More Proofs of Infants Church Membership and Right to Baptism, Chapter 4 – Chapter 5
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.