More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Mr. D.'s Juſtification of his ſlander of the Waldenſes, Confuted more largely.
§. 1. IN his Reply p. 108. he reaſſumeth this Calumny. And firſt he reciteth their Confeſſion to prove it: as if he wanted matter to fill his Book, not having one word againſt Infant-baptiſm in that which is by himſelf recited: But it muſt be inferred, if ſuch a man as this be to be believed, becauſe faith is required (in the adult, and them that Covenant for Infants) and becauſe Traditions and Inventions are diſclaimed, and ſuch like. Had the man dealt by the Waldenſes but as he doth by me, when citing my words he will prove that my words are for him while I am againſt him, (as if I underſtood not what I ſay) it had been much leſs. But to face down the world that the Waldenſes denied Infant-baptiſm for ſuch ſilly reaſons, is intolerable. It is not worth the labour to ſhew him how the Proteſtants agree with the Waldenſes in all the points where he feigneth a diſagreement, p. 112.
§. 2. Yet doth the man break out into admiration that he having with exactneſs given a particular account of all thoſe Confeſſions word for word, — and proved by ample demonſtrations, 1. That none of them were extant till the ſixteenth Century, &c.
Anſw. Wonderful! That ſuch a man ſhould talk of exactneſs and demonſtration. Stay Reader a little, and tell me whether it call not for ſhame and tears that one ſuch Book ſhould be written by a Chriſtian? Much more that this calumny ſhould be thus over and over audaciouſly juſtified?
§. 3. In Roger Wendover (our chiefeſt ancient Chronicler, and one that he oft citeth himſelf, and therefore ſhould have read) In Hen. 2. fol. 319. b. You have a Confeſſion of the Tholouſians called Boni homines in which are theſe words [Credimus etiam quod non ſalvatur quis, niſi qui baptizatur; & parvulos ſalvari per baptiſma.] That is, [We believe alſo that none is ſaved but he that is baptized, and that little children are ſaved by baptiſm] (For we find that it was the denial of the ſaving virtue of wicked Prieſts baptiſm (to young or old) as working ex opere operato, which occaſioned their accuſations:) would you have a fuller proof?
Ʋſher de ſucceſ. Eccl. c. 6. p. 155, &c. giveth us the Catalogue of their opinions as reported by Aeneas Sylvius (after Pope Pius the ſecond) where there is ſomewhat of theirs againſt Confirmation, Chriſm, Extream Unction, &c. but not a word againſt Infant-baptiſm; adding the conſent of Jacob. Picolomin. Anton. Bonfin. Bern. Lutzenburg. Another Catalogue he giveth out of the Magdeb. hiſt. Centur. 12. c. 8. col. 1206, 1207. as taken out of an old M.S. where is not a word againſt Infant-baptiſm: Yea reciteth Will. Reynolds a bitter Papiſts Catalogue, where there is no ſuch thing: Yea, mentioneth nine points more in which Parſons, Sanders, Coccius ſay they differ from us, but none of this. And pag. 242. c. 8. he tells you of Gretſers own confeſſion that they were none but the Waldenſes that Hoveden ſpeaketh of, that made the foreſaid Confeſſion, though accuſed of Arianiſm. See more teſtimonies of many others, pag. 306, 307, 308.
Thuanus (falſly cited by him as before of Berengarius) lib. 6. an. 2550. reciteth their opinions, pag. 185, 186. not mentioning a word of this; nay, telling us that ſome falſhoods were reported of them, doth not ſo much as number this among the fictions. And pag. 188. he tells you of an inquiry made into their Original and Doctrine by Gul. Bell. Langaeus, commanded by Authority thereto, wherein no ſuch thing is mentioned of them, but their avoiding Popiſh ſuperſtitions.
In the firſt Confeſſion recited by Perin (p. 60.) they own baptiſm, but ſay not a word againſt Infant-baptiſm.
The ſame is true of the ſecond Confeſſion recited by him, p. 62, 63.
In the end of Perin you have their Catechiſm, and the ſumm of their Doctrine out of ſeveral of their old Books; and therein not a word againſt Infant-baptiſm, but expreſly they aſſert it: Cap. 6. p. 41, 42, 43. in their Doctrine of the Sacraments, they ſay [And for this cauſe we preſent our Children in haptiſm; which they ought to do, to whom the children are neareſt, as their Parents, and they to whom God hath given this charity.] Juſt as Wickliff ▪ Judge now of this mans words?
§. 4. But his ſecond Demonſtration is from the witneſs born againſt it by ſome of their moſt eminent leading men, viz. Berengarius, Peter Bruis, Henricus Arnoldus —
Anſw. Berengarius is not uſed to be reckoned as one of the Waldenſes, but if you will ſo call him, I have confuted the ſlander of him before.
His proof againſt Bruis is Peter Cluniacenſis, of whom I have ſaid enough to Mr. Tombes which I will not recite.
§. 5. It is true that ſome Papiſts do raile at the Waldenſes with abominable calumnies, as guilty of the moſt odious hereſies, [denying the reſurrection, and the ſalvation of Infants, aſſerting the common uſe of women, and abundance ſuch:] Inſomuch that it is become a hard queſtion whether really there were any ſuch people, or whether all were ſlanders: and among other things they charge them with denying Infant-baptiſm. And the Authors go ſo much on fame, and ſhew ſo much falſhood, that many think that all are fictions. But Biſhop Ʋſher (de ſucceſ. Eccl.) and ſome others bring many teſtimonies to prove that in that age there were abundance of Manichees that came into Lombardie, and from thence came into the country of the Waldenſes; and that for their ſakes the Papiſts accuſed the Waldenſes of all theſe villanies and hereſies with Anabaptiſm, as if they had been all of a mind. And though I confeſs that the horrid lies of abundance of Papiſts of Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius and other ſuch, and ſome experiments in this age, have given men occaſion to queſtion whether all were not meer forgeries, and that nothing is to be believed that they ſaid of thoſe times; yet I am ready to think that there were ſome ſuch perſons as they deſcribe that were againſt the Reſurrection, and for common uncleanneſs, and denied Infants ſalvation and baptiſm, even ſuch Manichees and Arrians as aforeſaid: Not that I think it any whit ſtrange that fame among ſuch worldly perſecutors ſhould belie others as much as this comes to; but becauſe of the hiſtorical reports of ſuch Manichees recited by Ʋſher ubi ſup. pag. 225, 226, &c. cap. 8. & Vignier Hiſt. Eccleſ. an. 1023. And that they falſly took the Waldenſes to have been of the Manichees mind, as living among them, is all the cloak that any reaſonable charity can afford to thoſe old ones that falſly accuſed them: And to the later ſlanderers (Couſſordus, Gretſer, &c.) this will be no cloak, much leſs to Mr. Danvers if in his zeal for his Sect and way, he will own the ſlanders of blinded Papiſts, when he crieth them down himſelf, and hath had time and means to know their calumniation.
To all this, let the Reader add but the peruſal of the groſs contradictions of their accuſers againſt each other, (yea the ſame Author as reported by Couſſardus ſaying one thing, and as publiſhed by Gretſer ſaying the contrary, I mean Raynerius.) And let him conſider of the teſtimony of Vignier concerning an old Copy of their Doctrine ſhewed to the great and excellent Chancellour of France, Mich. Hoſpitalius, wholly agreeing with the doctrine of the later Waldenſes, and renouncing only the Popiſh ſuperſtitions: And the teſtimony of Poplinerius that by many old fragments and monuments which he had ſeen, in the language of their Country, and by the Acts yet kept of the Diſputation between the Biſhop of Apanica and Mr. Arnolt, and by their own Confeſſions which many aſſured him they had ſeen, the old Albigenſes doctrine was altogether conform to the Proteſtants doctrine, Ʋſher, p. 308. c. 10. And then judge whether the charge of Anabaptiſtry, and all Manichaean abhominations be credible.
§. 6. But (ſaith Mr. D.) Caſſander teſtifieth in his Epiſtle to the Duke of Cleve that Peter Bruis and Henricus denied baptiſm to little ones, affirming that only the adult ſhould be baptized.
Anſw. Read but Caſſanders Pref. and judge of the Credit of this mans accuſations. 1. Caſſander ſaith, that it was the Manichees and Priſcillianiſts (who were Gnoſticks ſaith Sulpit. Severus who lived in Priſcillians time) that brought in the errors after mentioned by him, which ſwarmed in Bernards daies; And that this Hereſie bred them that were called Cathariſts, a name belonging to one of the three ſects of Manichees: but in France they were called Albigenſes, from the place, and that it was to theſe Manichean and Priſcillian errours, that they added the denyal of Infant-Baptiſm. … He ſaith, Peter Bruis, and Henry, ſeem to have been the chief Authors of this addition; but in a far differing ſenſe from the later Anabaptiſts; For Peter and Henry equally denyed Baptiſm and ſalvation to Infants, or any but actual believers. 3. And for the ſurmiſe of Peter and Henry he taketh the word of Peter the Abbot Cluniacenſis: ſo that Caſſander doth but what Mr. D. doth, even report Cluniacenſi. 4. And he profeſſeth that the Waldenſes called Picards, whoſe relicts were in Moravia and Bohemia to that day, [did approve and uſe Infant-Baptiſm as conſentaneous to the Goſpel] as I before cited him.
§. 7. His next proof is [Dr. Prideaux ſaith in his Lat. Councils, that Peter Bruis and Arnold of Brixia, were in the ſecond Laterane Council cenſured for the hereſie of rejecting Infant-Baptiſm, &c.]
Anſw. I have ſeldom read an Author whoſe Proofs are liker one another: 1. Why muſt we be told what Dr. Prideaux ſaith of the acts of an old Council, as eaſily known by us as by him? 2. Reader, there is not the leaſt proof of any ſuch matter medled with in that Council: Peter Crab doth not ſo much as name that Council: Binius only tells you that the Acts of the Council are not extant, but that Abbas Ʋrſpergenſis, and Otto Friſingenſis give us ſome account of what they did, whoſe words have not a ſyllable about any ſuch ſubject, but only that they condemned the Schiſmaticks who adhered to Peter Leo, an Antipope. 3. But how came Dr. Prideaux ſo to miſtake? Anſw. Thoſe Papers of Dr. Prideaux were poſthumous ſhreds, which whether he would have owned we cannot tell. But that which he ſaith, is that there were thirty Canons lately publiſhed as that Council's, which Bellarmine himſelf rejecteth as falſe: And ſeeing I never ſaw that forgery I cannot ſay whether any ſuch thing be in it, which Prideaux's words recite: But it muſt be from that or from nothing. And is this a good proof for Prideaux to tell you what a forged writing ſaith, which Crab and Binius and Bellarmine eject or take for falſe? 4. But what if that Council had ſo accuſed Bruis and Arnold, are they to be (believed of them? But there is no ſuch thing proved.
§. 8. His next proof is from Bernard, of whom I need to ſay no more than what Caſſander, Ʋſher and others have oft ſaid, that it was the foreſaid Manichean Hereticks called Cathariſts that Bernard deſcribeth by the name of Apoſtolick. And that he went by fame (as Leodienſis did) which falſly accuſed the Albigenſes among them as guilty of the ſame hereſies; And that the ſame Bernard accuſeth thoſe that he ſpake of, of other heinous things; If you believe from him that the Albigenſes were guilty of the one, you have the ſame teſtimony that they were guilty of the other.
§. 9. His next proof is the report of a late Papiſt Joſ. Vicecomes, l. 2. c. 1. Whom he alſo after mentioneth in his Reply, who as truly numbreth Luther, Calvin, and Beza with the adverſaries of Infant-Baptiſm. If ſuch witneſſes be his proof, he could not have choſen better for his turn than him and Cochleus, and ſome ſuch calumniators, of which ſort I could name him more.
§. 10. His laſt witneſs is, Dr. Hammond confeſſeth that Peter Bruis and Henry his Scholar and the Petrobruſiani and Henricani that ſprung from them oppoſed Infant-Baptiſm.]
Anſw. 1. Not a word of Dr. Hammonds books is cited to prove this, but Mr. Tombes his Review. And muſt we know of Mr. Tombes what Dr. Hammond held? No wonder then if I and the world muſt learn what I hold my ſelf, and what I have written, from ſuch as Mr. Danvers and Mr. Tombes. And why not alſo from all the reſt that have written againſt me? 2. I think it not worth my labour to ſearch over Dr. Hammonds books to ſee whether he hath ſaid this or not: ſeeing I know that he was my neighbour and lived ſo lately that he had no other means to know what theſe two men and their followers held, than what we and others have as well as he. You muſt give us elder proofs than this. 3. And if it were aſſerted by him or proved by others, it were no proof that the Waldenſes denyed Infant-Baptiſm; but it would only follow that Bruis and Henry were Manichees and not Waldenſes, which ſeemeth to be the miſtake of their later accuſers at leaſt.
§. 11. Pag. 120. He proveth Mr. Wills guilty of unfaithfulneſs, want of conſcience, cheating, forgery; and after, pag. 122. of manifold Lying. Becauſe, 1. He knoweth that Cluniacenſis —hath given no ſuch wicked and falſe teſtimony, &c. And how proveth he that? [For both Oſiander and the Magdeb. from whom he had it, give an account of Fifteen particulars &c.] Anſw. 1. Doth that prove that Cluniac. hath no more? 2. Do they ſay that thoſe fifteen are all? 3. And doth that prove that Mr. Wills knew it, who never ſaith, that he ever ſaw Cluniacenſis book? as it ſeems Mr. D. did not. 4. Doth Mr. D. himſelf know it, of a book never read? See how this accuſer proveth Lyes? For my part I have not at hand either Cluniack or Oſiander, or the Magdeb. and will not be at the labour to get and ſearch them for nothing.
§. 12. Pag. 121. he ſaith, [He knowes that theſe particulars he mentions, were not charged on Peter Bruis but on the Albigeo's in the following Century by other hands than Bernard and Cluniacenſis who were dead long before.
Anſw. 1. How know you another mans knowledge? 2. Long before what? Before any ſuch accuſations on the Albigenſes? Read Bernards Serm. 66. in Cant. Saith Ʋſher (than whom few men ever knew ſuch matters better, or more truly reported them) de ſucceſ. c. 8. p. 232. Bernard Serm. 65. & 66. in Cant. mentioneth their opinions partly common with the Manichees, partly with the Orthodox. And that the Manichees were before among them he before proved at large, and that they (called Cathari) were by ordinary error miſtaken for Waldenſes and Leoniſts. And p. 236. ſaith he [Sic & Apoſtolicis Bernardus Clareval. Catharis Eckbertus Schnang. Popelicanis Guido Armorican. atque Albigenſibus Regordus Regis Franc. Chronographus, haereſin attribuit quam Apoſtolus praedixerat — deteſtantem nuptias, & carnem comedere prohibentem. (Which in Bernard and Ecbertus are commonly to be ſeen) Quod ut de Manicheis in terra Albig. commorantibus admitti poteſt, ita de toto Albig. genere dictum falſiſſimum eſſe conſtat, ſive cum Thuano à Pet. Valdo ſive cum Papir. Maſſonio à Pet. Bruiſio eorum originem placeat repetere—And p. 237, 238. he ſaith, A Petro Bruſio & ejus ſucceſſore Henrico qui (ut ex Pet. Cluniacenſi intelligitur)—per annos viginti doctrinam ſuam diſſeminarunt Albigenſium ſectam deducit P. Maſſonius,—Apoſtolicos etiam de quibus Serm. 66. in Cant. agit Bernardus, eoſdem eſſe opinatur Tham. Waldenſis cum Publicanis.
§. 13. Pag. 123. he proveth that the Waldenſes did deny Infant-Baptiſm, from the Decrees of 12. ſeveral Princes, and Popes. For proof of that he referreth us to his former book. When I look there I find as cited p. 248, &c. his evidence is as followeth.
1. Dr. Ʋſher out of the Fragments of Aquit. by P. Pithaeus tells us, that in the time of Robert King of France, they of Aquit and Tholouſe, (principal places of the Waldenſes) did deny Baptiſm (for ſo they called denying Baptiſm to little ones) &c.
Anſw. Mark Reader the truſtineſs of this man. 1. He maketh denying Baptiſm (to ſignifie) only denying it to Infants, without a word of proof; 2. He leaveth out the denying of our Redeemer, denying Lawful Marriage, and the eating of fleſh, &c. though conjoyned in the teſtimony. 3. He feigneth this to be ſaid of the Waldenſes, which is expreſly ſaid in the hiſtory to be ſpoken of the Manichees? Is not this an excellent Prover? The words of Pithaeus hiſtory cited by Ʋſher de ſucceſ. p. 229. are theſe, Emerſiſſe in Gallia Manichaeos, &c. Pith. [Eveſtigio exorti ſunt per Aquitaniam Manichaei ſeducentes—ſuadebant negare baptiſmum, ſignum crucis, Eccleſiam, & ipſum Redemptorem ſeculi, honorem Sanctorum, conjugia legitima, eſum carnium—ſimili modo apud Tholeſam inventi ſunt Manichaei, & ipſi igne cremati ſunt: & per diverſas Occidentis partes Manichaei, exorti—Of the real preſence here is nothing.
§. 14. 2. Saith Mr. D. [Dr. Ʋſher alſo tells us out of Pap. Maſſon. that 14. Citizens of Orleans, were convict of the ſame hereſie, for denying Baptiſmal grace, and the real preſence, annd burnt alive, Herbert, Liſius and Stephen —
Anſw. Here note, 1. The hiſtory cited by Ʋſher (Johan. Floriacenſis, referente Maſſon.) ſaith, [abnegabant ſacri baptiſmi gratiam] but not a word of Infants: And it was known that the Waldenſes opinion was that Prieſts did not ex opere operato give the Holy Ghoſt, nor Baptiſm without the Holy Ghoſt, ſave any (young or old). 2. It addeth that they denied pardon of ſin to be received, Marriage, meats which God created, and fat.
§. 15. 3. He addeth, [Dr. Ʋſher tells us, — Many of this Sect were about Milan, &c.
Anſw. Ʋſhers words are out of Chron. Herman. Contract. [Quoſdam haereticos, &c. certain hereticks among other opinions of ill error, of the Manichean Sect, execrating the eating of all Animals — were hanged—]. 1. He proveth by this, that they were not the Waldenſes, but Manichees. 2. Not eating fleſh is charged on them. 3. But not a word there of Baptiſm of young or old.
§. 15. 3. He addeth, [Alſo out of Radulph. Ard. — that ſeveral whom they called the Manichean Sect denyed Baptiſm, &c.]
Anſw. Note 1. Ardens words cited by Ʋſher are, [Tales ſunt &c. Such are the Manichean hereticks at this time—who falſly ſay they keep the life of the Apoſtles; ſaying that they lie not, nor ſwear at all; and on pretence of abſtinence, and continence, do damn eating fleſh and marriage: They ſay that it is as heinous a crime to go to a Wife, as to a Mother, or Daughter: They damn the Old Teſtament: of the New, ſome they receive, and ſome not: and which is worſe, they predicate two Makers of the World, believe that God made Inviſibles and the Devil viſibles. So that they ſecretly adore the Devil, who they think made their bodies. The Sacrament of the Altar they ſay is meer bread: Baptiſm they deny: They ſay none can be ſaved but by their hands: They deny the Reſurrection of the body.]
1. Here is not a word of Infants; 2. They are deſcribed and called fully Manichees. 3. If this teſtimony be true, believe it: If not, truſt it not, or at leaſt forge not ſuch words as are not here.
§. 16. He addeth, [Pope Leo the Ninth in his Decret. to Biſhop Aquit. about 1050. commandeth that young children be Baptized, becauſe of original ſin].
Anſw. I will not turn to ſee whether it be ſo▪ but what's this to the purpoſe? The Pope bids Baptize Infants: Ergo not only the Manichees but the Waldenſes denyed it? I deny that conſequence.
§. 17. He adds, [Greg. 7. decreed 1070. that thoſe young children whoſe Parents were abſent or unknown, ſhould according to the Tradition of the Fathers be Baptized.]
Anſw. If this prove that the Waldenſes were againſt Infant-Baptiſm, it will prove that Papiſts, Proteſtants and all are ſo? what proving is this? Of Bernard (next cited) we ſpake before.
§. 18. His next witneſs is, [Ecbertus a great Doctor againſt the Cathari, &c.
Anſw. Note Reader, that this Great Doctor was a Monk, and after an Abbot▪ who ſaith that the Cathariſts againſt whom he wrote, 1. Deny and damn Marriage. 2. And all eating of fleſh, becauſe it comes by copulation. 3. That they ſay that the Devil made all fleſh. 4. That they do not only ſay Baptiſm profiteth not Infants, but more commonly though more privately, that no water Baptiſm profiteth any one to ſalvation — And that Chriſt was not truly born of a Virgin, nor had humane fleſh, but a ſhew of it, nor roſe from the dead, but ſeemed to die, and riſe. They are Manichees: They keep the feaſt of Manicheus death: That they hold that mens ſouls are nothing but the apoſtate Spirits caſt out of heaven, which by good works here may procure ſalvation:] If all this be true, were theſe the Waldenſes? and is this Mr. D.s proof — Bibliot. Pat. To. 4. p. 2. p. 79. &c.
§. 19. His next proof is, [Erbrardus another great …octor, &c.]
Anſw. This Erbrardus profeſſeth to confute in the hereticks that he dealeth with, 1. That the Law is not of faith, but is to be reprobate &c. 2. He proveth it againſt them that the Prophets and Patriarchs are ſaved. 3. That it was the true God that gave Moſes the Law. 5. That God made all things, and that they falſly held a Good and a Bad Maker of the World. 6. That children ſhould be Baptized. 7. That it is lawful to marry. 9. For the Reſurrection, and ſo on. And are theſe Waldenſes and this man to he believed of them too?
§. 20. Ermingendus another great Writer is his next proof.
Anſw. This Ermingardus alias Ermengandus, (we pardon him the miſnaming) writeth againſt Hereticks that hold, 1. That an evil God made the World. 2. That there are two Gods, a Good, and a Malignant. 3. That it was not the true God that gave Moſes the Law. 4. That Moſes was a Magician. 5. That Marriage is unlawful, and ſo on as the reſt, even to the denyal of the Reſurrection. And about Baptiſm (Cap. 12. pag. 1249. Bibl. Pat. To. 4. Part. 1.) that Baptiſm profits neither young nor old without the impoſition of their hands.] Is this a good witneſs that the Waldenſes were againſt Infant-Baptiſm?
Reader, I am almoſt at the end of his proofs here, and yet have not patience thus to loſe precious time, in opening the reſt of his abuſes: The few remaining are like the reſt! Yet here he foundeth his proof of Twelve Decrees, and endeth with an inſultation againſt me and others.
§. 21. In his Reply, p. 125. he adds Reinerius; which giveth me occaſion to tell the Reader, that if he will peruſe this one Author, he will better underſtand the truth of the whole buſineſs, than by reading many confounders that ſpeak upon fame they know not what. This Rhei…herus tells us, that he was one of the Arch-hereticks, and among them ſeventeen years; that is the Cathariſts: He tells us upon his own knowledge, not only how many ſorts of them there were, whom (being then an Inquiſitor) he calleth hereticks, but alſo how many Churches the Cathariſts had, and what number each Church had, and where they were, and what every Sect held, as different from the reſt. Whereas many ignorant writers of thoſe times confound them. From him we have diſtinct notice that the Manichees and Cathariſts then held the horrid hereſies charged on the Waldenſes, and that the Leoniſts or Pauperes de Lugduno (the true Waldenſes and Albigenſes) were indeed free from them; and about Worſhip and Church Government, they differed from the Pontificians as the Proteſtants do: But for doctrinals (about Predeſtination, Free-will, Mans Power, Venial ſin, Juſtification, Merit, &c.) there is no regardable difference charged on them. Cap. 5. he giveth you a Catalogue of the Leoniſts opinions, of which twenty are againſt the Papal Government: Then he ſaith, they damn the Sacraments of the Church: And here come in the words cited by Mr. D. Where note, 1. That he maketh them ſay that [Catechiſm is nothing] 2. Item quod ablutio, quae datur Infantibus nihil profit.] That the waſhing which is given to Infants, profits not. [3. That the Godfathers underſtand not what they ſhould anſwer to the Prieſt.] 4. That they reject exorciſmes, and the benedictions of Baptiſm — that a Prieſt in mortal ſin may not conſecrate the Sacrament, &c.] And let the Reader note that the Popiſh doctrine then was, that all Baptized Infants were certainly ſaved, becauſe Baptized, how wicked ſoever the Parents, Prieſt, and Godfathers were: And that all theſe (Prieſts, Parents, and Godfathers) were then ſo often groſly ignorant and wicked, as became the ſcandal of all good people. And note that here Reinherus ſaith not that they rejected Baptiſm of Infants, nor held it unlawful, but that, 1. Ablutio, the outward waſhing. 2. Quae datur, which de facto was then given Infants, 3. Nihil profit, profits nothing, plainly meaning no more but that the children of wicked ignorant Parents, preſented by Godfathers that know not ſo much as what to anſwer the Prieſt, and Baptized by wicked Prieſts who tell them that ex opere operato they are now certainly in a ſtate of ſalvation, are not ſaved by this waſhing, unleſs they have alſo the Baptiſm of the ſpirit, which is not this way aſcertained to them.
And accordingly they meant of Catechizing; that is, of the Popiſh Catechizing only; And of the other Sacraments, as under the Popiſh notion of a Sacrament which giveth grace ex opere operato. And when he ſaith that [Sacramentum Conjugii damnant] he openeth the myſtery of that accuſation. 1. They denyed Marriage to be a Sacrament. 2. And he ſaith [Dicentes mortaliter peccare conjuges, ſi abſque ſpeprolis conveniant.] It ſeems they were too rigid for Chaſtity, but not againſt Marriage.
§. 22. And that this is the true meaning of Reinherus appeareth, 1. By the phraſe of the context. 2. In that he never offereth to confute any ſuch error of theirs, as the denyal of the lawfulneſs of Infants Baptiſm. 3. And ſpeaki…g Cap. 6. of the Orthibenſes he further expoundeth all [Parvulis vero non prodeſt niſi fuerint perfecti in ſecta illa] the words before being [De baptiſmo dicunt, quod nihil valeat, niſi quantum valeant merita baptizantis.] So that it is not Antipaedobaptiſm that he accuſeth them of, but that Baptiſm profiteth not Infants unleſs the Baptizers (or Parents) be good: that is, as aforeſaid, when done by wicked Prieſts to the children of the wicked.
§. 23. And for further evidence, the next Hiſtorian added by Gretſer, (Bibl. Patr. To. 4. Part. 2. p. 776.) Pet. Pilichdorf ſeemeth one of the moſt learned and acquainted with what he wrote of any other that have then written againſt the Waldenſes, and he refuteth their opinion of the invalidity of Sacraments, when adminiſtred by wicked Preiſts, c. 16, 17. But never ſaith a word of their denying Infant-Baptiſm, even when he accurately and copiouſly in Thirty ſix Chapters reckons up and confuteth their differences from the Papal Church. And can we think ſuch a man (and almoſt all that confound them not with the Cathariſts that were Manichees) would overlook this, in ſuch a perſecuting bloody time; when they racked every word of the poor diſſenters to make a hereſie of it?
§. 24. To Pilichdorf is added another accurate confuter of their opinions, that hath not a word of any ſuch charge.
And next is added an exact Catalogue of their (ſuppoſed) errors to the number of Thirty ſeven, and not a word of this among them all.
And next is added the Modus examinandi haereticos; And next 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.