When I heard Anabaptistry obtruded on the religious people as a great and needful part of their integrity 2. And when they that abhorred to hear of old scandals were busily making more and greater 3. When I saw what was done against the Parliament by them that professed to be their servants and that the Anabaptists and their Associates were the forwardest in the work 4. And what was done against the King when they had thrust out the Parliament 5. And what was done in the wars against Scotland 6. And what orders past for sequestring all such as my self that were not for their Engagement or Keeping their days of fasting and thanksgiving in causes of blood 7. And when I saw these executed on many excellent men that were Masters of Colledges in the Universities and useful Ministers in the Country 8. And when I saw what that called the Little Parliament was and did and how it was put to the Vote whether all the Parish Ministers of England should be put out at once and carried against them but by a few And that the Anabaptists were of the forwardest in all this work 9. And after when I saw how many of them turned Ranters and read my self some of their Letters full of horrid Oathes and Blasphemies All these things made me think that they were not friends to the Churches welfare and this was not the way of holiness or peace § 3. All this while I desired to have lived by them in peace and quietness but I could not obtain it Mr. Tombes thought that I stood in the way of his successes even when I medled not with them And therefore I must be either converted to them or conquered that the triumph might promote their ends And when that quarrel was over I was glad and purposed to meddle with them no more § 4. One of the greatest things that offended me was that even in the Parishes where there were the ablest faithful laborious Ministers they laboured to gather separated Churches upon the account of their opinion And when they had gathered them they were militant Churches Presently that Town was in a war and the meetings employed for the extolling of their opinions and vilifying the Ministers and Churches that were against them and making them odious or contemptible to their followers which could not be the work of God § 5. I dare challenge any man to make it good that ever I fought to persecute any Anabaptists or stirred up others to persecute them for their judgements I know not that ever I did any of them any harm except by not being of their minds or contradicting them But though my sufferings by them were nothing that honour being assumed by another party yet they have not carried it so to me But have convinced me that were they uppermost they would then have had too little tenderness for those that hindred their successes Even some of Mr. Tombes his flock my neighbours and familiar friends I think sought my life or ruine when I meddled not with them When Sir George Booth had done what was done in Cheshire I wrote a Letter to Major Beak at Coventry and the Messenger telling them at Bewdley that he had a Letter from me some of them made themselves Souldiers and in arms way-laid the messenger assaulted him and took his Letters and though they found not what I suppose they expected yet finding in it but a great mans name who then much ruled publick affairs they sent it up to the Council to him who summoned Major Beak to London to answer it who had never seen it and knew nothing of it And though he so scaped I was loudly threatned but General Monks approach out of Scotland stayed the execution of their displeasure Thus did my familiar Friends unprovoked some of them yet alive § 6. Indeed my judgement was and is that the point of Infant Baptism hath its considerable difficulties which may occasion wise and good men to doubt or to be mistaken in it And many of the Roman party have taken it to be proveable only by the tradition and judgement of the Church And Mr. Tombes hath publickly intimated as if one of our most Learned and Entire publick Professors of Theologie in one of our Universities had declared himself of the same mind viz. that it is not to be proved by Scripture Mr. Danvers hath also made advantage of this testimony Though of late Scripture certain proof is found in the new Rubrick of the Liturgie for a great deal more I am not of that mind that it is not proveable by Scripture I think I have proved it but not by evidence so clear as every good man can perceive § 7. Therefore I never took the point of it to have such weight as that all that differed from me in it must be denied either Love Liberty or Communion If I know my own heart I do as heartily love a sober godly man that is against Infant baptism as I do such men that differ from me in other such Controversies and much better than one of my own judgement who hath less piety and sobriety And I make no doubt but there are among us very many such even sober and religious men as there be among other parties § 8. Nor do I think that there is so much malignity in the bare opinion which denieth Infant Baptism as that all the Anabaptists miscarriages should arise from the nature of that opinion But I am past doubt that they arise from the diseased minds of many that hold it When injudicious persons lay hold upon an opinion which is not common their singularity kindleth a proud selfish zeal and they take that opinion as more peculiarly their own than the common Articles which all Christians hold And therefore they grow fond of it and are puft up thereby with a conceit of their extraordinary knowledge And then they seem to themselves more religious than others and greater friends to the truth And so Pride and Ignorance engage them in singularity and separation And thus they would do were it any other opinion which they thought as highly of as this So that it is not an Anabaptist as such but the proud Church-divider or Separatist that I am most offended at § 9. I know that in the Ancient Churches men were left at liberty both when they would be baptized themselves and when their Children should be baptized And though Infant-baptism was without any known original since the Apostles yet it was not a forced thing § 10. And were it in my power it should be so still I would not deny Christian Love nor Church-Communion nor publick encouragements to any pious peaceable man for being an Anabaptist If he would not separate for it from the Churches if he would live peaceably with me I would live peaceably with him and should be loth to be behind with him in love and peace § 11. It is not I say Anabaptistry Independency nor any such opinion which
out of Aegypt Is it easie hence to prove that calling him out of Aegypt did make him his Son that was none before or to prove that Israel was Gods Son before he called him out of Aegypt If you should maintain the former I might expect that you should say the like of Christ himself to whom the Evangelist applieth this text and so you may prove as fairly that Christ was none of Gods Son till he was called out of Aegypt but was made his Son by that call Certainly the Text termeth him Gods Son that was called as being so before that call By this time I am well content that any waking man do compare your doctrine and mine and try whether it be a transeunt fact or a Law and Covenant that made Infants and all others Church-members and if they do not admire that ever a learned man should harbour such a conceit as yours and that ever a godly man should build such a weight on it and go so far on such a ground yea and that ever ordinary godly people should be so blinded with such palpable nonsense or absurdities then let them still follow you in the dark for I expect not that reason should recover them Reply To all this I find nothing said that needeth any further reply SECT XLIV XLV R. B. I Come now to the eighth Question that is to speak to the point which you propounded You urge me to cite to you the particular Texts that contain this Law Ordinance Precept or Covenant To which I answer thus 1. There are two sorts of Laws one which first make a duty the other which suppose it so made and do only call for obedience and excite thereto or prescribe somewhat as a means in order thereunto If I could shew you no written law or promise as first constituting the duty or granting the priviledge of Church-membership it were not the least disparagement to my cause as long as I can shew you those following Laws which presuppose this You know the Church of God did live about 2000. years without any written law that we know of Where then was Gods will manifested about such things as this but in tradition and nature If Moses then at the end of this 2000. years did find this tradition and find all the Infants of Church-members in possession of this benefit then what need he make a new Law about it Or why should God promise it as a new thing I confess if I should find by any new law or promise that it did begin but in Moses days I should think it some abatement of the strength of my cause though yet I think there would enough remain 2. There are yet higher two sorts of laws the one for the constitution of the Common-wealth it self the other for the administration or government of it when it is so constituted The former are called by some Fundamental Laws as laying the frame and form of the Common-wealth and the quality of the materials c. I think indeed that as constitutive of the form of the Common-wealth these are scarce properly called Laws though as they look forward obliging to duty and prohibiting alteration they may But if they be not laws they are somewhat higher and lay the ground of all laws and obedience and so are laws eminenter virtualiter though not actually and formally And in our case as this constitution did subject us to God making it our duty ever after to obey him so doth it oblige us to acknowledge that subjection And the very constitution of the Church is an act of high beneficence and performed by the fundamental grant or Covenant Now if this Covenant and constitution could not expresly be shewed in writing it were no diminution of the authority of it seeing among men Fundamentals are seldom written and when they are it is only as Laws obliging the subject to maintain and adhere to the first constitution As long therefore as we can prove that it is Gods will that successively Infants should be Church-members it no whit invalidates the cause if we could not shew the original constitution in writing Yet somewhat we shall attempt 3. We have full proof of Infants Church-membership by Laws and Covenants concerning it ever since the time that there was a written word of God and that is sufficient if we could fetch it no higher Having premised this I come nearer to the Question The first institution of Infants Church-membership de jure upon supposition of their existence was in Gods first constitution of the Republick of the world when he became mans Governour and determined of his subjects and members of the Common-wealth Which Republick being sacred and devoted to Gods worship and service was truly a Church of which God was head This was performed by the first Law and Covenant made either in or upon mans creation That such a Covenant or promise of felicity was made by God to innocent man almost all Divines agree But because it is rather implied than expressed in Moses brief History some few cavillers do therefore contradict us But 1. The threatning of death for sin seems to imply a promise of life if he sinned not 2. And the New Testament affordeth us divers passages that yet plainlier prove it which to you I need not recite But whether this promise of life were natural as the threatning of death was or only positive and more arbitrary Divines are not agreed among themselves Those that say it was free and positive give this reason That God could not naturally be obliged to bless or felicitate the most innocent or perfect creature nor any creature merit of God Those that think it natural as the threatning was say it 's true that God could not be properly obliged because he is under no Law no more is he obliged to punish but only man obliged to suffer if he inflict it And it 's true that man cannot strictly merit of God But yet say they as man may have a natural aptitude for such felicity so God hath a natural propensity to do good according to the capacity of the subject and his works do oblige him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability as well as his word So that their reasons are these following 1. Because God is as naturally prone to do good to the good as to do evil to the evil that is to reward as to punishment as his name proclaimed to Moses Exod. 34. shews 2. Because God making man capable of a higher felicity and principling him with inclinations thereto and giving him desires love and other affections for that blessed end even the everlasting fruition of God therefore they say God did in this frame of his nature give him ground to expect such a felicity if he sinned not For else all these inclinations and affection should have been in vain But God made not so noble a creature with vain inclinations and affections to act fallaciously and falsly Also Gods works
quae dicimus esse in Catholica Baptismum illic tantum recte accipi Item alia duo dicimus esse apud Donatistas baptismum non autem recte accipi Harum sententiarum tres nostrae tantum sunt unam vero utrique dicimus That is Two things we say that there is Baptism in the Catholick Church and that there only it is rightly received Also two things more we say that there is Baptism with the Donatists but that with them it is not rightly received of these sentences three are only ours and one is common to us both Austin held it a sin to be baptized among Schismaticks to joyn with their Sect but not a nullity § 12. Hereupon he addresseth himself to evince the sinfulness of their Schism and unchristianing all the Churches And indeed he seems to think that though Baptism was among them yet hardly Salvation And his argument though I think we must abate for mens passions and temptations is worth the Separatists consideration that baptism that destroyeth remitteth he calls it not sin is not saving that which is without love remitteth not sin But Schismaticks saith he have not love For Nulli Schismata facerent si fraterno odio non excaecarentur Annon est in Schismate odium fraternum Quis hoc dixerit Cum origo pertinacia Schismatis nulla sit alia nisi odium fraternum That is None would make schisms if they were not blinded by the hatred of their brethren Is there not the hatred of brethren in Schism What man will say so Whenas both the Rise and the Pertinacie of Schism is no other than the hatred of brethren But blind zeal will not let men know their own hatred when yet they defame their brethren as no brethren and endeavour to have all others think them so bad as not to be communicated with and separate from them on that account § 13. The main subject of all the rest of these seven Books of Austin is to answer the Donatists claim of Cyprian and his Carthage Council as on their side and to answer all the sayings of him and the several Bishops of that Council The plain truth is this In the first age the Churches were so sober and charitable as not to account every erring brother and party Hereticks but such as subverted the Essentials of Religion And some of these corrupted the very form of Baptism The baptism of these the Church took for null and baptized such as they pretended to have baptized Cyprian and the other African Bishops knowing this and being much troubled with heretical Churches about them stretched this too far and rebaptized them that such Hereticks baptized as did not change the form of Baptism but incorporated men into their corrupt societies The Donatists took advantage by this example and all the Reasons of the Council to go so much further as to take the Catholicks for Hereticks or unlawful Churches and rebaptize those that they baptized Austin answereth all the Councils reasons but praiseth Cyprian as a holy Martyr and no Heretick though mistaken § 14. And it is not enough for me to say that all these Books of Austin have not a word of what he speaketh as controverting Infant-Baptism with the Donatists but moreover he bringeth the Donatists agreement with the Catholicks in the point of Infant-Baptism as a medium in his arguing against them Lib. 4. c. 23. shewing how much baptism availeth in that Christ himself would be baptized by a servant and Infants that cannot themselves believe are baptized Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli Infantes baptizantur qui nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam ore confiteri ad salutem quod latro potuit Quinetiam flendo vagiendo cum in eis mysterium celebratur ipsis mysticis vocibus obstrepunt tamen Nullus Christianus dixerit eos inaniter baptizari That is Which all the Church holdeth when little Infants are baptized who certainly cannot yet with the heart believe to righteousness and with the mouth confess to Salvation And yet no Christian will say that they are baptized in vain Thus he argueth against the Donatists If the whole Church hold Infant-Baptism and no Christian will say that it is in vain though they themselves believe not and confess not then you should not say all baptism is vain because we Catholicks administer it or because it is received in our Churches The whole tenor of Austins charitable language to the Donatists and the scope of this place sheweth that he here pleaded universal consent and by all the Church and no Christian includeth the Donatists And so he oft argueth against the Pelagians who though they denied original sin durst not differ from the whole Christian world by denying Infant-baptism but pretended that it was for the conveyance of Grace though not for remitting sin § 15. And Austin next addeth Et si quisquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat Quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur tamen veraciter conjicere possumus c. That is And if any one in this case of Infant-baptism ask for Divine authority Though that which the universal or whole Church doth hold and was not instituted by Councils but was ever held is most rightly believed to be delivered by the Apostles authority yet we may truly conjecture c. and so he passeth to the Scripture argument from Circumcision § 16. Here note 1. That this was no controversie with the Donatists 2. Nor with any other Sect but hold by all the Church 3. That he only saith as in a Parenthesis that that which all the whole Church holdeth and did ever hold not instituted by any Council is justly taken for an Apostolical tradition which I think few Protestants or sober Christians will deny Who can imagine that Timothy Titus Silas and all the whole Church in the Apostles daies and ever since should hold and agree in any thing as a part of Christian Doctrine or Worship which they had not from the Apostles Had the Apostles so little charity as not to endeavour to rectifie any of their errors 4. Note here that the Donatists never denied this that Infant-baptism was ever held by the whole Church to that day and not instituted by any Council And were not Austin the Donatists and the whole Church liker to know the universality and Antiquity of the thing than the Holland or English Anabaptists about fourteen hundred years after them 5. Note that he bringeth Scripture for it also § 17. Indeed I find some that before those times had been above Ordinances and against all baptism but none against Infant-baptism as unlawful Therefore Augustine saith elsewhere that it is easier to find Hereticks that deny all baptism than any that change the form of baptizing so sure hath the Tradition of universal practice
received the Scriptures the Christian Faith Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick Churches who had no such thing as the Baptizing of Infants among them Answ No such thing in the Asiaticks Churches He might as well say There is now no such thing in England But perhaps hee 'l say that he meaneth in the Apostles time or soon after Of which you have tryed part of his strength But when he hath studied well Bishop Vshers Primordia who saith all that is to be said for our Antiquity he will find no proof that we had our Religion from the Apostles or any in their time § 36. But ask the man whether Asia it self long before the dayes of Gregory had not Infant-Baptism And whether they received not the Scriptures and Religion as certainly from the Asiatick Churches and so from the Apostles as the Britains did And whether this will prove that at that time they were against Infant-Baptism If not why will it prove the same of the Britains § 37. His second Argument is Because they so fully prized and faithfully adhered to the Scripture c. Answ What will not partiality say 1. You must believe him that Scripture is against Infant-Baptism And then the controversie is at an end 2. You must believe him how closely they adhered to Scripture if you can when you have read Gildas who is translated into English their neighbour one of them the only certain historian that knew them who describeth them as I have said as most flagitious heinous wicked men Though I hope they amended after Gildas dayes yet that shewed you how they held to Apostolick discipline or Scripture The book is so very small it is but equal to intreat him to read it before he use this argument again 3. You must believe him that all that prize and adhere to Scripture are against Infant-Baptism Read and try whether there be not greater evidence that Cyprian Athanasius Nazianzene Chrysostome Augustine the Aegyptian Monks and other such strict persons in those ages at least the Novatians and Donatists in his own judgement prized the Scripture than the Britains And doth it follow in despite of their own professions and practises that all these and the rest such were against Infant-Baptism § 38. Were not this as good an argument Luther Calvin Zuinglius Bradford Hooper all the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes c. prized the Scriptures Ergo they were all against Infant-Baptism Yea even Independents and Presbyterians and all that prize and cleave to them now in England § 39. 3. He addeth Because they did so vehemently reject humane Traditions in the worship of God especially all Romish Rites and Ceremonies this as before undeniably appearing to come from Romes ordination and Imposition Answ 1. Vndeniably is a word that shameth you to every intelligent Reader that understandeth Church history Will you not confess your self that Cyprian and that Carthage Council Nazianzene Basil Augustine c. were for Infant-Baptism were all these Papists or Romans Can you prove any Roman Ordination of it before all these 2. How know you that they so vehemently rejected humane Traditions in the worship of God Did they not use the Asiatick Ceremonies Did they not precisely observe Easter and place Religion in keeping it on their own dayes Had they not Bishops and were they not Monks And do you gather by Gildas that they were such as you dream And did they not Plead Tradition for their difference from Rome 3. And were not the Scots then of their mind and as much against Traditions as they and more against vice and formality in and after Colmans and Columbanus dayes And are not the Independents more against Traditions now than the Britains were And are they therefore Anabaptists § 40. He addeth 4. Because Constantine the Great the son of Constance and the famous Helena both eminent Christians in the yeâ—r 305. was not Baptized till he was aged as before A clear proof that the Christians in Britain in those dayes did not Baptize their children Answ Some will laugh at these things but I had rather mourn for the poor peoples snares 1. It 's false that Constance was a Christian at least when Constantine was young No regardable history maketh him any better than a moderate favourer of the Christians 2. It is not proveable that Helena was one in Constantines Infancy 3. There is no probability that he was born in England as many Learned men have proved 4. It is certain he was educated and lived in other Lands 5. He was no Christian in his youth himself nor professed it till after he was Emperor The sign of a Cross appearing in the skies and his victory thereupon is said to be the means 6. He lived long at Rome and Constantinople and elsewhere before he was Baptized And was that a certain proof that none of those Countreys were for Infant-Baptism no nor for Baptism at Conversion neither because Constantine was not Baptized 7. He kept in with the Philosophers having one at his Table familiar with him to hold all parties to him 8. And many in those times thought that all sin being pardoned at Baptism they must live much strictlier after they were Baptized and were in much more danger by their sin and therefore would not be Baptized till old as Constantine when he was like to die And now where is this mans clear proof that the Britains were Anabaptists § 41. 5. Saith he Because of the Correspondency and unity that were between the French Christians after called the Waldenses and them viz. Germanus and Lupus Answ What abundance of untruths will one mans head hold 1. He would make the ignorant believe that the French Churches that sent over Germanus and Lupus were such as after were called Waldenses When yet before he citeth Perin saying that the Waldenses were the off-spring of the Novatians banished from Rome Beda Hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 17 18 19 20 21. tells us briefly that the Britains being infected with Pelagianism by Agricola the son of Severianus a Pelagian Bishop sent to France for help as being unable themselves to dispute the case The Bishops of France in a great Synod agreed to send Germanus Bishop of Altissiodore and Lupus Bishop of Trecasse brother to Vincentius Lerinensis Prosper in his Chronicle tells us that Germanus was sent by Pope Celestine by the instigation of Palladius a Deacon Vsher reciteth and rejecteth not Baronius his conciliation that it was done by the Pope and French Bishops Germanus and Lupus come over and work miracles by the way and here Germanus carried a box with him of the Reliques of all the Apostles and many Martyrs Beda c. 18. This he layeth to the eyes of a blind maid and cured her suddedly which confounded the Pelagians These Reliques he buryed in St. Albanes Sepulchre And instead of them took with him some of the dust where St. Albanes blood had been shed which remained red till then And after
be believed As for his talk of Disgracing the Nonconformists it 's true in two senses 1. As he and I disgrace Christianity by being so ignorant and bad 2. Or if he mean not My own Nonconformity but his even his Nonconformity to a great deal of truth and Christian duty and common honesty by concatenated falshoods I have done my part when constrained to disgrace it § 15. Sometime a friend to Calvin and then a greater to Arminius saith he Answ 1. Did he tell the Reader where by one in any words I contradict the other 2. But see the misery of a Sectarian spirit that taketh it for a contradiction to be a friend to Calvin and Arminius both He would as this inferreth take it ill to be thought a friend to Anabaptists and Paedobaptists both to Independents and Presbyterians and Episcopal too But that is to such as I the greatest duty which to him is a shameful contradiction When I think none Christians but Anabaptists I will be a friend to no other as such Men of so little a Church must have answerably little Love Censoriousness is a friend but unto few 3. But by this your friendship seemeth narrower than I thought it I thought it had extended to all the Anabaptists But they are divided into Free-willers and Free-gracers as they call them that is into Calvinists and Arminians and are you a friend but unto one part of them 4. But indeed Sir the Controversies intended by you under these names are not such as a man of my poor measure can fix his judgement in every young and promise that it shall never change nor that I can take it for a shame to grow any wiser in them than heretofore though perhaps your judgement changed not from your Childhood And I hope if what I have written may be published to make it appear that such as you that speak evil of what you understand not are the grievous enemies of the Churches of Christ as to Truth Holiness and Peace by your militant noise about Calvinism and Arminianism stirring up contentions and destroying Love by making differences seem greater than they are and laying the Churches Concord and Communion and mens salvation upon such questions as Whether the house should be built of Wood or Timber And is not this worthy of your zeal § 16. He adds Sometimes a great Defender of the Parliament and their Cause and then none more to renounce them and betraytor them for their pains Answ 1. Was there never but One Parliament and One Cause Perhaps you mean that the Parliament called 1640 and the Rump as called and the Armies Little Parliament and Oliver and the Army Council and all the rest of the Soveraigns were all One Parliament Or that to swear to the first Parliament or fight for them and to shut out and imprison them and to dissolve them as Usurpers and to set up one chosen by who knows whom and to set up Oliver and his Son and to pull him down again and to set up the Rump again and to pull them down and set up a Council of State c. were all one Cause And that one day it was Treason not to be for one Soveraign and another day not to be against that and for another Your Army did not betraytor them when they forced out one part as Traytors first and thrust out the major part after imprisoning and reproaching many worthy wise and religious men and when they pulled down all the rest at last Had you or I more hand in these matters Whether you know your self I know not but I am sure you know not me nor what you talk of § 17. It followeth Sometimes a great Opposer of Tradition and anon a great defender thereof Answ 1. If you take Tradition equivocally you calumniate but by equivocation but if thereof mean the same Tradition your falshood hath not the cloak of an equivocation Prove what you say by any words of mine It is between twenty and thirty years I think since I largely opened my judgement of Tradition in the Preface to the second edition of my book called the Saints Rest which I never changed since If you will deny that your Father delivered you the Bible or any other or that the Church hath used both Bible and Baptism from the Apostles dayes till now Let the reproach of such Tradition be your glory if you will It shall be none of mine But do you write a book to prove the Tradition of Adult Baptism from Christs time to ours and when you have done renounce and scorn it See Reader how he valueth his own work § 18. He addeth Sometimes a violent impugner of Popery and yet at last who hath spoken more in favour of it Answ Here again if by Popery and it you mean the same thing You hold on the same course Prove it true and take the honour of once writing a true accusation I have not hid my judgement about Popery having written about seven or eight books against it in above twenty years time by which you may see in comparing them whether I changed my judgement If you cannot refuse not to blush But I was and am a defender of that which is Popery and Antichristianity with you the Church-membership Covenant-interest and Baptism of Infants and it 's like many more parcels of the Treasures of Christ which you zealously rob him off and give to Antichrist As too many Sectaries do the greatest part I doubt more than nine parts of ten of his Kingdom or Church universal And as Divines use to prove that carnal minds are enemies and haters of God because they confess honour and worship him both in Name and in respect of many of his Attributes and relations and works yet in respect of others they are averse to him so I would be a monitor to you and such like Sectaries to take heed of going much further lest before you know what you do while you honour Christs name and cry up some of his Grace and doctrines you should really hate oppugn and blaspheme him and take Christ himself for Antichrist and his Churches and servants for Antichristian If you will take him for Antichrist that taketh Infants into the visible Church I think it will prove to be Christ himself § 19. Reader How big a volume wouldst thou have me write in answering such stuff as this Tears are fitter than Ink for such fearless rash continued visible falshoods to be deliberately published to the world as truths by one that calleth himself a man and a Christian and seemeth zealous to new Christen most of the Christian world Unless I should tire my self and thee I must stop and cease this noysome work Only one charge more which runs through much of his book I will answer because it concerneth the cause it self § 20. He oft tells you that when I have called my book Plain Scripture proof I yet there and after contradict my self by saying that
de erorribus Begehurdorum and have not a word of it What the Papist doctrine was you need no better informer than Lucas Tudensis foregoing Part. 1.636 who writeth against worse persons though Gretser intitleth it against the Albigenses and yet chargeth them not with this viz. Cap. 1. li. 2. In case of necessity every Neophyte maybe Baptized of any Lay-man Jew Heretick or Gentile But for the dignity of the Sacrament it must be done by a Presbyter or Deacon if there be opportunity and received from any other it is not at all to be iterated By this Sacrament both Infants and adult are Regenerated of Water and the Spirit and receive remission of all sins with the adoption of the children of God § 25. If all this will not clear the Waldenses at Mr. D.'s barr and if he look that we should take notice of his Dutch Martyrologie and his Merningus let him that erreth err still CHAP. IV. His Impenitence in Calumniating the Donatists and Novatians reprehended § 1. PAg. 132. of his Reply he returneth to this notorious calumny and charging Mr. Willes with disingenuity he falls to his wonted way of proving 1. From Sebastian Frank and Twisk whom I neither have at hand nor am obliged to believe in telling me what the Donatists held nor to believe that Mr. D. here so differs from himself as truly to report them Once for all It is usual with Writers to charge the Anabaptists as following the Donatists in Rebaptizing but not in denying Infant-baptism For the Donatists baptized again both Infants and adult And it is like this deceived this temerarious man § 2. Next he repeateth his falshoods of Cresconius Fulgentius Vinc. Victor which I have shewed to be done in great temerity § 3. Thirdly he repeateth his stupendious slander of Austin as with much zeal and fury in many Books opposing the Donatists for denying Infant-baptism of which in them all as far as I can find he hath not one syllable but the clear contrary as is proved by me § 4. Because Eckbertus and Emericus charge the Waldenses herein as conforming to the Donatists and Novatians 1. It was not the Waldenses they spake of as I proved but the Manichean Catharists 2. Or if they confounded them they wronged them 3. And if they say as he reporteth they belied the Donatists and why then should I believe them 4. But this time-robber hath tempted me once more to peruse Eckbertus the Abbot and to read his Serm. 7. and 8. and where-ever this subject is his theam and I find not one syllable of any such matter in him of either Donatists or Novatians such a man have we now to deal with § The rest of his recitals are not worthy the recital The Answer before given is sufficient Only I say again that his contempt of so full a testimony as the Decree of a Council at that time for receiving without rebaptizing such as the Donatists baptized in Infancy cited by Cassander as a certain proof is a proof that there is worse than a weak judgement in fault CHAP. V. His renewed Calumny of the old Brittains reproved § 1. REpeating and defending Fabians foppery he argueth that it could be nothing else in which they are said to contradict the Apostolick Catholick Church Answ 1. If Beda say that Augustine tells them that in many things they do contrary to the Roman Catholick and the Apostolick Church doth it follow that the three things in which he requireth their concurrence were all part of those many To preach the Gospel to the Saxons was one Is that a point that they differed from all the Apostolick Church in When it seemeth to be from no other reason than that they would not own the Saxons that had conquered them nor the Papal power that would usurp upon them And on the same reason they might as well refuse to baptize the Saxons children 2. But there is no such thing in the words of Bede as I have shewed but according to the manner of the Church of Rome c. And who knoweth not that the Church of Rome and all in its communion then called the universal Church used in baptism the White Garment the tasting Milk and Hony and Chrysme as an Apostolical tradition or such as they knew no original of Tertullian and Epiphanius alone are full witnesses of this if there were no more § 2. There is nothing in the rest that I think needeth a word more of answer than I before gave And I fear being guilty of idle words and lost time in writing needlesly CHAP. VI. Of his venturous report of Bishop Ushers censure of me IN his Reply pag. 51. he saith I have an honourable regard to his person and due value to his labours especially where he has laid out himself to promote practical holiness and wherein as I have judged his greatest excellency lies supposing had he let Controversies alone and addicted himself thereto he would much more have furthered the peace and union he pretends to promote It having been as I have heard a judgement that Bishop Usher made of him that if he persisted in Polemical writings he was like to prove a troubler rather than a promoter of peace Here 1. See how he feareth not to make reports of the dead by this hearsay No wonder if by this sort of men I my self am by backbiting so frequently traduced and said to Preach and Print that which never was in my mouth or books or thoughts 2. Should one ask him whom he heard this from do you think we should get a satisfying answer No one is here named 3. It is possible Bishop Vsher upon the coming forth of my Aphorisms which had many crudities and many quarrelled at it more than there was cause might fear any thing that looked like unusual 4. But I ask the Reader whether this be a probable report when he understandeth 1. That I was for some weeks familiar with the Bishop and he never spake a syllable to me of such importance 2. That when Doct. Kendal and I were together with him and our question was what was Augustins jugement of Redemption Perseverance and some other things he expresly averred that my Assertion in all those was the truth 3. But I imagine this following might be the occasion of the report Dr. Kendal had some acquaintance with and interest in the said Arch-Bishop and he having written two disputations against me I had answered the first and had drawn up part of the answer to the second But Mr. Vines and Dr. Kendal desired me to meet at Bishop Vshers lodging in order to the ending of our difference There the Bishop motioned that we should promise to write against each other no more which we did and I cast by what I had begun But yet Doct. K. after in a Latine Treatise broke that promise which occasioned my verses in the end of my Dispute of the Object of Justifying Faith against Mr. Warner which some