes to prove that none denyed Infants Baptisme till the German Anabaptists I heartily thank him for it which you 'l find doth the contrary giving an Account of several that denyed Infants Baptisme before that time as you have it in the Quotation he refers to p. 102 103. telling us in these words That as the Adult Baptisme Vicecom ownes that many had denyed Infants Baptisme of old no one ever doubted thereof witness as he saith the Monuments or Writings of all the holy Fathers and Occumenical Councels as well as the Scriptures themselves especially the Acts of the Apostles But as for Infants Baptisme he tells us that Vincentius Victor Hincmarus of Laudum the Henâ—ricâ— and Apostolici in Bernard and Cluniacenses time John Wickliff in his 4. Book of Trialog c. 2. Walafrid Strabo Ludovicus Vives c. did all of them witness against it in their times So that we have a good confirming evidence from his Authority to establish the truth we have asserted and he denyed It is true Vicecomes in the same place adds amongst the rest of the witnesses against Infants Baptisme Luther Calvin and Beza and the reason is because they did oppose and neglect to do it as the Church of Rome ordained and practised it setting it up in a New way without the Services and Ceremonies of the Church and which was all one to them as if it was not practised at all and therefore did the Church of Rome renownce of old as you have heard the Baptisme of the Greek Church as the Greeks renownced theirs rebaptised those that were baptised by either as much as if it had not been at all by either side 4. From the Footsteps they had left thereof in several Countrys And Fourthly That the Waldenâ—es did deny Infants Baptisme appears from the Footsteps we find hereof in those respective Regions and places where they had heretofore imprinted it as appears by the followâ—ng instances it being acknowledged that they were dispersed all Europa over viz. In Germany First In Germany through all the parts thereof where they planted Churches and has Schooâ—s in so much that their Barbes could travel all the Countrey over and lye every night at a Frieâ—ds house wherein both by Dâ—ctrine and suffering this truth was eminently câ—nfirmed and for which you have several instances from most parts of the Country from p. 256 to 260. Sâ—iâ—zâ—rland Secondly In Switzerland where in like manneâ— it was witnessed toâ— from 260 to 267. Flandres
INNOCENCY and TRUTH VINDICATED OR A Sober REPLY to Mr WILL 's ANSWER to a Late TREATISE of BAPTISME Wherein the Authorities and Antiquities for Believers and against Infants Baptism are Defended and the mis-representations and Forgeries he boasts of all returned upon himself With a brief Answer to Mr Blinmans Essay By Henry Danvers Vt ex lapidum attritu ignis elicitur sic saepe veritas ex alternantium imo altercantium sermonum conflictu Lipsius Prov. 18.17 He that is first in his own Cause seemeth just but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him Printed for Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle near the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1675. THE PREFACE IT is an Ancient and well approved Maxim among the Learned that the more truth is winnowed and sifted the more opposed and contended against the more transparent and illustrious it appears Veritas ventilata plus rutilat impugnata magis elucesit A further confirmation whereof you may meet with from the late opposition Mr. Will 's hath made against the truth in his late Book called Infants Baptisme attested and vindicated by Scripture and Antiquity in an Answer to a treatise by Mr. H.D. c. Wherein notwithstanding the dilligent search he tells us he has made in the Vniversity Library at Oxford the utmost assistance that all the learned writers Mr. Marshall Baxter Cobbet Cotten Holmes c. can give him to disprove and weaken the Authorities urged from Scripture and Antiquity for Believers against Infants Baptisme yeâ— you 'l finde they serve but so much the more to illustrate that truth he pretends to foil giving only an opportunity for further confirmation and ratification and to create more full satisfaction or conviction to any that have been in suspence as to the truth of any of those Authorities urged by me Wherein notwithstanding his great flourish and noyse you 'l finde he is not able to reprove the truth so much as of one of those many Authorities in the Historical part and excepting that one in the Doctrinal part viz. Calvin for Eckius not another that is considerable in the whole Book Therefore all that I have to ask of the Candid Reader at whose Barr the matter is now brâ—ught betwixt Mr. Will 's and me is only to do themselves and the truth in Question so much right as to afford the Common Justice of an open Ear that having heard the Recrimination they will also attend to what is said herein for vindication Wherein y u have his Arguments duely weighed and refuted his caviling exceptions answer'd his pretended forgeries and falshoods disproved the Antiquities of Believers Baptisme defended the innovation groundless Tradition and novelty of Infants Baptisme confirmed The witness against it by eminent men and famous Churches for many Ages maintained his injurious Calumnyes and reproaches that he not only designes to load the Professors of believers Baptisme with but the Profession it self also detected and reproved The groundless custome of sprinkling instead of Dipping further evinced As for his undue and uncomly reflections the haughty bitter wrathfull frothy and provoking spirit he appears in through the whole Book sâ— unbecoming Christian candor his holy Profession or the nature of the ordinance treated of I shall the beast concern my self abâ—ut but leave it to him that can convince and will certainly reckâ—n for such hard speeches for his names sake and rather so farr as concerns my self with Job to binde it about me for a Crown Job 31.36 And as exhorted Mat. 5. To rejoyce to be accounted worthy to suffer contempt reproach for the truth sake c. then to render Railing for Railing It being also ever judged the signe of a bad cause for persons to betake themselves to such courses and thereby to supply the want of matter and sound Argument with rage clamour and noyse The Scripture arguments 't is true I have little medled with and that for these following reasons First because the Historical part upon which so much stress hath been laid though the leanest part of the controversy was the principal new thing added by me it being as Mr. Will 's observes next to an impossibility to offer any new Scripture or almost any new Argument that hath not been before urged in the controversy and is mainly therefore by him opposed Secondly Because he has ingeniously confess'd that there is no express Scripture fâ—r the same And so many of themselves with one Mouth have owned the necessity of express Scripture to warrant and justify the practise of every part of Gods worship and that to practise any thing in the worship of God without express warranty from the Word is superstition and false worship And that such a Principle ought to be held fast as the great Protestant Bulwark to secure us against all Popish Innovations and Traditions and which is a sufficient answer out of their own Mouthes against any thing they urge from pretended inferences and farr-fetch't Consequences being all that can possibly be said for it Thirdly because M. Tombes hath now given a particular Answer to him and Mr. Blinman therein who being none of those rigid Anabaptists that Mr. Will 's expresseth so much enmity against his Arguments may be more acceptable to him And 4ly because I intend to do it more particularly hereafter if God please by it self having yet much to reckon with Mr. Will 's for his further abuses and grand mistakes in the Doctrinal part In the next place it is very observable and I desire the Reader to take special notice of it that the things he would so injuriously Father upon me he is himself found fouly guilty of making good Prov. 26.27 and of which I shall point you to a few instances viz. First that the forgeries and prevarications he charges upon me do all return upon himself and not one of them made good against me as appears from l. 1. to p. 29. Secondly that the several falshoods he lays to my charge are all of them of his own making and not one of them to be proved against me as is particularly evidenced from p. 29. to p. 62. Thirdly the notorious abuse he has put upon Authors by forgery curtilations mis-quotation mis-translation and which fully appears by the following instances viz. 1. by making an Authâ—rity of his own for Infants Baptisme and fathering it upon Basil in the 4. Cent. in his Book contra Eunom and asserting it to be the very next lines to what I had repeated from him thence reproving me for unfaithfullness in leaving it out and to be duely suspected in all my Quotations when not one sillable of any such thing is to be found in him as demonstrated p. 43. to 49. 2. For mis-translating mis-representing abusing and curtailing Greg. Nazien as appears p. 8. and 9. and p. 47. and 48. 3. For his curtailing and abusing the old confession of the Waldenses leaving out a considerable part thereof and then making flourishes and inferences
practise of Infants Baptisme fails none proving it higher by any approved Author then the fourth or fifth Century And then no other Baptisme then hath been renounced by most Protestants as corrupt and erroneus And that however the Papists and those that go their way may prove Antiquity as high as the fourth or fifth Century Yet that Mr. Wills can go no higher for his then New England or at the furthest then Luther CHAP. III. Wherein the Witnesses against Infants Baptisme are vindicated from Mr. Wills Exceptions THe Witnesses produced by me against Infants Baptisme were either particuler Persons or Churches as you have them at large mentioned in the seventh Chapter And first as to the evidence from particuler Persons Mr. Wills in his Preface tells us 1. From particuler Persons That notwithstanding all the flourishes Mr. D. makes and the numerous Quotations he hath fetcht from the Magdeburgensian History in his seventh Chapter from the first Century to the end of the twelfeth there are but two Persons to be found against Infants Baptisme viz. Adrianus and Hincmarus Mr. Wills ownes bâ—t two in the whole which is just the same Number he was pleased to allow me before for Believers Baptisme But whether these and their fellows may not speed as well as the former shall be put to as fair a trial and so submitted to judgement The first of my Witnesses urged against Infants Baptisme was Tertullian who doth Tertullian thc first witness as expressed pag. 221. eminently oppose it in six Arguments First from the mistaken Scripture Matt. 19.14 suffer little Children c. by which it seems some would have introduced such a practise which could not as he saith be properly applyed to Infants Baptisme for several Reasons urged from their incapacaties Secondly from the weigthiness of that Ordinanee which required Caution and consideration and no such haste Thirdly from the sinfulness of such a practice by Prophaning an Ordinance and partaking of others sins Fourthly from the absurdety of such a practise in refusing to intrust them with Earthly things and yet commit Spiritual things to their trust Fifthly from the Folly of exposing witnesses propounded it seems to supply the want of capacity in them and to undertake for them Sixthly from the consideration that the Adult upon many considerations were the only proper Subjects of Baptisme And to which we may add a Seventh which he is pleased so falsly to say I purposly and subtilly omitted there being no cause for it that I know viz. From the insignificancy of the end propounded for the same viz. To take away sin from Children Mr. Wills owns Tertullians wit To which testimony in the First place he gives us this acknowledgement pag. 96. viz. That it is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church hath divers passages seemingly against Infants Baptisme but yet withal it must be considered that his Testimony such as it is is but the testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church Where by the way we may take notice that our witness is owned by him but the general custom of the Church he speaks of is yet to be proved as utterly disowned by us and for which there is not the least colour of truth as yet produced And again pag. 6. he doth grant That the Magdeburgs do indeed tell us that Tertullian in this third Age opposed himself to some that asserted Infants Baptisme affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects of Baptisme Charges him witâ— corruption and weakness But what a corrupt Person he was and how weakly he had Reasoned he endeavors with much keeness to demonstrate In answer whereto I say that his witness being allowed and to be such a Doctor of Note too in the Latin Church it is sufficient and I think we need say nothing to those cavils of corruption and weakness the evidence being acknowledged the main thing intended and which will be endless to answer in every Authority that may be urged pro and con But yet in as much as he is our first witness and speaks so much Reason and truth and so much to the purpose And to make Mr. Wills his unreasonable opposition the better to appear we shall give some distinct reply to his Exceptions against this our witness whom he areignes for so much corruption in Doctrine and folly in this his particuler witness And first for that great corruption in Doctrine 1. The corrupt Doctrine he charges Tertullian with he charges him with about Chrysme Exorcisme c. I presume there are none of his ancient Doctors comes short of him and who were as much Montanists as he therein viz. Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Austin c. only herein Tertullian was more Orthodox holding none of those to be Jure Divino whilest they took them to be Apostolical Traditions and essential to Baptisme Magdeb. Century 3. chap. 10. pag. 240. compard 82. 225. 248. And for those evil sentiments of God and Christ it is certain that Origen did far exceed him as you will find at large in his Naevi pag. 261. c. and which argues a very partial mina to be so quick sighted in the one and so stark blind in the other And as to his being a Montanist before he wrote his Book of Baptisme which Mr. Wills affirms I see it not confirmed by any good Authority the Magdeburgs tell us that from Carthage he went to Rome Tertullian no Montanist before he wrote foâ— Baptisme and lived long there where he wrote against the Montanist and wrote his Book of Prescriptions as Helvicus saith the fifth of Severus which Mr. Wills ownes to be about the fortyth year of his age And the said Helvicus tells us that it was twenty years after before he wrote fore the Montanists And he that writes the lives of the Primative Fathers pag. 82. tells us that in the eleventh year of Severus Tertullian wrote his Book of Baptisme against Quiâ—tila in his third Tome next to his Prescriptions and in the fivetenth year his Book of the Resurrection c. But if he was turned Montanist before the matter is not much for it must be owned that a Man that is erroneous in one thing mâ—y be Orthodox enough in another The business is whether as to matter of fact he spoke these things against Infants Baptisme and that is not denyed And in the next place whether he spoke not reason and truth in that his testimony which in the next place we shall examine Therefore Secondly as to the weakness of his Argument which he renders so contemptible and ridiculous and guilty of so much dotage I make the following particuler reply to each exception viz. First as to his first Argument 1. He abused not the Text Mat. 19.14 from the mistaken Scripture he saith he abuseth the Text by his Paraphrases But second thoughts will I presume tell him it