Congregation of the People of God their professing and declaring openly our faith and amendement of life We esteem for an abomination and Anti-Christian all humane inventions as a trouble and prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit When humane Traditions are observed for Gods Ordinances then is he worshiped in vain as Es 19. Matth. 15. And which is done when grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies and persons enjoined to partake of Sacraments without faith and truth That Anti-Christ attributes the Regeneration of the holy Spirit unto the dead outward work of baptizing Children into that Faith and teacheth that thereby Baptisme and Regeneration must be had grounding therein all his Christianity which is against the holy Spirit What he makes their Confessions to be p. 45 c. God hath ordained certain Sacraments to be joined with the word as a means to unite us unto and to make us partakers of his benefits And that there are only two of them We do believe that in the Sacrament of Baptisme water is the visible and external sign which represents unto us That which is within viz. Renovation of the Spirit and Mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ We esteem for an abomination and Anti-Christian all humane inventions as a trouble and prejudice to the Liberty of the Spirit When humane Traditions are observed for Gods ordinances then is he worshiped in vain as Es 19. Mat. 15. And which is done when grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies and persons enjoined to partake of Sacraments without faith and truth That Anti-Christ attributes the Regeneration of the holy Spirit unto the dead outward work of baptizing Children and teacheth that thereby Regeneration must be had Whereby you have demonstrated his great unfaithfulness in misrepresenting their Confessions by leaving out so many material and considerable parts thereof that make against him and then so unfairly and untruly to say That there was a Harmony betwixt all the Protestants Churhes in the World in those Articles and the Waldenses because all that are for Infants Baptisme believe the same But whether it be so indeed let us examine the particulers 1. Infants not capable to hear the Word First Do all the Paedobaptists believe That Baptisme and preaching the Word are joined together to instruct the Baptised partyes and that thereby they have union with Christ and partake of his benefits Pray how is that to be made good in any Infant that has no actual knowledge Faith or understanding 2. Nor of the Lords Supper Secondly Do they indeed believe the Lords Supper to belong in Common with Baptisme to all the Members of the Church why then do not Infants partake of one as well as the other since it belonges to them in Common if Members of the Church as Mr. Wills saith they are 3. Nor to understand the Symbole thereof Thirdly Do Paedobaptists with the Waldenses believe as you say That water in Baptisme is the usual sign representing to the Subjects thereof the invisible vertue of God operating in them viz. Renovation of the Spirit and Mortification of their Members And can it be truly said it is so to an Infant that is not capable to put forth any act of Faith Repentance or Mortification or discern any the least sign in the water of any such things signified thereby Fourthly 4. Nor to make Confession of Faith before it Have they indeed a Harmony with the Waldenses in what further they confess concerning this Ordinance viz. That by it tâ—ey are received into the holy Congregation of the People of God there professing and declaring openly their Faith and amendement of life But how is the Infant capable with the Waldensian Christiaâ—s not Pagan converts to profess and declare openly their Faith and Repentance and so to be received into the Congregation thereby Fifthly Do Paedobaptists indeed believe with them That humane Traditions and Inventions 5. That Infants Baptâ—sme is a humane Tradition and why are to be esteemed Anti-Christian â—bâ—mâ—na ions and vain worship and that that worship is vain and Traditional when Persons are enjoined to it without Faith and truth Why then are Infants baptised by them that have no Faith or knowledge of truth and for which there is neither Precept or Example in Gods word and by themselves owned to be an unwriten Tradition Sixthly Do they believe 6. Anti-Christ groundsall Religion in it That Anti-Christ Grounds all Châ—istianity and Religion in the Baptisme of Childreâ— attributing Regeneration to that outward work done contrary to the holy Spirit Why then do they baptise Children which as acknowledged is the basis and Foundation of the false Church and so contrary to the Spirit and for which there is nothing but the Decrees of Popes and Anti Christian Councels to warrant it Whereby you see that Infants are manifestly excluded Baptismâ—â— in these six particulers in these Coâ—fessâ—â—â—s and that Paedobaptists cannot assert the same without evident contradiction to themselves Objections to the contrary Confessions But in the next place if these Confessions be good as you say against Infants Bâ—ptisme yet what do you say to those contrary Confessions that own the Baptizing of Infâ—nts as Master Wills hath given them from Perin p. 62 63 65. Answer To which I say it is to me matter of the greatest admiration that I having with that exactness especially in the last Edition given you such a particuler Account of all tâ—ose Confessions word for word both of that of Bohemia and that of Provence and proved to you by such ample Dâ—moastration the following particulers viz. First That none of them were extant till the sixteenth Century whereas the other are upon Record in the eleventh or twelfeth Centuries so many hundred years before Secondly That that Confession said to be made by the Waldenses in Bohemia to King Ladislaus were not Waldenses as they themselves acknowledge in the preambule thereof Thirdly Have given an account how and by what means and when those of Provence came to introduce that Custom so contrary to what their ancient Barbes had instructed them in How sadly they had â—eclined even to going to Mass And how contradictious that practice was to other parts of the Confessions into which it was foisted And that these Waldenses of Provence that made these Confessions were inconsiderable to the Body of that People that was dispersed into so many parts of the World that held the contrary Yet Mr. Wills should take so little notice of what I have said and Mr. Blind-man that has written since who has also transcribed the said contrary Confessions without the least notice to what I have said in answer thereto which I think is such an abuse as was never offred by any pretending to answer Books and therefore I must refer them and all others that desire satisfaction therein to what I have so fully and as I humbly conceave unanswerably spoken to each Confession The Second Demonstration
and many suffred Bonds and Martyrdom from Protestant Brethren for the profession thereof p. 260. 5. Thessalonians The Churches in Thessalonica of the same Faith and practise p. 76. 6. Flemings The Churches of Christ in Flanders asserting the same and multitude of Martyrs that witnessed thereto by blood p. 267 c. 7. Bohemians The Churches in Bohemia witnessing to this truth and their great sufferings for the same pag. 271. 8. Hungarians The Churches of Hungaria of the same practice p. 274. 9. Poles The Churches in Poland of like Faith and practise p. 274. 10. Transilvanians The Churches in Transylvania of the same practice 274. 11. English The Churches in this Nation owning the same Principle and practise viz. First In the time of the ancient Britains p. 226. Secondly Vnder the name of Lollards from the Waldensian Barbe of that Name pag. 278. p. 203 204. Thirdly Vnder the name Wickliffians who asserted also that Believers were the only Subjects of Baptisme p. 283. And Lastly Since Henry the Eight's time under the name of Anabaptists p. 306. Against which latter testimony from these respective Churches in these several Regions he only excepts against the Donatists Waldenses and ancient Britains denying that they were of this Faith and practise which you have particulerly replyed to in the third Chapter where the witnesses against Infants Baptisme are defended But in the mean time it must be remembred that the rest stand good as not excepted against Secondly you have the Testimony 2. The witness born to Baptisme after Faith by those that owned Infants Baptisme born to this truth by many Eminent Men and Churches that have owned and practised Infants Baptisme since the imposing thereof some of whom are these that follow as you find them in the respective Centuries viz Chrysostom Austin Gregory Cassiodorus Haimo Rabanus Anselm Algerus Rupertus Lumbard Albertus Belarmine Grotius Luther Calvin Hamond Dailly Tayler Baxter Church of England All or most of them affirming with the Church of England that Faith and Repentance is required in all those that are to be Baptised viz. Repentance whereby they forsake sin and Faith whereby they steadfastly believe the Promises To all which Testimony Mr. Wills especially quarrels me for perverting as he saith Mr. Wills exceptions against this part for the Testimony their sayings against there intended sences by improving what they say for Adult Baptisme wherein they meant only Strangers and Pagans converted to the Faith against Infants Baptisme which is in an other way and upon an other Account And for being so notoriously contradictious to my self in saying they are for Believers Baptisme in one part of the History and yet the same Men and Councels for Infants Baptisme in an other Replyed to To which I say that by Quoting their sayings that are so expresly for us though it may be not intended so I have done no injury 1. Not quoted for Anabâ—ptist First because I do not quote them as Anabaptists or to prove that Believers Baptisme was the only Bâ—ptisme of those Centuries that would have been madness and contradiction with a witness and which he seems to father upon me 2. But Argumâ—nt ad homineur Secondly because nothing is more fair or frequent then to improve mens own sayings against themselves for their better conviction and clearing the truth as Mr. Tombes has brought Mr. Baxters 20. Arguments against himself and therefore called his Book Felo de se and no more injury done thereby then Mr. Tombes saith was done by Bishop Morton in alledging the Romanists words in there writings as an Advocate for the Protestants against themselves but right done thereby as he saith to the Church of God So that what they say respecting the Commission for the necessity of teaching profession and confession and so as their w rds necessarely exclude any other but such câ—pable Subjects what injury to improve it for the truth and to which I have spoken much to prevent Cavils of this kind as you 'l find it p. 85 86 and in the Praeface Austin so for Adult Baptisme in wâ—rds as to exc â—â—e â—ntanâ—s For instance If Austin tells us in one place That 〈…〉 put due Examination both to Doctrine and Conversation ought to be Baptised and that no igâ—orant or scandelous Pâ—rson without due instruction and fruits of Repentance are to be admitted to Baptisme what can be spoken more agreeable to truth and more indeed to assert Believers Baptisme to be the only Bâ—ptisme and to exclude any other that are noâ— capable to act Faith or testefy fruits for if no other as he saith then not Infants Yet the same Austin in contradiction hereto saith How weakly contradâ—ctiously Austin asserts Infants Baptisme Let Infants be baptised by the Faith of another to take away Original sin without which they can neither be Regenerated or saveâ— Now compare these two together what sound Christian will not say that Austin before spoke the mind of Christ in wholesome sound word and herein his own words if not corrupt and heretical For as one well observes that such Doctrine as this was the greatest poyson that ever the Father of Lyes powred into the hearts of Sinners to make People think that sprinkling a little water on the face could Regenerate take away sin and save the Soul and beget grace ex opero operato by the work done Calvin in one place tells us 2. Calvin for Believers Baptisme by Rule the due and right order of Baptisme from the Commission saying thus viz. That Men may rightly offer themselves to Baptismeâ— Confession of sins is required otherwise the whole action would be nothing else but spâ—rt Yet in another place in contradiction hereto saith Let the Children of Believers be baptised Calvin for Infants Bapâ—isme in contradictâ—on hereto wiâ—hout Rule because God having taken their Parents into Covenant they themselves aâ—â— also to be imbracâ—d in the same Covenant Neither is Baptisme hereby separated from Faith and teaching because though Children have not yet Faith nor are capable of teaching yet their Parents have both But by what Rule or Reason this latter is urged and how possibly to be Reconciled with the former so agreeable to both is the knot to be untyed 3. Mr. Baxter for Believers Baptisme by precept Example So also Mr. Baxter upon Christ Commission Matth. 28.20 This saith he sheweth the Disciples their several works in their several Orders viz. First to make Disciples which Mark calls Believers Secondly is to Baptize them whereto is annexed the promise of Salvation Thirdly to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ And that to contemn this order is to contemn all Rules of Order professing his conscience is fully satisfied from this Text that it is one sort of Faith even saying that must go before Baptisme the Profession whereof the Minister must
expect as pag. 3. And again if there can be no Example given in Scripture of any one that was baptised without the Profession of saving Faith nor any precept for so doing then we must not baptize any without it But the Antecedent is true saith he from the practice of all baptised in Scripture which he particularly enumerates and then saith so is the consiquence What can be said more consonant to truth more agreable to the Scriptures and what more in justification to the Baptisme of Believers and to the Excluding all others uncapable of Profession Mr. Baxter for Infants Baptisme without Precept or Example And yet the same Mr. Baxter tells us that an Infant is to be Baptised but by what Rule Why s i th he upon the Account of his Parents Faith But where is that to be found in the Precept Is it baptize the believing Parent and his Child is that found in the order of the Commission or is a Child to be found in all the pregnant Examples in the New Testament that he hath given us When Mr. Baxter or any one in his behalf can reconcile Mr. Baxter to Mr. Baxter Austin to Austin Calvin to Calvin I shall own my mistake herein till then must believe that it is good service to improve their contradictions to themselves and for the service of that truth that they so vigourously oppose But thirdly 3. Reply No injury done them from their own expositions of their sayings there is no injury done to them in the sence that most of the Doctors both Papists and Protestants have given us themselves respecting those expressions about the necessity of Repentance and Faith before Baptisme and how they reconcile them to Infants Baptisme And which we have so fully done to our hand in the English Liturgy that will put it out of doubt You know it is there expresly told us that Faith and Repentance is required in all that are to be baptised good and sound Doctrine But then the Question you know is put How do Infants who by reason of their tender age cannot perform them vâ—z can neither Repent nor Believe sound Doctrine still To which they answer Yes they do perform them by their sureties So that we are to understand that though Infants cannot Repent nor Believe which yet is so necessarly required in every one that is to be baptised yet that others may undertake for them answer the Commission for them Repent Believe Confess for them and declare a willingness in their name to be baptised and this is actually donâ— by the sureties as our English Liturgy directs and every dayes experience tells us in the â—hristning of Children which interpretes to us the ancient way of Interrogating Sponcers and which is performed after this manner How by Sureties Infants do confess profess Faith and Repentance and so capable of Baptisme viz. The Priest saith to the surety Doest thou forsake the Devil and all his works c. Then the surety must answer I forsake them all Priest Then Doest thou believe in God the Father rehearsing the Creed S. To which he is to answer All this I steadfastly believe P. then Will thou be baptised into this Faith Yes saith the Surety in the name of the Child that is my desire This was the Custom of old and with Infants Baptisme established though it is true they had Sureties or Witnesses for grown Persons before Infants Baptisme was enjoyned Yet now because the Commission required Faith and Repentance therefore was this invention found out to answer it And therefore saith Lud. Vives in his Comment l. 1. c. 27. That none were baptised of old but those of age who did not only understand what the water meant but desired the same Lud. Vives why sureties invented for Infants The perfect Image whâ—reof saith he we have yet in our Infants Baptisme for it is askt of the Infant will thou be baptised fâ—r whom the Sureties answer I will And so saith Strabo pag 60. and Jo. Boemus p 73. Magâ—ebuâ—g Century 5. p. 516. Infantes aliena Fice baptisari Infants are to be baptised by the Faith of another Therefore called Fidejussors or Sureties that plight Faith for them and Sponsors that answer for them Susceptors that undertake Promise Vow and Renownce for them So that this appears to be the untying the knot the Reconciling or the seeming difficulty of the necessity of Confession consent and desire with Infants Baptisme so making the Commission but one general Rule to baptise both Adult and Infants the Adult by his own Mouth and Faith the Infant by the Mouth and Faith of another Therefore all these sayings of these latter Doctors and learned Men speaking to the nature of Baptisme wherein Confession and Profession is required is to be understood not as Mr. Wills would have it to intend only Adult Persons Pagans and Heathens but to intend Infants also otherwise it would be to make two Baptismes and necessitate two Commissions one for the Adult and the other for Infants But in as much as none is to be found for the latter they include and involue all in the former Theâ—efore by my producing these proofs from all the Paedobaptists as the true sence of the Commission and a general Rule to baptise upon it will be manifest that I do not bring them contrary to the mind of the Writers being urged to confirm and establish Believers Baptisme according to Christs Commission The Lutherans are positive that Children have actual Faith and in Baptisme hear the Word use Reason c. And all the rest that others Repent Believe Profess Confess desire for them viz. either the Surety or the Parent Objection But 't is said you carry it further and improve their general Rule for Believers Baptisme against Infants Baptisme contrary to their intention because they intend Infants not otherwise to be baptised but as professed Believers in this way Answer To which I say that it truly serves the Intention wherefore it is brought under this Head where we do not so immediately concern our selves against Infants which is an other part but for Believers only though I grant consequentialy it doth so for if a personal Professing of Faith be only intended in the Commission and that no such thing as a surety is to be found in that Text or any other to profess or confess for an other so as to warrant the party confess'd for to be a proper subject of Baptisme Then it will follow that all those sayings make only for Believers in their own Persons to the excluding all that are uncapable of Personal Confession and Profession When any such thing as a surety in Baptisme to believe repent and confess for an other is made out from Scripture they may have Reason to complain but till then no injury is done so to clear the truth from their own grants and sayings But that there is no such thing in the Scripture take the acknowledgement of some
let the impartial Reader judge Who instead of answering hath rathâ—r inforced Dr. Hamond rather confirms then answers those Arguments and why and subscribed to the truth of so many of them and reproved rather the weakness and insufficiency of so many of the chiefest Arguments brought by the Paedobaptists concluding his Diâ—course with Doctor Taylers own words to that purpose viz. I consent to the truth of the Doctors observation That the Anabaptists have beâ—n encouraged in their error more by the accidental advantages given them by the weakness of those Arguments that have beâ—n brought against them then by aâ—y truth of their Cause or Excellency of their wit c. And therefore doth he in that Discourse acknowledge these following things First The weak argui gs from Circumcision either to its typicalness ideâ—tity Reason of difference or invalidity of paralel with Baptisme so as to found Infants Baptisme upon them pag. 482 c. comp 474. sect 20. Secondly The inconcludent Argument from Act. 2.39 Children their as he fully grants being really their Posterity not particularly the Infants of the Jews p. 490. sect 81. Thirdly That to infer Infants Baptisme from Christs Precept to baptize all Nations is one of the blind and lame that is of more use to betray and loose then to defend and secure the Fort p. 494. sect 96 Fourthly That to conclude Infants were baptised because Housholds are so mentioned to be is unconvincing and without demonstration it being so uncertain whether there was any Child in the Families p. 471. sect 21. Fifthly That Argumentt from Matth. 19.14 are imperfect ways of Probation p. 474. sect 23. The other Arguments Dr. Hamond urgeth for Infants Baptisme It is true the Doctor useth other Mediums to confirm and establish Infants Baptisme by which are not usually urged by the Paedobaptists and which because the Doctor layes so much stress upon and Mr. Wills seems also much to glory in we shall give you some account of them 1. From the Jewish Baptismeâ— The first is because Christs Institution of Baptisme doth not exclude Infants from Baptisme there being nothing in Christs Commission that is against it pag. 475. fect 75. And Mr. Wills pag. 131 132. To which you have an answer in the next Chapter by an other hand to whom I must refer you The Second and chief of the Doctors Arguments and upon which he seems to lay the greattest stress to found and inforce Infants Baptisme is from the Custom of Baptizing amongst the Jews of old from the first giving of the Law from whom Christ as he saith took the usage and made it a Sacrament And who did baptise as he tells us not only the Native Jews upon their admission into the Covenant but the Prosolytes both Men and Women and their Children also And which he pretends to make good out of the Jews Talmud by Maimonides Proved out of the Talmud a great Jewish Doctor Rabi Joshua another and the Gemara Babyâ— Tit. Chirithoth and particularly concerning their Infants that they were baptised upon the knowledge of the House of judgement viz. on their desire and behalf of the Children and their promise to let them know what they have undertaken for them as saith the Doctor and that thereby Gossips or Susceptors are also waranted so agreeable to what Saint Austin saith Our Mother the Church lends the little ones other Mens feet ears and tongue that they may come believe and confess and so be capable of Baptisme pag. 470. to 474. and which Mr. Wills takes in for Gospel too pag. 141. Now if this be a good and substantial basis and foundation for Infants Baptisme and well proved let all Men judge In answer to which new and strange Doctrine I shall refer the Reader to the Reply that I suppose was made hereto by that judicious and learned Gentleman Sir Norton Knatchbull Sr. Norton Knatchbull's answer hereto in his Animadversiones in Lib. Novi Testamenti pag. 315. Accum videam summi judicii Viros in his temporibus Rabbinis fundamenta petere veritatis c. But when I see in these times some Men of the greatest judgement to fetch the foundation of truth from the Rabbins I cannot but stick at it for whence was the Talmud sent to us they are the words saith he of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judicia that we should give so much credit thereto that we should believe that the Mosaick Law either may or ouâ—ht to be understood therefrom Much less the Gospel to which they are professed Enemyes The Talmud is called a Lâ—byrinth of errors and the Foundation of Jewish Fabâ—es It was perfected and acknowledged for authentick five hundred years after Christ And out of it Maimonides drew his Doctrine as also the rest of them thâ—refore we cannot acquiesce in such testimony And again upon the dâ—fference he takes notice of that was betwixt two of their greatest Rabbi's upon that point who were cotemporaries viz. Eliazer that affirmed that the Prosolytes were Circumcised and not Baptised And Joshua who aâ—tested the qui e contrary that thâ—y were Baptised and not Circumciseâ— saith Vâ—ri veâ—o potius assentia Eliezero qui affirmat quoâ— Scriptura an Joshua qui affirmat quod nusquam Scripâ—ura docet To which of them must we â—â—â—ear to Eliezor that affirms what the Scriptures teâ—ch or to Joshua that asseâ—ts what the Scripture no where teâ—cheth Though saith he the Rabbins too did cleâ—ve to the latter c. Magistri vero quid mirum slabant pro Rabbi Joshua faciâ—bat â—nim in rem suâ—m in honorem Religâ—â—niâ— Judaâ—â—ae c Now thâ—t the blind Rabbins should establish their vain Customs by such Jewish Fables is no wonder being so left by God to blindness of eye and hardness of heart But that any proâ—essing Christianity should be so left oâ— God to assert and establish Gospel Ordinaâ—ces from the Fabulous Talmud and their lying Rabbies so directly contrary to the Scâ—ipture is matâ—er of the greatest admiration A thrid Argument is from Antiquity endeavouring to pâ—â—vâ— the succession thereof from the Apostles and to make it out to be an Apostolical Tradition from the following Authorities viz. Justin Mâ—rtyrs Responâ—es Irenaeus â—â—ginus Origen Cyprian the Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierachy St. Augustin and the Mileviâ—an Councel 479 to 482. The foâ—ce of all which you 'l have tryed in the next following Châ—pter to whâ—ch I refer you And so you have the substance of Doctor Hamonds strong Arguments wherein I have been the larger because you may be sufficiently informed that he rather confirmed then answered most of the â—nabaptists plea before mentioned And thâ—t the strength of those his stâ—ong Arguments having slighted and canciled so many of the old as weak and insufficient may appear to you And that upon the whole you may have your satisfaction wh ther I had not substantial ground to quote Doctor Taylâ—rs Arguments he gives in his Liberty of Prâ—pâ—ecy in
the behalf of Believers and agâ—inst Infants Baptisme and whether Mr. Will had reason to charge me with delusion for producing of them which as yet stand unanswered for the most part and I believe ever will do CHAP. II. That Infants Baptisme hath neither Foundation in Scripture or Antiquity is made good against Mr. Wills his pretences to both Section 1 AS in the former Chapter so in this I shall sum up what I have said to justify the truth of the assertion what Mr. Wills grants thereof wherein the force of his Objections lye and my Reply thereto That no Precept or Practise for Infants Baptisme The first thing I did herein was to make good the Scriptures total silence either as to Precept or Practise for Infnnts Baptisme and that by the full grant and acknowledgement of so many of themselves viz. the Magdeburgs Luther Erasmus Calvin Bucer Staphilus Choelens Melancton Zwinglius Rogers Baxter pag. 89. to 93 As also the necessity of Scripture Precept or Example to warrant every Ordinance by the sayings of Tertullian Austin Theophilact Luther Calvin Ball 6. Art of the Church of England pag. 93 to 97. Mr. Wills Answer grant All which our Antagonist fully grants with our foresaid Authorities viz. That there is neither Precept or Example for the Baptizing of Infants that is to say Expresly Literally and Sillabically p. 35 36 32. And that Scripture Authority is necessary to warrant every Ordinance But withall saith these two things viz. First 1. No Scripture forbidding that as there is no Scripture expresly commanding so neither is there any Scripture excluding Infants from Baptisme nor any Scripture that saith there was no Infants baptised pag. 36 38 101 131 132. Secondly 2. Good consiquence for it Though a thing may not expresly the commanded as Thus saith the Lord Iesus Baptise your Children for they believe yet that it may be commanded Implicitly and by Consiquence though not expresly injoyned in so many words And so was the Resurrection by Consiquential Reasoning proved Act. 22.31 32. Act. 13.33 34. And what was thus commanded is as valid and obliging as if it was in so many Letters and Syllables and thus we affirm Infants Baptisme is commanded p. 36. And we affirm against their practise of plunging over head and ears that there is no express command for the same nor Example to plunge them as they do with their Cloathes on pag. 101. And therefore in Mr. Baxters words tells us in his usual Civility what ignorant Wretches we are to call for express words of Scripture when we have the evident consequence or sence and is Scripture Reason saith he no Scripture with you To both which I reply First Reply to the first to his first Argument that Infants Baptisme may be lawful because not forbidden in the Scripture nor no where told where it was no done May also prove the Lawfulness of Baptizing Bells and Church Walls of Chrysme Exorcisme Communicating Infants and a hundred other inventions that were practised of old and still are in use amongst the Papists neither is it any where told us in Express terms that such things were not practised What not commanded in worship is forbidden But this we have clear in the Scripture and and which is to be a Rule to us in all such Cases that that worship which in express terms is not commanâ—eâ— is expresly forbidden and for which take the following Scriptures viz. Col. 2.20 21 22. If you be dead with Christ from the ruâ—iments of the World why as though living in the World are you subject to Ordinances touch not tast not handle not after the Commandements of Men. Matth. 15.9 But in vain do they worship me teaching for Doctrine the Commandâ—ments of Men. Deut. 4.2 You shall not add unto the Word whâ—ch I command you neither shall you demtnish ought from it that you may keep the Commandements of the Lord your God which I commanded you 12.32 What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish therefrom Jer. 7.31 And they have built the High places c. which I commanded not neither came it into my heart Jos 1.7 Observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my Servant commanded you shall not turn from it to the right hand or to the left Which great truth is well asserted and defended by Doctor Owin in his Book called Innocency and truth vindicated in reply to Doctor Parker Dr. Parke who having in his Ecclesiasticall Policy p. 189. said with Mr. Wills that what tâ—e Scripture forbids not it allows and what it allows is not unlawful and what is not unlawful may lawfully be done Doctor Owin Dr. Owin thus answers him p. 345. This tale I confess we have been told by many and many a time but it hath been as often answered that the whole of it as to any thing of reason is captious and Sophistical For if because they are not forbidden they may lawfully be introduced into Divine Worship then ten thousand things may be made lawful But the truth is although a particuler prohibition be needful to render a thing evil in it self A general prohibition is enough to render any thing unlawful in the worship of God so we grant that what is not forbidden is lawful but with all say that every thing is forbidden that should be esteemed as any part of Divine worship that is not commanded And therefore very excellently and undenyable proves pag. 339. That no part of Gods worship either in the Old or New Testament was lawful but what had some express warrant from his Word for the same And that all Additions and Traditions of Men therein God reproved and rejected as vaine worship Secondly as to his second Argument Reply to second viz. That express not Consiquential Scripture for every part of worship Mr. Collings that is so much a Kin to the former viz. That implicite and consiquential Commands are as valide and obliging as if expresly enjoyned and commanded I shall refer him and the Reader to some eminent Men of his own for an Answer Mr. Collings before his Vindic. Minist Evang. tells us That in things relating to the worship of God it is a general Rule in which our Brethren and we have long since agreed That nothing ought to be done without an express warrant in the Gospel Mr. Rutherford Mr. Rutherford in his due right of Presbytries pag. 364. doth also tell us What the Apostles commanded not in Gods worship that the Churches must not do Dr. Owin But especially Doctor Owin in his Communion with God pag. 169 170 c. saith thus The main of the Churches chast and choice affections to Christ lyes in their keeping his Institutions and his worship according to his appointment the breach of this he calls Adultery and Whoredom every where He is a jealous God and gives himself the Title only in
respect of his Institutions And the whole Apostacy of the Christian Church is called Fornication Rev. 17.5 And the Church that leades the other into false worship the Mother of Harlots This then they that hold Communion with Christ are careful of they will admit of nothing in the worship of God private or publick but what they have his warrent for unless it comes in his Name with Thus saith the Lord Iesus they will not hear an Angel from Heaven they know the Apostles themselves were to teach the Saints only what Christ commanded them Math. 28.20 Only plain Scripture for Gods worship So that what ever ventures Persons may make in drawing Consiquences and Inferrences from the Scripture for any supposed truths wherein great care and caution is to be used yet is it a known agreed Rule amongst Protestants That in the Worship of God wherein so much Sophestry hath been used to introduce and impose not only Ceremonies about worship but worship it self from Old Testament Rites and Observations Nothing therein as worship is to be admitted without some plain and express word by precept or practise to warrent the same out of the New Testament And therefore when Doctor Parker in the aforesaid Book falls so foul upon this Principle with intention to raze this great Protestant Bulwork and tells us p. 171. That the very Mystery of Puratinisme lyes in this very assertion viz. That nothing ought to be established in the worship of God but what is expresly commanded in the Word of God and that it is a vile novel and unreasonable Principle that takes away all possibility of settlement in the Church and the main pretence to all pious villanies c. You have Doctor Owin pag. 303. most worthely defending the same adding only this hereto viz. as part of worship And which he maintains by the Authority of Scripture Reason and Antiquity as well as from the testimony of the most learned Protestant writers Doctor Hamond Dr. Hamonds himself tells us as Mr. Tombes in his Review hath it pag. 827. viz. That it is highly unreasonable that an Institution of Christ such as each Sacrament is should be judged of by any other Rule whether the fancys or Reasons of Men but either the word wherein the Institution is set down or the Records of the practise of Christ or his Apostles in Scripture So that by all this evidence it appears Mr. Wills his unreasonableness that Mr. Wills is so Hetradox in both his positions that he has neither Scripture Reason Antiquity or the learned Protestant Writers to stand by him therein And wherein if he persist he gives up not only the Independent but whole Protestant Cause and all our Reformation at once For what inventions in worship are their that Men can impose with any presence to Decency and Order or Analogy to any of the Legal Rites that may not be introduced and given way too And Doctor Owin adds That all the Superstitions and Idolatryes yea all the Confusion Blood and Persecution yea all the Wars that for so long a season have spread themselves over the face of the Christian World have come in at this door Resurection proved by plain Scripture As to the two instances he gives to justify himself herein we say first as to the Doctrine of the Resurrection what is in more plain and express termes delivered to us in the Scripture and therefore we may the better admit of Consiquential Reasoning in such truths that are also plainly delivered to us in express termes else where Baptizing is Dipping in English And as for a plain word to dip over head and ears the word it self doth it because Dipping or Emerging as I make appear against Mr. Wills's Sophistry signifies nothing else but so puting the thing under water as to cover it all over and that not only by the most Eminent Criticks but the constant usage of the word both in the Old and New Testament And as for the Baptizing with Cloathes on as no Scripture mentions the putting them off so the light of Nature teacheth there should be some on And that the Cloathes are dipt matters not so long as the Person is dipt as all that experience it must needs acknowledge Consiquences from Circumcision proved not Infants Baptisme Though as to plain Consiquences and Scripture Reasoning we admit as well as they provided we have all the parts of worship kept to express words and Gospel Ordinances asserted by Gospel Institutions And therefore we deny the inferences usually drawn from Circumcision under the Law for Baptisme under the Gospel to be either plain proper or true And because Children were Circumcised under the Law by an express positive command therefore that they may be Baptised without any Precept or command under the Gospel holds not by any means For though in some things Circumcision may have some analogy with Baptisme viz. in heart Circumcision or Mortification must it therefore be good in all it holds not For though the Ark as Doctor Tayler well observes in some thing holds Analogy with Baptisme therefore to draw in all the Circumstances of the one to the other would make Baptisme a Prodegy not a rite and therefore saith he Types and Figures prove nothing except some Command accompanyes Had we as Express a command to Baptize Children under the Gospel as they to Circumcise them under the Law it would end the Controversy But as we have neither Command nor Example as granted so neither can there be any Analogy either in subject qualification or end as so largely proved Not in subject one being to be Males only in Israel the other Males and Females in all the World Not in qualification one to be the Natural Seed of Abraham without respect to Faith and Repentance the other the Spiritual Seed of Abraham with respect to Faith and Repentance for that is required in all Persons that are to be Baptised as so fully granted Neither in the ends the one to enter visibly into the National Church thereby the other into the Spiritual Church and to partake of Spiritual Ordinances so entring also into Covenant and acting Faith in the Promises and sharing of Priviledges in the very act of entrance that no Child under the Law or Gospel could be capable of In the next place as to the Anâ—iquity of enjoining Infants Baptisme with all its impious Concomitants of Salt Oyl Spittle Chrysme Exorcisme c. He grants it was not till above four hundred years after Christ in the Milevitan and Carthagenian Councels But withal saith the Reason why it was not enjoined sooner was because the Lawfulness of it was rarely if it all questioned before A good grant from Mr. Wills for the witnesses against Infants Baptisme To which I say then if it be so that the Canons in the respective Councels enjoining and inforcing Infants Baptisme whereof he saith he hath above thirty to produce were only made upon the
Infants Baptisme an Apostolical Tradition and the universal practice of the Church which we have examined distinctly and given an Account of the insufficiency and weakness if not the wickedness of most of them and which appearing falfe all the rest depending upon them necessarely fall to the Ground The first three of them viz. 3. of them owned to be spurious Dionysius the Areopagite in the first Century the Decretals of the first Popes or Roman Bishops with Justin Martyrs Responses in the second Century are all of them owned by Mr. Wills to be spurious and supposititious though to this day leaned upon by most of the Popish and many Protestant Writers also whereby the Mystery of Iniquity early discover it self not only to usher in but to support this Innovation by Lyes and Forgeries But Mr. Wills tells us that though these are forgeries Justin Martyr to Triphon examined yet Justin Martyrs Dialogue to Triphon is genuine who therein saith that it was lawful for all to receive the Spiritual Circumcision viz. Baptisme whereby it may well be inferred saith Mr. Wills from Mr. Baxter that if all may receive it then Infants who were the Subjects of Legal Circumcision for they must be part of all and not excluded Wills 128. Which I say is a meer impertinency and nothing to the purpose For first here is not one word of Infants nor of Infants Baptisme or its Apostolicalness Secondly it is very absurd the better to hook in Children to interprete the word all to be all Men for if all Men then it must comprehend wicked as well as good Believers as well as Unbelievers and which as confined to Baptisme by Master Wills is to contradict Christs Commission and the Apostles practise who limited it only to those that repented of their Sins and believed the Gospel And though it is true the Gospel was to be preached to all and all of all Nations in distinction to the Nation of the Jews who only were concerned in the first Commission yet only they taught Believers amongst them were to be Baptised not the ignorant and prophane And if the word All be so to be understood it is a witness for us not them for Infants thereby are excluded who are neither capable of Instruction Repentance or Faith And that it is so to be understood let Justin himself be the Interpreter who not only in his Apology before mentioned tells us Justin himself contradicts Mr. Wills sense that they Only who were instructed in the Faith and believed were brought to Baptisme to have their new Birth perfected But in this uery Dialogue to Tryphon tells us that by the Word and Baptisme Regeneration was perfected in all man kind viz. in all that did hear and receive the word and were capable to come to Baptisme And again that by the grace of God and the Baptisme of Repentance sins were expiated as Magdeburgs Cent. 2. pag. 4. 7. which sufficiently declares that this is nothing to the purpose except it be to confirm Believers Baptisme only And to which saith Mr. Tombes Mr. Baxters singular Notion This testimony for Antiquity of Infants Baptisme I remember not alledged by any before Mr. Baxter and therefore besides the impertinency of the words as he himself alledgeth them I see no need to search further into it Review 2. part p. 71. In the next place Mr. Wills tells us of an other Antiquity to prove Infants Baptisme Apostolical Iraeneus testimony examined viz. Iraeneus who in Lib. 2. c. 39. Advers Haeres tells us that Christ did sanctifie every age by his own susception of it and similitude to it All I say who by him are born again to God Whereby saith Mr. Wills we infer that being born again to God signifying Baptisme as the Antients for the most part took it then were the Infants baptised in his day Wills p. 129. To which I reply that if this be any more to the purpose then the former let all Men judge and whether it be not far fetch'd and unnaturaly screwed without either Reason or truth Very impertinent For first here is not one word of Infants Baptisme or its Apostolicalness and nothing but an impertinent begging Question upon Question to make up an inference Secondly The Interpretation upon which it is founded is wholy falacious for neither the Scriptures nor Justin Martyr do call Baptisme Regeneration absolutely but only as it is the Symbole of Regeneration already wrought by the word and so Justins words bâ—fore import and that only respecting the Adult that were capable thereof For if this be true Doctrine then must all Hypocrits and wicked Men that either now or ever were Baptised be actually thereby Regenerated and so consequently saved which is so absurd and Ridiculous as nothing can be more To which Mr. Tombes has so well answered Mr. Baxter in his third Review pag. 79. And which was never yet replyed to that we need say no more to it viz. Mr. Tombes But Christ was not in his Age an Example of every age by his Baptisme as if he did by it sanctify every age for then he should have been baptised in every age but in respect to the holyness of his humane Nature which did remain in each age and so exemplarily sanctify every age to God so as that no age but was capable of holiness by conformity to his Example Now if the meaning were that Christ came to save all that were baptised by him on by his appointment then he came to save Simon Magus and who ever are and have been baptised rightly Judas himself Therefore such a sense is most palpably false and therefore is this wrested by the Paedobaptists against its meaning to prove Infants Baptisme in his time So that I hope it will be manifest that these Authorities are as little to the purpose as the three former and all though these are not Supposititions yet wholy insignificant and nothing to the purpose Whereby it is manifest that for the first two hundred years we have not the least proof by any Authentick Au hor that Infants Baptisme was an Apostolical Tradition or that it was once practised within that compass of time And therefore saith Doctor Barlow Dr. Barlow I believe and know that there is neither precept nor practise in Scripture for Paedobaptisme nor any just evidence for it for above two hundred years after Christ And may it not be very well concluded in Mr. Baxters words about Confirmation That it was very suspicious to find in Justin Martyrs Description of the Christian Churches practise no mention of it p. 128. So neither to find in Justin Martyr nor as Mr. Tombes well observes the least of it in Eusebius Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius or Epiphanius is very good ground to conclude against it and reproof to Mr. Calvin who saith Mr. Calvin and Mr. Marshal justly reproved that there is no Antient Writer that doth not acknowledge the Original
of the holy Ordinance of Infants Baptisme even from the Apostles And to Mr. Marshal also who saith that the Church hath been in possession of Infants Baptisme this fiveteen hundred years and that no one Authority can be found witnessing thereto for two hundred years after Christ. Origen's testimony tryed But in the next place with greater confidence saith Mr. Wills we adhear to Origen notwithstanding the frivelous cavils of the Author It is true Origen is the Authority especially gloried in as being so positive and express for its Apostolicalness as it is mentioned L. 5. ad Rom. c. 6. and confirmed in Lev. l. 8. Hom. 8. and in Luke Hom. 14. In these words the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to give Baptisme to Children who had the secret Mystery of Divine things committed to them because they being defiled with the pollution of sin ought to be washed or cleansed by the water and Spirit c. To which we have said these three things viz. Reason given before agaidst it in Treat of Baptisme First that Origen is but one single testimony as Doctor Tayler observes and that against so much authentick testimonie to the contrary that none but the Adult are found in the Apostles times and the next Century after them to be baptised Secondly that his writings are so notorious corrupt and erronious and particulerly in the point of Baptisme Thirdly that many of his Works and particulerly these that treat of Baptisme fell into such ill hands Mr. Wills answer to the first To which Mr. Wills answers First that Origen was not a single testimony because saith he we have the testimony of Irenaeus also But what Iâ—enaeus Testimony signifies you have heard and therefore that neither Irenaeus or any other but Origens Testimony was in the Case you have Doctor Tayler in his Deswasive against Popery 2. part pag. 118. printed 1667 one of his last pieces saying thus Dr. Tayler that Origen was but a single Testimony That there is Tradition to baptise Infants relyes but upon two witnesses Origen and Austin and the latter having received it from the former it relyes wholy upon a single Testimony which is but a pittiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical he is the first that spoke it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been a Tradition Apostolical And that it was not so is but too certain if there be any truth in the words of Ludov. Vives saying that anciently none were baptised but persons of riper age And herein the Doctor it must be granted speaks his own sense not playing the Anabaptist as 't is said he did in his Liberty of Prophecy To the Second he ownes his corruptions Mr. Wills grants the 2. and great errors but saith to ballance him that Tertullian did not come much short of him in error and corruption that is one of my witnesses To which I say let them then go together only I shâ—ll have thereby the better bargain for Mr. Wills in parting with Origen parts with all but I have many more to witness for me besides To the Third that his Homelies on the Romans Mr. Wills to the 3. chargeth me with mistake were all translated by Ruffinus is my mistake for though Ruffinus might abuse some part of Origens works yet that Jerom did translate his Romans and Luks also and which he saith appeareth by Jeroms Preface affixed to them as Erasmus he tells us confesseth and therefore though Ruffinus hath no credit with me he hopes Jerom may they being Jeroms Version and which upon Erasmus testimony puts it beyond all doubt Reply to tâ—e charge â—herein Mr. Wills â—ppears to be grâ—sly â—â—staken To which I say first that what ever good thoughts Mr. Wills hath of the Translation of the Romans yet Mr. Perkins is pleased as I told him to put it amongst his spurious works Secondly that Erasmus what ever Mr. Wills so fa sly tells us is so far from asserting the Romans to be Jeroms and not Ruffinus that he saith just the contrary in his Censure before Oâ—igens works in these words At qui lâ—git ennar rationem Epistolae ad incertus Romanos est utrum legit Origenem aut Ruffinum And he that reads his Commentaires upon the Epistle to the Romans is uncertain whether he reads Origen or Ruffinus But is not Jeroms Preface before the Epistle and doth not Erasmus tell us so to put us beyond all doubt It is true Mr. Wills indeed tell us so but what credit is to be given to him let all Men judge when Erasmus and Grynaeus also tell us the quite contrary Erasmus his words are these Erasmus 〈◊〉 â—ct 〈◊〉 cheat Hic Lâ—brarii magnifice perfricuere frontem in Praefatione in per Oratione pro Ruffino Hieronymum supponentes hoc est vitrum pro Gemma Lectori obtrudere conantes hactenus sane fefellerunt incautos nam Praefatio poterat utcunque videri Hieronymi sed in per Oratione quasi Soriâ—es suo se produnt indicio Herein the Booksellers hâ—ve been very impudent both in the Preface and conclusion also putting Jerom instead of Ruffinus that is to say endeavouring to obtrude upon the Reader Glass instead of a Jewel and hitherto indeed they have deceived the unwary For however the Preface may seem Jeroms yet in the per-oration or conclusion the Rats do as it were betray themselves by their own discovery In like manner as saith the same Author Quod idem factum est in Symbolo Eum enim librum in Cypriani nomen transtulerunt sed ita multis commutatis ut ipsa res clamitet non casu sed de inaustria factum esse The same thing is done in the Symbolum For they transferred that Book on the name of Cyprian but many things being so changed that the matter it self manifests sufficiently that it was done not by chance but of design But then saith Mr. Wills Origen upon Luke examined what do you say to Luke For it is to be noted that neither the Author nor any one else hath any thing to say against his Homâ—lies on Luke what ever they have to say on that on the Levit. and the Romans where Origen expresseth the same thing concerning Infants Baptisme and Mr. Perkins himself lets this pass without the Censure of being spurious p. 132. To which I answer First 1. No Original Copy of iâ— then it is not denyed but that Leviticus wherein is the same thing asserted is so spoiled by Ruffinus that it may be justly censured for Mr. Wills saith nothing to it and if he did it is all one for Erasmus is as positive for that as for the other And as for that of Luke Mr. Tombes Tombes observes in his third Review pag. That Erasmus saith on Luke 1.3 Sic enim visus est sentire quis is fuit cujus extant in Lucam
their opinions and the very censtitution of their Sect. by which it will be somewhat difficult to make it out how it may not be therefore chargeable upon all Answered Principles may not be tryed by any thing but the Scripture and why In answer hereunto I say in the first place That Mr. Wills takes a wrong measure and sets up a false Standard By judging the goodness or badness of Principles or Doctrines by the goodness or badness of the Men that profess them because Men may have good Conversations that have rotten Principles witness the Scribes and Pharises of old the Jesuites and Quakers since that may be Woolves in Sheeps Clothing and Devils in the shape of Angels of Light And on the contrary Men may have good Principles and yet very unsuitable Conversations witness the Professors both under the Law and under the Gospel for whence was it that God destroy'd and removed his People of old pull'd down the Tabernacle and both Temples and sent them into Captivity but for the wickedness of their lives as Jer. 7.1 to verse 17. 1. Cor. 10.1 to 12. And whence was it that God removed his Candlestick from those famous first Churches in the New Testament but for the evil of their doing it must we therefore conclude that because their Conversations were so bad under both that therefore their Principle and Profession it self was â—ought and led thereunto by no means let God be true and every Man a lyar for this would be to reproach the truth in every Age. Therefore nothing but the Infallible Rule of Gods Word can be the proper Standard to try Doctrines by according to particular direction in the Case Isa 8. 20. Gal. 1.8 â— John 4.1 2 c. And the reason is because all Men are failable and at best are but Mâ—n But in the next place we will trace Mr. Wills in his further proofs and try whether he be able to make good his uncharitable not to say malicious charge whereby you will be the better able to judge whether the Foundation of his Argument is not slander and false accusation Mr. Wills proof fails to these of the Blasphemies and imoralities of the German Anabaptists The Principle saith he is false because they are usually so that profers it and that they are usually so appears first by the horrid errors and wicked lives of those in Germany and by the blasphemy and immoralities of divers in our own Nation But how doth he prove the one or the other First how he proves the German Anabaptists to be so a erronious as you have heard by Sphanhemius his lying fictions and camera's But concerning whose Orthadox Faith and Doctrine you have an Account in the Dutch book of Martyrs first by their publick owning the Articles of Faith exhibited by the Waldenses in the twelfth Cent. Recorded at large by Perin and divers other Authors and which they Sealed with their Blood through all the parts of Germany France Italy c. In the several Ages ever since whereof you have a faithful memorial in their Book of Martyrs from time to time And who withall do give a punctual account of those latter conventions of their Elders out of all the Provinces in the Low Countries Germany Flanders France c. viz. one at Amsterdam 27. September 1627. And the other at Dort 21. April 1632. Where the old Waldesian Articles were Subscribed and Published and which you have at large with the Scriptures annexed in the said Book of Martyrs called the Bloody Theatre Printed at Dort 1660. By which you have an account that the Anabaptists in Germany were not such desperate Hereticks as Mr. Wills so untruly suggests not but that I judge there were erronius Persons both in former and latter times that own'd the Doctrine of Baptism after Faith both in Germany and England and we find the purest Churches in the Primitive times were not free from Hereticks of all sorts Neither I presume will Mr. Wills our Accuser himself undertake that the Doctrine of Paedobaptisme doth secure from the grossest errors that are asserted Therefore since the Articles of Faith that have been and are own'd by those Churches are so sound and Orthadox there is no cause so to reproach them as Spanhamius before and Mr. Wills that now Writes after his Coppy And thus much for their Doctrine Then as to the Commotions and Rebellions that he tells us the way of Anabaptisme stirred up in Swevia and Munster from the same Author And what unheard of Villanies were perpetrated in that City hath been already considered and the proofs tendred for the same which I presume is such evidence that no Court of Justice nor any upright Man can pass a Judgement upon And truly if matter of Fact cannot be better told us at home witness those many false Stories Mr. Edwards in his Gangrene Fathered upon them and Mr. Baxter in his report of their Baptising naked of neither of which Mr. Wills takes any notice what credit can be given to these forreign uncertain Stories But if it should be taken for granted that they in Swevia and Munster were so Seditious and Rebellious as Mr. Wills from Spanhaemius would make them must all the Anabaptists in Germany both in that Age and ever since be so reputed and that their Principle leads thereto also Yea and those very Anabaptists too that both then and ever since that bore witness against beating of Arms at all for so did the followers of Mennosimonis and Theodoricus as Cassander tells us though so great is Mr. Wills his prejudice that he will not admit thereof and rather than not make his words good will adventure to translate that Passage M Cassander's Letter to the Duke of Cleve quite contrary to what he expresseth concerning them which discovers Mr. Wills to be either a very heedless Writer that dares not what he saith to blast the People he Writes against or that he doth not well understand a Latin Author or if he do supposeth by the ignorance of his opposite he may take the liberty to say any thing of that kind without controle concerning which Passage he tells us that they viz. The followers of Mennosimonus and Theodoricus being as he saith imperito quodam zelo incitati moved by an ignorant Zeal to what they did having a fancy that they must destroy the wicked per vim externam by force of Arms and this in order to the setting up the Kingdom of Christ which Satanical delusion put them on upon such exorbitancies just of the same strain with those called 5th Monarchy-Men that put all London into such a fright some years since as p. 99. Whereas Cassander saith the direct contrary in that very place viz. That though they were guilty of other mistakes through their ignorant Zeal Yet tokens of a godly mind might be perceived in them by this that they accerime semper resisterunt allways resisted the rage of Munster and John Battenbarg and taught that
there were none Baptized in it but Believers First because there was nâ— Precept to Baptize any other Secondly No Example for any other And thirdly From what is said of them Act. 16.40 They were only Adult persons capable of Instruction and Consolation for tâ— said Paul and Sylas after they came out of Prison entered into the House of Lydia and comforted the Brethren there viz those in that Family that had been troubled for the hard usuage and Imprisonment of thâ— Apostles Besides t is very probable Lydia was a single Person no Husband being mentioned but she in chief all along But surely it is on their part that say she had Children and baptized Children too to prove it For â— yet it doth not appear but the contrary So that here iâ— neither Child expresly nor by any consequence to bâ— found in any of these Baptized Housholds In so much that Dr. Hamond the last great Writâ— for Infants Baptism confesseth in his sixth Quaery pag. 471 That to conclude Infants were Baptized because Housholds are so mentioned to be is unconviâ—cing and without Demonstration it being so unâ—â—rtain whether there was any Children in those Faâ—â—lies As though If the Master of the Family Beâ—â—ved all the House whether ignorant unconverted â—â—ophane and Athiestical were to be Baptized also In the next place we come to examine the parity â—â—twixt the Command we urge for Womens receiveâ—â—g the Lords Supper and that which is pretended by 〈◊〉 for Infants Baptism The Command we bring for Womens receiving â—â—e Lords Supper is 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man Exâ—mine himself and so let him eat c. Vâ—z Man or Woman for so the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and â—dam in the Hebrew signifie There being one Meâ—iator betwixt God and Man and Woman the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2.45 Being both but one 〈◊〉 Christ Gal. 3.28 To which you thus Reply You gather it from the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is of the Masculine â—nd Femenine Gender and so signifies Male and â—emale which I deny not But I must crave leave â—o inform you That when it is limited with words â—f the Masculine Gender it hath reference expresly â—o Men and not to Women and that it is so here â—ou say you shall abundantly prove because it is â—imited where you bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 again and some â—thers of like import mentioned in the Chapter Secondly From the Text it self where the Reâ—ative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it is expresly limited to the Masculine and therefore to a Man only and not to a Woman Therefore the Text must be read Let a Man Examine himself expresly not a Woman and so let him eat c. But I appeal to the sober and juditious Reader whether this is not a meer trifling in the things of God and a playing with Words to pervert the Truth As for the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and others of like nature we need say no more and to the Relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as little Mr. Blindman knowing I verily believe there is little but deceit in it For what more frequent in Scripture than to find this Relative to respect both sexes For Instance Jam. 1.23 24. If any be a hearer of the Word and not a doer he is like unto a Man beholding his natural Face in a Glass For he beholdeth himself and goeth his way c. which I presume takes in the Woman as well as the Man Rom. 13.9 Love thy Neighbour as thy self the same So Matth. 28.19 20. Baptizing them and Teaching them the same also So that by Mr. Blindmans rule we have as little express Command for their Baptism as their Communion and that Men are only concerned in both So that your Exceptions to our Command are as insignificant as those to our Example Then you come Sir to produce your Command for Infants Baptism which you would make us believe is as clear if not clearer that what hath been given for Womens receiving the Lords Supper viz. Mat. 28.9 Go teach or Discipulize all Nations baptizing them and that Children are Disciples is clear you say from Act. 15.10 Why tempt you God to put a Yoak upon the neck of the Disciples But for your better Information in Christs Commission I must refer you to the account Mr. Baxter gives of it who tells us the right Order thereof and Lessons therein Viz. That the first task is to make Disciples which he tells us by Mark are called Believers The second is Baptize them And the third to Teach them all other things which are afterwards to be learned in Christs Schoole Which is a right and true definition of the Text The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Discipulize or make Disciples is nothing else but to beget them to the Faith by preaching the Gospel to them the true means thereof and then being instructed in the Faith they are to be Baptized therein And therefore again Mr. Baxter truly tells us That it is the constant Order that Baptism follow Faith and no better than an Impious prophanation of the Sacrament if it go without Faith And that if Faith be not the Pre-requisite to Baptism Philip deluded and not decided the Question when he told the Eunuch If he Believed with all his heart he might So that when you can make it appear your Infant as a taught Disciple believes in Christ you may find a Command here to Baptize him Otherwise as Mr. Baxter tells us Philips answer carries a Negative in it viz. If thou dost not believe thou mayest not be baptized And as for Infants Discipleship from Act. 15.10 It is an utter mistake the Disciples there being those Gentile Believers that had newly received the Faith who were neither to be yoked with Circumcision nor any other Jewish Rite only they were Injoyned to abstain from Idolathits Blood things Strangled and Fornication there being no Infant in the Case nor concerned herein neither are they any where called Believers or Disciples Therefore Sir upon the whole Let the Juditious Reader Judge betwixt us whether you have given as good Ground by as full Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants as I have done from Gods Word for Womens Receiving the Lords Supper Not doubting but this search into this your Essay will put a comfortable End to this part of the Controversie betwixt us In the next place you must give me leave to return you an Answer to three or four smart Reflections I meet with in your Book First Sir I conceive you have given me just occasion of Offence so unduly to mention my not taking notice of Mr. Baxters Errata without any the least regard to what I have so largely spoke for his Satisfaction and my own Vindication having received the like measure from Mr. Wills therein also And whether the râ—proving that my Omission with such severity and wholly passing over those
2. From their eminent leading Men who denyed Infants Baptisme proving that the Waldeâ—ses denyed Infants Baptisme is from the w tness that was born against it by some of their most eminent leading Men viz. Berengarius in the eleventh Century Peter Bruis Henericus and Arnoldus in the tweâ—feth First Berengarius who was so famous that the Waldenses were called after his name for a hundred years after at Mr. Clark tells us 1. Berengarius and who filled all France Italy and England with his Doctri e as Matthew Paris and who so eminently witnessed not only against Transsubstantion but Infants Baptisme which is made good First From the reply that Lanifrank Proved 1. by Lanifraâ—k Archbishop of Canterbury gave to him upon that point in his Book called Scintillaris saying that in denying Infants Baptisme he did oppose the General Doctrine and general consent of the Church Magd. Cent. 11. c. 5. p. 240. Secondly Cassancer out of Guitmond 2. Câ—ssander That with the real presence he denyed Baptisme to little ones though the latter not so publickly as the former 3. Councel in France Thirdly By the Councel called by Henry the I. of France to suppress the Heresies of Bruno and Berongarius for denying Transsubstantiation and Infants Baptisme Bib. Pat. p. 432. 4. Thuanus Fourthly from the testimony of Thuanus witnessing that Bruno Archbishop of Triers did persecute the Beringarians for denying Infants Baptisme as you have it p. 242 243. The witnesses to prove it not excepted against None of which he excepts against only saith that there were several Councels in which Berengarius was persecuted for the Real presence but no mention is made of his denying Infants Baptisme pag. 51. But what then this four fold testimony is enough to prove it 2. P. Bruis Henry Arnold Secondly Peter Bruis Henericus and Arnoldus all in the twelfeth Century and so eminent that the Waldenses for a long time were called by their names viz. Petrobrusiani Henerici and Arnoldi did all of them deny Infants Baptisme Testefied by which is made good by these following Testimonies viz. First That Peter Bruis denyed it is testified by Peter Cluniacenses 1. Cluniacenses charge against them who amongst the several things he charges him with fifteen in numbâ—r puts his denying Infants Baptisme in the front in four particulers Osiander Century 12. Lib. 3. cap. 3. 2. In his Lâ—â—tâ—r to 3. Bishops Secondly The said Peter Cluniacenses writes to three Bishops in France that the Petrobrusiani and Henerici denyed Infants Baptisme and held Rebaptization c. and that when he urged fâ—r Paeâ—obaptisme the Authority of Austin and the Latin Fathers Peter and his Colegues appealed to the Scaipture and the Greek Church Thirdly Cassander testefies 3. Cassander in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleve that Peter Bruis and Henericus denyed Baptisme to little ones affirming that only the Adult should be baptised Fourthly Doctor Pridieux saith in his Latin Councels 4. By the Latin Councel that Peter Bruis and Arnoldus of Brixia were in the second Lateran Councel censured for the Heresie of Rejecting Infants Baptisme Church buildings and adoration of the Cross Fifthly Bernard 5. Bernard Abbot of Claravel in Burgundy doth in his Letter to the Earl of St. Giles in his 204. Epistle accuse the Henerici or Apostolici of the Heresie of denying Infants Baptisme And in his 65. Serm. on the Cant. charges them to oppose Infants Baptisme Transsubstantiation Purgaâ—ory praying for the Dead c. Osiand Cent. 12. L. 3. c. 6. p. 291. All which Bernard said he had either by investigation or diligent search personal disputation with them or from those that were come from them Magd. Century 12. cap. 5. pag. 844 the latter whereof Mr. Wills only takes notice of so partial is he in his remarks Sixthly 6. Vicecomes Vicecomes L. 2. ch 1. That the Henerici and Apostoloci denyed Infants Baptisme Seventhly Doctor Hamond confesseth 7. Dr. Hamond that Peter Bruis and Henry his Schollar and the Petro Brusiani and Henricani that sprang from them opposed Infants Baptisme Tombes 3. Review pag. 827. To all which Testimony Mr. Wills gives in this Exception pag. 53. c. That most of this witness is gathered from lying Papists especially two lying Abbots Bernard and Cluniacenses And tells me in as much as I have cited Osiander he doubts it may be some prejudice to my cause because what ever Osiander saith of Peter Bruis and Henericus denying Infants Baptisme he taketh it out of the works of Peter Cluniacenses who doth Calumniari fortiter lay very abominable errors to their charge and amongst others this venial one of denying Infants Baptisme Now if any credit must be given to this Abbot it must be per totum through out in all or else in nothing And verily if his testimony be valide and the Author from him our opposites need not glory in such Waldenses that they comported with their opinions nor we troubled at their dissenting from us Let us now therefore saith he pag. 55. look into the wicked and false testimony or account this lying Abbot gives of those two precious Ministers Peter Bruis and Henricus as Osiander takes it out of his own writings viz. Cluniacenses viz. First Baptismum abjiciunt They cast of Baptisme meaning that of Infants Secondly Corporum resurrectionem negunt They deny the Resurrection Thirdly Carnem comedi prohibent They forbid eating flesh Fourthly Christum non esse Deum c. That Christ is not God nor took flesh on the Virgin c. Fifthâ—y Ecclesiam non posse aliquid possidere nisi in communi c. That the Church should possess all things in common Then saith by this time I suppose we may conclude that these Waldenses were vile persons or Cluniacenses a lying Abbot And then goes on p. 57. with great severity to châ—stiseme Now me thinks he should blush at his indiscretion for introducing such a Popish calumniation for an evidence in this matter And if he believe this Abbot slandred Peter Bruis and his followers in these things I hope he will excuse the Reader if he believe he did no less when he chargeth them to be against Infants Baptisme I see by this that when Men are ingaged in a cause and wedded to an opinion they will not refuse the most sordid and shameful wayes to promote it They will fall in with slanderous Papists and take up what they say to defend their opinions witness my Antagonist and his Predecessor Mr. Tombes who was heretofore checkt for this very thing and who boldly justifies himself and tells us in his Precurser pag. 29. that Cluniacenses though a zealous Papist yet thought fit by Illyricus to be reckoned amongst witnesses of truth in his Catalogue and that if such as he and Bernard be not taken for witnesses of things in their time I know not how the Protestants will make up their
Catalogue of witnesses in all Ages which he saith are dangerous words To which I answer first Answer 1 his part in dealing first let it be taken notice that as to the proof offred by me for these my witnesses amongst the several instances produced he falls upon that which he thinks the most weak the usual method he takes with me all along and avoids that which he finds most strength in which savours of a very partial mind and truly I conceave were Cluniacenses testimony from Osiaâ—der left out there is enough from all the rest to prove that Peter Bruis Henricus and Arnoldus denyed Infants Baptisme the latter of which the eminent Arnoldus he takes no notice of 2. His Falshood But in the next place since he lays so much stress upon this supposed mistaken part of the testimony to cast reproach upon all the rest we will join issue with him in the Examination thereof and the rather because he intitles Mr. Baxter and Mr. Marshal also to the exception too Know therefore that hence you have a further discovery of the great unfaithfulness and want of Conscience in the Author for daring thus to abuse the World with a cheat and that which he knows to be a meer forgery of his own and which will I doubt not appear to you by the following Circumstances 1. None of Cluniacâ— ses First He knows that Cluniâ—censes that he calls the lying Abbot hath given no such wicked and false testimony as he produceth from him out of Osiander for both Osiander and the Magdâ—burgs from whom he had it gives an account of sweteen particulers where with he charges Peter Bruis as receiving them either from his own mouth or as Mr. Wills acknowledgeth from their own writings and not upâ—n uncertain Report p. 56. And which are these that follows vâ—z the four first agaiâ—st Infaâ—ts Baptisme the three next against Transubstantiation the eighth against praying for the dead the nineth for Priests Marriage the tenth against Adoration of Crosses the eleventh against superstitious adoring of Temples the twelfeth against Church musick the thirteenth for the lawfulness to eat flesh on Suâ—days and Fast dayes the fourteenth that upon common fame as he saith they did not receive the whole Canon of the Scripture which saith Osiander was aske supposeth the Apocriphal writtings and which appears by the next the fifeteenth that they only received the Canon of Scripture solâ— Canoni credunt and that the sayings of the Antients were not to be compared to it The 12 first of these Cluniacenses particulerly and at large in several pages makes answer too Magdeb. Cent. 12. p. 832. c. Osiander Cent. 12. L. 3. c. 3. But here is not a word of denying the Resurrection Christs Incarnation or such abominations said to be delivered by Cluniacenses and by him charged upon them Secondly that Osiander that he so often saith 2. Osiander reports no such thing from Cluniacenses reports it and that therefore I did my self injury he doubted in mentioning him hath not one word of any such thing as from Cluniacenses but only makes the repetition of those fifeteen particulers out of the Magdeburgs word for word as Osiander Century 12. L. 3. cap. 3. is manifest 3. Not charged upon Pet. Bruis but upon others by other hand in another Age. Thirdly He knows that these particulers he mentions were not charged upon Peter Bruis but upon the Albegeois in the following Century by other hands then Bernard and Cluniacenses who were dead long before for Helvicus tells us that Bernard who was cotemporary with Cluniacenses Peter Bruis and Henricus flourished about 1110. And Osiander tells us that this Albigensian Sext or Heresie was charged with these things by the Monks Inquisitors Sabellicus Schedelius Anno 1206. who by Pope Innocent the third that Devil Incarnat what were sent to discover that People against whom he came forth with many of others so much murderous cruelty by fire and sword with an Army of hundred thousand Men to root up and destroy them And therefore the better to justify his cruelties and to provoke all Europa to come in to help these wicked Imps of his thus paint out these poor People as the Monsters of Man-kind Why Mr. Wills did this knowingly And that Mr. Wills hath done this knowingly appears first by his picking out only the five particulers out of twenty leaving out the most gross viz. their owning two Gods viz. God and the Devil their condemning of Marriage and justifying all manner of Luxury and uncleaness and patronizing Thefts and Roberies c. Secondly that he knows Osiander saith these things are not reported by Cluniacenses and Bernard but by Lucelbergius Antonius Vincentius c. Thirdly Because he neither mentions Century Book Chapter or Page which in other Quotations out of Osiander he useth to do Therefore let it be judged whether he hâ—th not injuriously belyed Osiander belyed Cluniacenses belyed Peter Bruis belyed the truth which by this forgery he would cover and hide abused the World belyed and abused me also in especial whom he deals so severly with for the same as you have heard But much more fear his own â—onscience by this piece of folly and Falshood And therefore may we not well return his own words which he gives me hereupon viz. Now me thinks the Author should blush at his indiscretion for introducing such evidence and I see by this that when Men are ingaged in a cause and wedded to an opinion they will not refuse the most sordid and shameful wayes to promote it Thirdly 3. From the Decrees made against them for denying Infants Baptisme That the Waldenses did deny Infants Baptisme appears from the Decrees of several Emperors and Popes against the Body of the People for the same And the writings of learned Men living in those times which you have at large from p. 248 to 255. viz. First The Decrees of Robert King of France Anno 1000. first against the Waldenses of Thoulouse afterwards against several at Orleans for denying Infants Baptisme Secondly The Decrees of the Emperor Henry the second Anno 1017. to punish this Sect. Thirdly The Decrees of the Emperor Henry the fourth Anno 1054. for their denying Infants Baptisme c. Fourthly The Decrees of Pope Leo the nineth Anno 1050. to establish Infants Baptisme denyed by them Fifthly The Decrees of Pope Gregory the seventh Anno 1070. for the same Sixthly The Decrees of Pope Alexander the third against the Waldenses for denying Infants Baptisme and the several wayes he took to prosecute and persecute them for the same Seventhly The Decrees in the Gallican Councel against them for the same Eightly The Decrees of the general Lateran Councel against them for the same Ninenthly The Decrees of Pope Lucius Anno 1181. in the Councel of Veroni against them for the same Tenthly The Decrees of the Pope Urbane against them for the same Eleventhly The Decrees