More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Chapter 2

More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism · Chapter 2

p. 349CHAP. II. His impenitent falſe allegation of witneſſes againſt Infant Baptiſm: Tertullian, &c. ſpecially Wickliff.

§. 1. I have before ſaid, that I have ſaid ſo much out of Scripture and Antiquity, for Infants Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm, to which I have yet ſeen no Anſwer that ſhould ſatisfie an impartial man, either from Mr. Tombes, Mr. Danvers, or any other, that I will not loſe time and labour in replying to their frivolous exceptions. And here I meddle directly but with the matter of fact, becauſe by oſtentation of hiſtory, Mr. D. would ſeduce the ignorant into the belief of groſs untruths. I began with Tertullian, who is his firſt witneſs, in his Catalogue, reprinted here in his reply.

§. 2. And why have we no ſatisfactory anſwer to theſe things ſo oft replyed? 1. That Tertullians words prove that Infant-Baptiſm was then in uſe: And it is the matter of fact that we are ſearching after? 2. And doth he think that Antichriſt was before Tertullians time? 3. The opinion of Tertullian ſeemeth not at all to be againſt the Lawfulneſs of Infant Baptiſm, in general; but againſt the eligibleneſs of it in caſe of no apparent danger of death. For I have oft proved that the judgement of that age, and p. 350ſome following was, that none ſhould be compelled to be Baptized, or to Baptize their Infants, but they ſhould themſelves be chuſers of the time. For the conceit of the abſolute neceſſity of Baptiſm to ſalvation, came in afterwards. And when the ſeed of the faithful are Holy, and in Gods Covenant or Promiſe, upon the Parents Mental dedication of them to God, and ſo in a ſtate of ſalvation, no wonder if they were not ſo haſty and peremptory for the ſudden Inveſtiture into the Chriſtian Church ſtate, when they took it to be but the publick ſolemnization of a Covenant, really made and valid before. And as Nazianzene is for Infant-Baptiſm (long after) in caſe of danger, but elſe for ſtaying three or four years, till they can ſpeak: ſo Tertullian ſeemeth to prefer delay for ſuch conveniencies as he mentioneth. 4. And if Mr. D. doubt of this, let him tell me why he ſaith, cunctatio utilior. 5. And giveth the reaſon from the inconvenience to the Sponſors. 6. And why he alſo perſwadeth the unmarried and young Widdowes to delay their Baptiſm, till they are married, or grow corroborate to continencie, leſt temptation carry them to ſin; And maketh this caſe of the like reaſon with that of Infants. Did he think that it was flatly unlawful for maids and young widdows to be Baptized? or only leſs ſafe, and eligible, except in danger of death? The caſe is plain. 7. And whether he like his other reaſon, Quid feſtinat innocens aetas ad remiſſionem peccatorum? And whether Tertullian here do not tell us that he took thoſe Infants that were Baptized to receive thereby ſolemn Remiſſion p. 351of ſin, if they had any ſin? If he thought they had none, we have little reaſon to follow his opinion. 8. Whether his own words plainly ſhew not what I have ſaid of him, that it was (as Conſtantine, and multitudes delayed Baptiſm) for fear of falling afterwards, which they thought moſt dangerous [ſi qui pondus intelligant Baptiſmi, magis timebunt conſecutionem quam dilationem: Fides integra ſecura eſt de ſalute]

And lib. de Anima Tertullian ſaith, Apoſtolos ex ſanctificato alterutro ſexu ſanctos procreari ait, tam ex ſeminis praerogativa quam ex inſtitutionis diſciplina—Omnis Anima in Adam cenſetur, donec in Chriſto recenſeatur: See the reſt there for Infants birth holineſs.

§. 3. His renewed reproaches of Cyprian, as having Antichriſtian doctrine, and his renewed queſtioning whether there were ever ſuch a Council as that at Carthage mentioned, are things ſo audacious and groſs that they need no further anſwer. pag. 90.

§. 4. And his citation of Auſtin pag. 94. [that which had not been inſtituted in Councils, &c.] is nothing againſt this authority, or to diſprove its Apoſtolical traduction; For it is eaſie for him to ſee, 1. That it was not whether Infants ſhould be Baptized that was the queſtion, but whether it ſhould be done before the eighth day? 2. That this Council was ſo far from Inſtituting Infant Baptiſm, that it was never brought into doubt or queſtion among them, but taken as the unqueſtioned practice of the Church.

But O that ſuch as Mr. D. would give over p. 352honouring Antichriſt ſo far (and rejoicing and hardning the Papiſts) as to make ſuch as Cyprian teachers of Antichriſtian doctrine; and Antichriſt to have been the Author of Infants Chriſtening before Cyprian and Tertullians time? The Papiſts owe ſuch adverſaries thanks.

§. 5. Pag. 104. He boaſts of forty more againſt Infant Baptiſm cited by him, as not yet humbled for his abuſe. And becauſe Mr. Wills by miſtake granted him Adrian and Hincmare, he ſeemeth to believe himſelf the more confidently, as if they had indeed been againſt Infant Baptiſm: of which before.

§. 6. Pag. 105. He reciteth his falſe ſtory of Berinus, of which before.

§. 7. Pag. 106. He reciteth his falſification of the Biſhop of Apameae. And turneth us for his proofs to ſome book oft called the Dutch Century Writers, and the Dutch Martyrologie: I ſuppoſe both Novel and Anabaptiſt Authors; And he may as well turn us over to our neighbour Anabaptiſts to tell us what is written in the ancient Hiſtorians and Doctors, when we have the books themſelves before us.

§. 8. Pag. 106, 107. He impenitently repeateth his ſlander of Wickliffe, referring us to his profs p. 283, &c. Where having before falſly told us that he wrote another book called Trialogia beſides his Dialogues (when it is the ſame book that is called Trialogus in the M. S. and Dialogus in the printed Copy, as he may ſee by many citations out of the Trialogus in Biſhop Ʋſher, de ſucceſſ. Eccleſ. which are all in the Dialogus) he tells p. 353us of a great many of Wickliffes words to other purpoſes, and cannot bring one line or word in which he denyeth Infant-Baptiſm: But only 1. The lying accuſations of his adverſaries to that end, and 2. His own words which deny two Popiſh tenents. 1. That Baptiſm ſaveth all ex opere operato; When he proveth contrarily (of young and old) that where Grace concurreth, it ſaveth, and elſe not. 2. That Infants unbaptized are damned; which in charity he thinks is to be denyed: And what's this againſt their Baptiſm?

§. 9. Yea Wickliffe expreſly aſſerteth Infant-Baptiſm, Dialog. li. 4. c. 11. I will give the Reader Mr. Danvers words and his together.

Mr. D. Reply, p. 106, 107. That Wickliffe denyed Infant-Baptiſm, I produced ſo much evidence to prove it, from pag. 283. to 289. demonſtrating that he not only affirmed that Believers were the only ſubjects of Baptiſm, but withal that children are not Sacramentally to be Baptized: and what can be more expreſs evidence in the caſe?

And Treat. ed. 2. p. 283. That Believers are the only ſubject of Baptiſm, as appeareth in his eleventh Chap. of his Trialog. And p. 287. as a Lollard he denyeth Infant-Baptiſm.

Whether Mr. D. ever ſaw his cited book I know not: But judge of the mans credit by the words: He cites the eleventh Chap. not telling us of which book. But it is the fourth p. 354book where the matter is handled as followeth.

Wickliffe Trialog. l. 4. Cap. 11. Et primo videamus ubi baptiſmus in Evangelio ſtabilitur: Nam lege Mat. ult. quomodo Chriſtus mandavit ſuis Apoſtolis, Ite, docete, &c. et hinc Philippus baptizans Eunuchum Act. 8. prius inſtruxit eum in fide—et propter hanc formam verborum Chriſti Mat ult. Eccleſia noſtra adducit fideles pro Infante qui diſcretionem non attigerat reſpondentes: et tales compatres communiter faciunt, quod filii ſui quos de baptiſmo elevant, ſint in Oratione dominica et ſymbolo inſtructi: et alii qui diſcretionem attigerant, dum inſtruuntur in fide Chriſti, ante ſuum baptiſmum vocantur Catechumeni: Hoc autem ſacramentum eſt tam neceſſarium viatori, quod Chriſtus dicit Nicodemo, Joh. 3. Niſi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, &c. Ex tanta itaque authoritate fidei Scripturae ſunt fideles generaliter baptizati: et ordinavit eccleſia quod quaelibet perſona fidelis i… neceſſitatis articulo poterit baptizari — Nec refert ſive immergantur ſemel vel ter; ſive aquae ſuper capita ſua effundantur: ſed faciendum eſt ſecundum conſuetudinem loci quem quis incolit, tam in uno ritu legitimo quam in alio: Quia certum eſt quod corporalis baptizatio ſive lotio modicum valet, niſi adſit lotio mentis per ſpiritum ſanctum, à peccato originali vel actuali. Hoc eſt enim Principium in hac fide, quod quicunque rite baptizatus fuerit, baptiſmus delet quodcunque peccatum invenerit in homine baptizando. p. 355Et quia ad delationem peccati requiritur ſatisfactio, et non poteſt fieri ſatisfactio pro peccato niſi per mortem Chriſti, ideo dicit Apoſtolus Rom. 6. Quicunque baptizati ſumus in Chriſto Jeſu, in morte ejus baptizati ſumus.

ALITH. Sed dic rogo clarius quomodo Chriſtus qui tantum odivit ſigna ſenſibilia, tantam neceſſitatem ſalvationis poſuit in hujuſmodi lotione: Videtur enim derogare divinae liberalitati atque potentiae, quod Deus non poſſet intercedere toto merito ſuo atque paſſione, ſalvare Infantem, vel adultum fidelem, niſi vetula vel alio viante baptizetur communiter infideli: ſimiliter, delato Infante fidelium ad eccleſiam, ut ſecundum Chriſti regulam baptizetur, et deficiente aqua vel requiſitis aliis, ſtante pia intentione totius populi, interim mortuo naturaliter, nutu Dei, videtur grave damnationem Infantis hujuſmodi definire ſpecialiter, cum nec infans iſte, nec populus peccavit ut taliter damnaretur. Ʋbi eſt ergo miſericors liberalitas Chriſti Dei, ſi talis proles fidelium propter illud quod non eſt in poteſtate eorum damnabitur, cum Deus ſecundum principia Theologiae communia ſit pronior ad praemiandum homines quam ad dammandum: et ſpecialiter merito et paſſione Chriſti tantum ſua tentoria dilatante?

Which is thus Engliſhed.

And firſt let us ſee where Baptiſm is ſtabliſhed in the Goſpel. For read Mat. 28. how Chriſt commanded his Apoſtles, Go Teach &c. And p. 356hence Philip Baptizing the Eunuch, firſt inſtructed him in the Faith, Act. 8. And becauſe of this form of Chriſts words Mat. 28. Our Church bringeth Believers anſwering for the Infant who had not attained to diſcretion: And ſuch God-fathers commonly make the children whom they take from Baptiſm, to be inſtructed in the Lords Prayer, and the Creed. And others that had attained to diſcretion, while they are inſtructed in the faith of Chriſt before their Baptiſm, are called Catechumeni: And this Sacrament is ſo neceſſary to a viator that Chriſt ſaith to Nicodemus, Joh. 3. Except a man be born again of water, &c. So that by ſo great authority of Scripture belief, the faithful are generally Baptized: And the Church hath ordained that in the point of neceſſity **That is of death., every faithful perſon may be Baptized. Nor is it material whether they be dipped once or thrice, or the water be poured on their heads: but it muſt be done according to the cuſtom of the place where one dwelleth, as well in one as in another lawful rite: For it is certain that corporal Baptiſm or waſhing little availeth unleſs there be a waſhing of the Mind by the Holy Ghoſt, from Original or Actual ſin. For this is a principle in this belief, that whoever is rightly Baptized, Baptiſm blotteth out whatever ſin it findeth in the man to be Baptized. And becauſe ſatisfaction is neceſſary to the blotting out of ſin, and ſatisfaction for ſin cannot be made but by the death of Chriſt, therefore ſaith the Apoſtle, that as many of us as are Baptized into Chriſt, are Baptized into his death.

p. 357ALITH. But tell me plainlier I pray you, how Chriſt who ſo much hateth ſenſible ſignes, hath put ſo great neceſſity of ſalvation in this waſhing. For it ſeemeth to derogate from Gods liberality and power, that God cannot by all his merit and paſſion intercede to ſave an Infant or an adult beliver, unleſs he be Baptized by an old Woman or ſome other viant, commonly an Infidel: ſo alſo, when the Infant of believers is brought to the Church, that (☞) according to Chriſts Rule he may be Baptized, and for want of water or other requiſites, the peoples pious intention continuing, he is dead in the mean time naturally by the will of God, it ſeemeth hard to define that ſuch an Infant is damned; ſpecially when neither the Infant nor the people have ſinned that he ſhould ſo be damned: Where then is the merciful li…erality of Chriſt-God if ſuch a child of believers ſhall be damned for that which is not in their power? when God, according to the common Principles of Theologie, is proner to reward men than to damn them, and ſpecially when the merit and paſſion of Chriſt have ſo far ſtretched out their tents?

To this Wickliffe anſwereth, 1. In this Chap. that …ome things he ſpeaketh aſſertively, and ſome things reputatively; and ſo revieweth the caſe. And 1. ſaith that Chriſt approveth outward ſigns, but not the abuſe of them. That is, 1. When the ſigns of the old Jewiſh Law are kept. 2. By an inmodeſt eſpo… ſing them, and preferring them before Gods Decalogue. 3. By burthening the Church with p. 358them which Chriſt would have free; even more than the Jewiſh Church was burthened: And thus the Religious now (ſaith he) abuſe them the two laſt wayes.

And in the Twelfth Chapter he proceedeth to anſwer the reſt [Videtur mihi probabile quod Chriſtus ſatis poſſet ſine lotione hujus, infantes ſpiritualiter baptizare, et per conſequens ſalvare: unde dicitur communiter quod triplex eſt baptiſmus Eccleſiae, viz. baptiſmus fluminis, baptiſmus ſanguinis, baptiſmus flaminis, et quilibet eorum comparibus ſufficit ad ſalutem—Nec audeo aſſerere quod Infantes occiſi pro Chriſto ſint damnati — Baptiſmus autem flaminis eſt bapt. ſp. ſancti, qui eſt ſimpliciter neceſſarius cuilibet homini ſi ſalvetur. Ideo duo baptiſmi priores ſunt ſigna antecedentia, et ex ſuppoſitione neceſſaria ad iſtum tertium baptiſmum flaminis. Ideo abſque dubietate, ſi iſte inſenſibilis baptiſmus ad fuerit, baptizatus eſt à crimine mundatus. Et ſi iſte defuerit, quantumcunque adſint priores, baptiſmus non prodeſt animae ad ſalutem. Ideo cum recte ſit inſenſibilis, & tantum nobis ignotus, videtur mihi imprudens praeſumptio taliter ſalvationem hominis vel damnationem ex baptiſmo definire. Reputamus tamen abſque dubietate ☞Quod Infantes recte baptizati flumine, ſint baptizati tertio baptiſmate, cum habent gratiam baptiſmalem. — Non enim licet fidelibus ſupponendo baptiſmum flaminis, baptiſmum fluminis omnino relinquere, ſed neceſſe eſt data opportunitate circumſtantiae ipſum accipere. Et p. 359cum omnia quae eveniunt de neceſſitate eveniunt, dici poteſt quod talis homo non poteſt ſalvari ſine tali baptiſmate. Thus Engliſhed.

[It ſeemeth to me probable that Chriſt can ſufficiently Baptize Infants ſpiritually without this waſhing, and by conſequence, can ſave them. Whence it is commonly ſaid, that there is a threefold Baptiſm of the Church, that is, the Baptiſm of water, the Baptiſm of blood, and the Baptiſm of the Spirit: And every one of them to the meet, ſufficeth to ſalvation — Nor dare I aſſert that the Infants Mat. 2. killed for Chriſt are damned. But the Baptiſm of the ſpirit is the Baptiſm of the Holy Ghoſt, which is ſimply neceſſary to every one that he be ſaved. Therefore the other two Baptiſms are antecedent ſigns, and ſuppoſitively neceſſary to this third Baptiſm of the ſpirit. Therefore without doubt where that inſenſible baptiſm is, the Baptized perſon is cleanſed from his ſin: and if that be wanting, let the former be never ſo much preſent, Baptiſm profiteth not the ſoul to ſalvation. Seeing therefore this is inſenſible, and ſo much unknown to us, it ſeemeth to me imprudent preſumption ſo to define mens ſalvation, or damnation by their Baptiſm. But yet we hold without doubting, that Infants rightly Baptized with water, are Baptized with the third Baptiſm, when (or ſeeing) they have Baptiſmal grace.—For it is not lawful for the faithful, on ſuppoſition of the Baptiſm of the ſpirit, to caſt off the Baptiſm of water, but it is neceſſary to receive it, when the opportunity p. 360of circumſtance is offered. And ſeeing whatever cometh to paſs, doth come to paſs of neceſſity, it maybe ſaid that ſuch a one cannot be ſaved without ſuch Baptiſm.]

And to the queſtion of an old woman Baptizing children in neceſſity, he ſaith, [Credimus tamen quod quaecunque Vetula vel abjecta perſona rite lavante hominem cum verbis ſacramentalibus Baptiſmum flaminis Deus complet.] The Reader muſt pardon the Latine to the Author or Printer, which may thus be Engliſhed. [But we believe that what old woman ſoever or abject perſon rightly waſheth one with the Sacramental words, God fulfilleth the Baptiſm of the ſpirit.]

It ſeemeth that whereas Tertullian (Mr. D.'s firſt witneſs) was for Lay-mens Baptizing in caſe of neceſſity, but not for womens, that Wickliffe was for womens alſo.

And to the next qu…ſtion, Whether Infants unbaptized when Baptiſm could not be had, be all damned? he anſwereth (Et per haec reſpondeo ad &c.) that is [And by this I anſwer your third objection, granting, that God if he will, may damn ſuch an Infant, and do him no wrong, and if he will he can ſave him: And I dare not define either part: nor am I careful about reputation, or getting evidence in the caſe; but as a dumb man am ſilent, humbly confeſing my ignorance, uſing conditional words **viz. If he will.; becauſe it is not yet clear to me, p. 361whether ſuch an Infant ſhall be ſaved or damned: But I know that whatever God doth in it will be juſt and a work of mercy, to be praiſed of all the faithful: And let not them like preſumptuous fools, pour out themſelves, that of their own authority, without knowledge, define any thing in that matter.]—Qui autem dicit, &c. But he that ſaith that in this caſe put, an Infant ſhall be ſaved, as it is pious to believe, he doth ſuperfluouſly uncertain himſelf **That is, determine an uncertainty., more than will profit him. But there are ſome things in Parents power though lapſed into a thing Paſt, for which it is neceſſary by Gods juſt judgement, that ſo it ſhould come to paſs: Therefore he that defineth, that neither Parents nor people ſo ſinned, that it ſhould ſo come to paſs, doth ſpeak as a Pie on the head of his own knowledge. But we believe it as a point of faith, that nothing befalls a man after the firſt grace, unleſs ſome part of mankind either merit or demerit, that this ſhall come to paſs.]

In the next (thirteenth) Chapter, he proceedeth to anſwer the queſtion [Quomodo animae talium Infantium ſine peccato actuali decedentium punientur (Having before ſpoken of Infants dying unbaptized unavoidably) that is, How the ſouls of ſuch Infants ſhall be puniſhed? whether all equally or unequally? and whether only with the puniſhment of loſs, or alſo of ſenſe?] And he p. 362concludeth contrary to the greater part of the Papiſts, that they ſhall have both the puniſhment of Loſs and Senſe; and (Note that) that [Neceſſe eſt peccata originalia hominum eſſe inaequalia, ſicut decedentes in originalibus ſunt propter illa inaequaliter condemnandi: Nam juxta dicta omnes condemnati pro originalibus ſunt condemnandi tam poena damni quam poena ſenſus: ſed impoſſibile eſt quod condemnentur aequaliter omnino illis poenis: ergo relinquitur quod peccata quibus illas poenas demeruerunt, inaequalia ſunt dicenda.] That is, [It muſt needs be that the Original ſins of men are unequal, as thoſe that die in Original ſins are unequally to be condemned for them: For as is ſaid, all that are condemned for original ſin are condemned both with the puniſhment of Loſs and of Senſe; But it is impoſſible that they ſhould be damned altogether equally with thoſe pains. Therefore it remaineth that the ſins by which they deſerved thoſe puniſhments be ſaid to be unequal].

Reader, I have been the larger in tranſcribing and tranſlating the words of Wickliffe, becauſe an Author is not ſo well underſtood by a line or two diſmembred from the reſt, as by whole diſcourſes: and ſo that his ſenſe may be paſt all controverſie: Here it is viſible that Wickliff was ſo far from denying Infant-Baptiſm, that 1. He expreſly aſſerteth it, 2. He never ſo much as noteth it for any controverſie, nor maketh any doubt or queſtion about it. 3. Yea he taketh it to be bold preſumption for any to take upon them to p. 363know, whether an Infant that dyeth unavoidably unbaptized be ſaved or not, but only ſaith God can do it if he will, and he can damn him. 4. And to thoſe that ſay that the Parents are not in the fault, nor the people, ſeeing they intended his Baptiſm, he ſaith, that many things come to paſs for paſt ſins of Parents, and people, and therefore that cannot be concluded; and nothing after the firſt grace cometh to paſs unmerited. 5. And he concludeth that thoſe of them that are damned for original ſin, are puniſhed with pain of loſs and ſenſe, but unequally, having unequal original ſins. 6. But Baptiſm he aſſerteth doth put away all ſin in the rightly Baptized. 7. And that when Infants are rightly Baptized with water, they are Baptized with the third Baptiſm having Baptiſmal grace. 8. That it is according to Chriſts rule that Infants be brought to the Church to be Baptized.

And now Reader, judge what a ſad caſe poor honeſt ignorant Chriſtians are in, that muſt have their ſouls ſeduced, troubled and led into Love-killing alienations, and ſeparations and cenſures of Chriſts Church, and of their particular brethren, by ſuch a man as this? And whether they that dare uſe ſouls at this rate, are ſo much better than us, as to be above our communion? Nay whether thoſe that lately revile the Zeal of diſſenters, as cheriſhing the moſt odious crimes, be not too much ſcandalized and hardened by ſuch dealings? When a man as pleading p. 364for Chriſt and Baptiſm dare not only print ſuch things, but ſtand to them in a ſecond edition, and defend them by a ſecond book, and Rage and be Confident in reviling thoſe that tell him of his untruths?

§. 10. But he hath many pretended reaſons to prove that Wickliff was againſt Infant-Baptiſm, and ſome of them out of the very Chapters which I have tranſcribed: 1. Saith he, He aſſerted two Sacraments. 2. That believers muſt be baptized in pure water, (And what are theſe to the purpoſe?) 3 That believers are the only ſubjects of Baptiſm (A groſs untruth) (But he giveth you the words that prove it [Ideo abſque dubitatione ſi iſte inſenſibilis baptiſmus affuerit, baptizatus à crimine eſt mundatus: & ſi ille defuerit, quantumcunque eſſent priores, baptiſmus non prodeſt animae ad ſalutem]. I gave you the words before. And did the man think that this is any thing to his purpoſe? Wickliff ſaith, [Water Baptiſm ſaveth no ſoul (young or old) without the Baptiſm of the Spirit.] Therefore ſaith Mr. D. Wickliff ſaith, that Believers are the only ſubjects of Baptiſm.] Will he make the Church of his mind by ſuch palpable falſhoods as theſe?

But he adds, [He ſaith that perſons are firſt to be Baptized with that he calls the inſenſible Baptiſm, before water, &c.] Anſw. 1. Utterly falſe: It is his own forgery. Wickliff ſaith no ſuch thing that it muſt be firſt: Nay I doubt he ſaith quite contrary as I have recited. [Ideo p. 365duo baptiſmi priores ſunt ſigna Antecedentia, & ex ſuppoſitione neceſſaria ad iſtum tertium baptiſmum flaminis.] See here how far this man is to be believed. 2. But though Wickliff called Water-Baptiſm an antecedent ſign, yet moſt Proteſtant Writers I think hold that believers Infants have by virtue of Gods Covenant the Baptiſm of the Spirit, (that is, a ſeed or diſpoſition to future gracious acts if they live); and that they are in a ſtate of ſalvation before they are Baptized, being the children of the faithful by them dedicated to God, by heart-conſent, and that Baptiſm is but the publick ſolemnization of the ſame Covenant, and delivery of the bleſſings by way of inveſtiture. Let Mr. D. read but all the teſtimonies cited by Mr. Gataker in his book of Baptiſm, againſt Dr. Ward, and Biſhop Davenant, and he will ſee this is no opinion proper to the Anabaptiſts: And I ſcarce believe that he can prove me and all Proteſtants that hold that opinion, to be therefore againſt Infant-Baptiſm: How then would it have proved Wickliff ſo?

4. He ſaith that Wickliff ſaith that Baptiſm doth not confer, but only ſignifie grace given.] Anſw. 1. And what's that to prove, that he was againſt Infant-Baptiſm? 2. And how proveth he this? Why, Fuller out of Cochleus ſaith ſo.

Anſw. 1. But Cochleus is one of the moſt notable Lyars of all the Papiſts that oppoſed Luther, and hath left his Calumnies to poſterity! And muſt he be believed againſt Wickliff? 2. And p. 366Fuller wrote but about twenty years ago: And muſt one of our neighbours tell us what Cochleus ſaith was the opinion of Wickliff, when we can read his words our ſelves? 3. But (to make this like its fellows) even this much is untrue, Fuller tells us no ſuch thing out of Cochleus, but tells us that Gregory charged Wickliff with eighteen Errors; Tho. Arundel with twenty three; the Council of Conſtance with 45. Tho. Waldenſis with 80. Dr. Lucke with 266. and Cochleus with 303. and then he reciteth 62. out of Waldenſis, where the words are. 4. And Waldenſis is known to be a falſe accuſer of him in many particulars, though a learned Papiſt. 5. And even this Waldenſis that ſaith his worſt, and ſought to make the moſt of his errors, never here accuſeth him as denying Infant-Baptiſm: And would he not have done it, had it been true?

But Mr. D. (that by this trick which he is ſo ready at, can make Hereſies and Hereticks alſo too eaſily) tells us of a popiſh Hereſie, viz. for Baptiſm [to take away all ſin, to confer grace, to work regeneration and ſave the ſoul, as ſtill held by them that teach young children to ſay, that by their Baptiſm they were made children of God, members of Chriſt, and Inheritors (that is, heirs) of the Kingdom of heaven.]

Anſw. 1. By this it ſeems the Engliſh Proteſtants and all the reſt that take this to be true doctrine, hold a Popiſh Hereſie. 2. Let the Reader peruſe Gataker againſt Davenant of Baptiſm, p. 367and he will find almoſt all the ancient Fathers Latine and Greek of the ſame judgement: And what a pleaſure is this to the Papiſts to be told that almoſt all the ancient Writers held their hereſie? And then indeed Where was our Church and the Kingdom of Chriſt before Luther, or rather before thoſe whom he oppoſed? 3. It is unqueſtionable true doctrine that as Marriage-conſent in private, layeth the firſt ground of Marriage rights, which by ſolemn Matrimony are openly and regularly delivered by inveſtiture, which perfecteth the title: even ſo, the Heart-Conſent or Covenanting (of the perſon, or parents for Infants) doth lay the firſt ground of Chriſtian right, which is ſolemnized and perfected regularly by Baptiſm, which by the way of tradition or publick inveſtiture, doth take away all guilt of ſin, Sacramentally regenerate, and ſave, and make us children of God, members of Chriſt and his Church, and heirs of heaven, who were ſo before by a Private initial right, of which the Church did take leſs cogniſance: And one would think that no Anabaptiſt ſhould deny this, (called Hereſie) as to the adult.

5. He next addeth from Wickliff, They are fools and preſumptuous which affirm ſuch Infants not to be ſaved, which die without Baptiſm] ſo Fuller words it out of Cochleus.

Anſw. 1. Falſe ſtill: It is not out of Cochleus, but Waldenſis. 2. And what's this to the queſtion of Infant-Baptiſm?

He adds, [And Wickliffs own words as c. 2. de Trialog. Quod deſinentes parvulos fidelium ſine baptiſmo, &c.]

p. 368Anſw. Still falſe: 1 I have before tranſcribed the words out of the Printed book which are far otherwiſe. 2. It is not deſinentes but qui quicquam definiunt. 3. It is not of all children dying without Baptiſm, but of thoſe that could not have it, being prevented by death, when it was deſired. 4. He ſaith this of thoſe that determine that they are ſaved alſo. 5. And inſtead of c. 2. this is lib. 4. c. 12.

6. He ſaith, [That all truth is contained in the holy Scripture, and that which is not originally there, is to be accounted prophane; And that we are to admit of no ſcience or concluſion that is not proved by Scripture teſtimony, and that whoever holds the contrary opinion cannot be a Chriſtian but flatly the Devils Champion] with more ſuch cited partly out of Cochleus by Fuller, (falſe again) and partly de Verit. Script.] a book of Wickliffs which I have not, and I conjecture he never ſaw: For 1. I told you before the very words of Wickliff that condemn only ſuch abuſes of outward ſigns, as ſhew him to be of a contrary opinion. 2. Will any ſober man believe that he damned all as no Chriſtians, but Champions of the Devil, that thought that ſome Concluſions Phyſical, Mathematical, Metaphyſical, Medicinal, Logical, &c. may be true that are not proved by Scripture teſtimony? and ſo that almoſt all Chriſtians in the world are no Chriſtians?

p. 3697. Saith he [That he ſlighted the Authority of General Councils, as Fuller out of Cochleus, &c.

Anſw. 1. Falſe again as to the Author. 2. But what is that to Infant-baptiſm?

But his direct proof is out of Waldenſis ſaying that Wickliff ſaith that children are not ſacramentally to be baptized.

Anſw. 1. I have not Waldenſis at hand, but have little cauſe to believe Mr. D. 2. And Fuller who undertaketh to recite Waldenſis charge, hath not a word of any ſuch ſenſe. 3. If bitter Papiſts ſo accuſe him, is it therefore true? Judge by his own words. Indeed Wickliff held that ſacramental baptiſm ſaveth none (young or old) without the baptiſm of the ſpirit; and that it may be ſeparated from it: And hence was the Papiſts noiſe againſt him.

8. Saith he [As a further argument that he denied Infant-baptiſm, may appear, becauſe he did ſo vehemently impugn Confirmation, &c.

Anſw. 1. Here we have Fuller out of Cochleus falſly again. 2. Are all Proteſtants againſt Infant-baptiſm, that are againſt the Popiſh Sacrament of Confirmation? What a prover is this man? Is Dallaeus that hath written ſo large a diſputation of Confirmation, an Anabaptiſt? And the Engliſh Nonconformiſts too? 3. But in very deed, Mr. D.'s falſhood and Wickliffs opinion for Infant-baptiſm, may very probably be gathered from that (not fifteenth as he, but) fourteenth Chapt. of Confirmation: For, 1. He reprehendeth the p. 370Biſhops for adding ſo many Ceremonies to Infant-baptiſm, never blaming their baptiſm it ſelf. 2. He argueth againſt confirming children, as ſuperfluous, becauſe the ſpirit is given in baptiſm it ſelf [& confirmatur ex hoc quod baptizatos noſtros dicimus regulariter Spiritum Sanctum accipere eo ipſo quo legitime baptizantur, that is, And it is hence confirmed, in that we ſay that our baptized ones do regularly receive the Holy Ghoſt, in that (or by that very thing) that they are lawfully baptized.] And he had before ſaid that they are offered to Baptiſm in the Church according to Chriſts Rule.

§. 11. After all this Mr. D. addeth Wickliffs opinions againſt Popery to the number of 29. But what all this is to the caſe of Infant-baptiſm, what man beſides himſelf can tell? But let me tell him that I would not have him too eaſily believe bitter adverſary Papiſts, leſt he forfeit the little relicts of his own credit: And that it is not like that Wickliff was againſt enjoyning the Lords-Prayer as he citeth: Yea, I would not have Mr. D. come ſo near the Papiſts yet as Wickliff did. How doth he like ſuch words as theſe [Trialog. li. 4. c. 22. fol. 138. Et talis eſt triplex Eccleſia; Eccleſia ſcilicet Militans, Dormiens, & Triumphans — Eccleſia Dormiens eſt praedeſtinati in Purgatorio patientes — that is, There is ſuch a threefold Church: The militant Church, the ſleeping Church, the triumphant Church: — The ſleeping Church is the Predeſtinate ſuffering in Purgatory.]

p. 371And lib. 2. c. 10. ſee what he ſaith of Angels and adoration of them. And c. 11. of Angels offices, and their being virtually every where. And what he ſaith of Kings, and Matrimony (quod excedit alia Sacramenta, &c.) li. 4. c. 19, 20. fol. 132, 133. Nor would I ſay that omnia quae eveniunt de neceſſitate eveniunt, as fol. 120. a. Or that Deus poteſt eſſe Aſinus ſi velit, ut fol. 90. b.

One of the worſt things I like in Wickliff is, that he plungeth himſelf into the deepeſt School-ſubtilties, or difficulties, with leſs ſubtilty or diligence than the caſe requireth, and than Schoolmen uſe. And indeed I like not divers of his concluſions; as lib. 2. c. 14. fol. 41. [Quod Deus neceſſitat creaturas ſingulas activas ad quemlibet actum ſuum:] It is ſuppoſed that Hobbs by the ſame Doctrine overthroweth all the Chriſtian faith: And I believe that his doctrine there fol. 41. and elſewhere, for merit, and how temporale ſit cauſa praedeſtinationis aeternae, will diſpleaſe ſome. And his diſtinction of Mortal and Venial ſin, as li. 3. c. 5. fol. 52. And that he maketh final impenitence the ſin againſt the Holy Ghoſt; And that none can know what ſin is mortal in us, and what not? And cap. 6. Concedi poteſt quod multi praeſciti ſunt in gratia ſecundum praeſentem juſtitiam: It may be granted that many reprobates are in (a ſtate of) Grace, according to their preſent righteouſneſs — Praeſciti autem nunquam ſunt in gratia finalis perſeverantiae: The Reprobate are never in the grace of final perſeverance. So that he held that preſent true grace p. 372was loſt by ſome, as Auſtin did, which he explaineth cap. 7. And cap. 8. again he is at his Omnia eveniunt neceſſitate abſoluta reviewing what he had ſaid, and concludeth that [no man can do better than he doth; but he could if God would] and denieth not ſin to be hereby neceſſitated, &c.

§. 12. Pag. 115. He again impenitently reneweth his ſlander of Berengarius, as being againſt Infant-baptiſm: Concerning whom ſaith Ʋſher de ſucceſs. Eccleſ. cap. 7. p. 207. [Author Actorum, &c. The Author of the Acts of Bruno (found in the Library of the Noble Baron Carew of Clopton) who ſaith he was at this examination, ſaith, that they (ſome of Berengarius followers) ſaid that baptiſm profited not children to ſalvation, as alſo Deodvinus Leodienſis firſt from common fame, and then Guitmundus Arch. Averſanus on the credit of Leodienſis report that Bruno Andegavenſis & Berengarius Turonenſis [quantum in ipſis erat baptiſmum parvulorum evertiſſe] did as much as in them lay overthrow the baptiſm of children; But we find no charge ever brought againſt Berengarius concerning Anabaptiſm, in ſo many Synods as were held againſt him: Nor do they ſeem to have denied any thing elſe, who are ſaid to deny that baptiſm profiteth little Ones to Salvation, but that Baptiſm conferreth Grace ex opere operato: As gathering from the Apoſtles words, He that planteth and he that watereth is nothing, but God that giveth p. 373the increaſe: So Alanus li. 1. cont. haer…t. ſui temp. taketh them as if they had ſaid [Baptiſm hath no efficacy either on young or old; therefore m…n are not bound to be baptized.]

And that this was the plain caſe is proveable, in that it was juſt the caſe of Wickliff and the Waldenſes, who were ſaid to do as much as in them lay to caſt out Infant-baptiſm, becauſe they thought that every wicked Prieſt did not ſanctifie them ex opere operato, and infallibly convey Gods grace to the unprepared.

But his proofs are [1. The Magdeb. tell us that Berengarius maintained his hereſies, which they ſet down to be denying Tranſubſtantiation, and Baptiſm to little ones, under five heads, which Lanfrank Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury anſwers at large in his book called Scintillaris: and as to that of denying Infant-baptiſm he anſwers by ſaying, he doth thereby oppoſe the general Doctrine and univerſal Conſent of the Church.

Anſw. 1. I have not the Magdeb. at hand, but he hath little to do that will ask Illyricus, and Gallus and Amſdorfius what Lanfrank writeth, if he have his book before him. The publiſher of Lanfranks book againſt Berengarius giveth us notice of no other. Trithemius de ſcript. Eccleſ. knew of no other but this, which is in Bibl. Patr. Tom. 6. p. 190. And I have lookt over every line of it (ſuch labour do theſe men put us to) and I find not one word where any ſuch thing is mentioned p. 374by Lanfrank: but only his accuſations of Ber. about Tranſubſtantiation: He never once chargeth him as denying Infant-baptiſm, nor mentioneth it. See, Reader, into what hands the poor ſeduced ones are fallen.

§. 13. His ſecond proof is this, Caſſandra in his Epiſtle to the Duke of Cleve ſaith, that Guitmund Biſhop of Averſe doth affirm that he did deny baptiſm to Little Ones, &c.

Anſw. 1. Caſſander in neither of his Epiſtles to the Duke of Cleve mentioneth any ſuch matter. But in his Preface to his Book for Infant-baptiſm to the Duke of Cleve, he ſaith that Guitmund ſaith [Quod inter caeteros errores, parvulorum baptiſmum everterit, quem tamen errorem in publicum non produxit, quod eam blaſphemiam ut Guitm. loquitur, ne peſſimorum quidem hominum aures toleraturas ſciret, & in Scripturis ſacris locum ejus erroris tuendi penitus non videret.]

Mark here Reader, 1. Berengarius is not ſaid to deny Infant-baptiſm, but to overturn it, (that is, by ſome conſequence it's like.) 2. He did not publiſh this his opinion, but held it unpubliſhed: And how then did Guitmund know it? 3. Was Berengarius as honeſt or as ſtout a man as he is ſuppoſed, and yet when Infants were daily baptized, would never ſpeak out his thoughts of the evil of it? 4. Either he baptized Infants himſelf, or not. If he did, was he againſt it then? What a Knave do they make him that ſo ſay? If not, his opinion muſt needs be publiſhed by his practice, when they whoſe ears could not tolerate it, p. 375would leſs tolerate the refuſing of their Childrens Chriſtning. 5. Was that an honeſt man that would ſecretly hold an opinion which he knew he had no Scripture for? 6. Note that even Caſſander there tells us, that indeed the Waldenſes though agreeing much with the Cathariſts, did yet both approve and uſe Infant-baptiſm, p. 671. and that this error ſlept till his age when Stork and Muntzer raiſed it.

§. 14. 2. But what need we ask Caſſander what Guitmund ſaid? What childiſh play is this? His own book is as common as Caſſanders in Bibl. Patr. To. 6. p. 215. And Guitmunds words are theſe [Berengarius opened thoſe things by which he might pleaſe worldly men, that love always (if they may do it unpuniſhed) to ſin: to wit, deſtroying as much as in him lay Lawful Marriages, and overturning Infants baptiſm: So that in one the Devil by his mouth perſwaded the worſt men that it was lawful to abuſe all women; and in the other [Caſſato baptiſmate Infantiae in profundum omnium malorum, utpote poſtmodum baptizandis, impune ruere: Lege Epiſt. Leodienſis Epiſcopi contra Berengar. ad Henr. Reg. Franc. & eiſdem pene verbis eadem ipſa ibi ſcripta reperies] that is, [making void the baptiſm of Infancie, they might ruſh unpuniſhed into the depth of all evils, as being afterward to be baptized. Read the Epiſtle of the Biſhop of Liege to H. R. of France againſt Berengarius, and there you ſhall find theſe ſame things written, almoſt in the ſame words.]

p. 376And now, Reader, judge further, 1. Whether this Papiſt who never knew the matter himſelf, and whoſe book ſheweth him a ſilly bitter fellow profeſſing to tranſcribe or take his words from the Biſhop of Liege who took it from fame, be to he believed in his accuſations of ſuch a man, when Lanfrank that diſputed with him before the Pope, nor the Pope himſelf, nor any of the many Synods that examined him, and conſtrained him to recant, ever mention ſuch a thing? Were theſe Perſecutors think you blind or merciful herein? 2. If he be to be believed in this, why not in the firſt article, of the lawfulneſs of abuſing all women commonly? 3. Do not the very words [quantum in ſe, and everterit] and [caſſato baptiſmate] open the caſe, that malice gathered this as a forced conſequence only of ſome words of Berengarius? It is like becauſe he defined a Sacrament to their diſlike, which Lanfrank reproveth him for.

And ſo ſottiſh a fellow was this Guitmund that his fellow Papiſts are put to diſown him for ſaying that their Euchariſtical Hoſt cannot be corrupted or putrifie, or be eaten by Mice, or any Bruits, but only ſeemeth ſo to be: ib. p. 230. l. 2.

§. 15. His third proof is [In the Bibl. Patr. Paris p. 432. it is recorded that Durandus— writes — the denying and as much as in them lay the deſtroying the baptiſm of Infants, &c.

Anſw. 1. Did this man ever ſee the Books he citeth, who citeth pag. 432. of the Bibl. Pat. as p. 377if were but one Tomb or Volume, that long ago was eleven great Volumes, and now many more? It is like Marg. le Bignes Edit. is that he meaneth. The Epiſtle is Tom. 3. p. 319. of the Bigne Paris 1624. The Author, ſaith Ʋſher de ſucceſ. Eccl. p. 196. is falſly called Durandus, and is Deoduinus or Dietwinus. His words are [Fama ſupremos Galliae fines praetergreſſa totam Germaniam pervaſit, jamque omnium noſtrum replevit aures, qualiter Bruno Andeg. Epiſc. item Berengarius Turonenſis — aſtruant Corpus Domini non tam Corpus eſſe quam umbram & figuram Corporis Domini, Legitima conjugia deſtruant, & quantum in ipſis eſt, baptiſmum parvulorum evertant.] This is it that Ʋſher cited: 1. You ſee here is nothing but a Papiſt Prelates tale to a King, upon far fetcht fame, 2. Charging him equally, yea more with deſtroying marriage, 3. And ſaying but [quantum in ſe] of baptiſm; 4. And part of the fame is that the King had called a Council to examine theſe things; which Council never taking notice of any ſuch matter confuteth the fame. And doth Mr. D. the great enemy of Antichriſt perſwade poor Anabaptiſts to believe ſuch fellows and tales as theſe?

§. 16. In his Reply he addeth fourthly [Thuanus witneſſeth that Bruno Arch-Biſhop of Triers did perſecute Berengarius for denying Infants baptiſm, as p. 242.

Anſw. 1. Again he tells us of Thuanus, and tells not where, as if we muſt read over five volumes in folio to be able to diſprove ſuch a Tale-teller p. 378as this? But he ſaith Ʋſher ſaith ſo de ſucceſs. Eccl. pag. 252. But all ſtill is falſe: my book there hath not ſuch a word. Ʋſhers words are pag. 207. and them alſo he moſt horribly falſifieth. They are but theſe [Brunonem queque Trevirorum Arch. Dioeceſi ſua expuliſſe quoſdam ex Berengarii Sectatoribus qui illius Doctrinam in Eburonibus Atuaticis & aliis Belgii populi… diſſeminabant, narrat Thuanus.] That is, [Thuanus ſaith that Bruno Arch-Biſhop of Trevers expelled out of his Dioceſs ſome of Berengarius's followers, who ſowed his doctrine, &c.] ſo that here is no talk of perſecuting Berengarius, but ſome of his followers, nor a word of Infant-baptiſm. Was ever ſuch a reporter as this man before taken for a credible perſon? I confeſs I remember not that ever I read the like, among Papiſts or any other Sect.

In Thuanus the words are found in his Epiſtle to the King before all his works, excellently diſſwading him from blood and perſecution, and there is not one ſyllable of Infant-baptiſm; but only that which Ʋſher cited: yet durſt this man juſtifie theſe horrid falſhoods in a ſecond Edition and a Reply.