Innocency and Truth Vindicated, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. Wherein you have the Stories concerning the German Anabaptiſts reviewed, and the Principles and Practiſe of Anabaptiſtry (as Mr. Wills calls it) vindicated againſt his reproaches.
IN the reflection I made upon the Story of Tho. Munzer, and John of Leyden, What before ſaid hereto.for whoſe ſakes ſo much obliquity hath been caſt upon the Anabaptiſts and their way, ever ſince; I principally intended theſe two things.
Firſt, to ſhew the unreaſonableneſs of charging the innocent with the crimes of ſuch as are guilty: And to this Mr. Wills in the general conſents, though he tells us withall, the ſuſpition he hath, of the Principle of Anabaptiſtry it ſelf.
Secondly, I gave a brief account of matter of fact, and therein ſhewed that thoſe Germane commotions were not Anabaptiſtical in their Original, but moved upon the ſame pretentions, as the Helvetians and others before them had done; then gave the reaſons why I thought there was ground to doubt of the truth of what was reported concerning the horrid crimes committed by them in their communities.
Mi. Wills res Objections,In anſwer hereunto Mr. Wills reproves me. Firſt, for denying thoſe motions to be Anabaptiſtical. Secondly, for making an odious Compariſon betwixt thoſe commotions and them in Helvetia, p. 103. Thirdly, for miſtaking matter of fact in the Original of the Munster commotion. Fourthly, As being extreamly ſcandalous for my doubts concerning thoſe horrid impieties in Munſter. And Fifthly, he charges the Principle it ſelf as naturally leading to immorality and diviſion.
To theſe I make this brief reply.
VVhy the Commotions in Swevia not Anabaptiſtical.Firſt, that the Commotions in Swevia 1635. were not Anabaptiſtical appears by their twelve demands, which you have mentioned at large by Oſiander Cent. 16. c. 36, p. 100. Wherein is not one word ſavouring of Anabaptiſm, but about freedom from Exactions, and to deliver themſelves from the Tyranny (as they ſay) of their Princes and Biſhops more Helvetiorum (which Gnedolius alſo informs us, as I before mentioned) being much of the ſame nature with thoſe other Demands made by the Ruſticks twenty three Years before (which was the Year after the Revolt of Berne and Schafhuiſen) of which you have alſo an account in Oſiander Cent. 16. L. 1. c. 6. p. 10. And that theſe commotions were not fomented and principally managed by the Anabaptiſts may appear; Firſt from thoſe firſt Demands, which were principally made and managed by the Papiſts; as Oſiander and Biſhop Jewel againſt Harding inform, and the Articles themſelves expreſs; and that the Latter Demands in 1625. were principally carried on by the Lutherans, (though it is true Luther afterwards Writ againſt them) as Oſiander tells us. In which attempt alſo that Year fell of them (as Paget in his Heriſography informs us) one hundred and fifty thouſand: the hundred part whereof could not be Anabaptiſts.
To the ſecond he tells us it is both odious and injurious, to compare thoſe attempts of Geneva and the Switzers with thoſe in Swevia, when none, as he ſaith, can be ſuch Diaboli as to charge the Switzers with Robbing the Nobility, Plundring of Towns, and Caſtles, Rifling of all that was Sacred, as thoſe Germans did.
To which I ſay,VVhy the Compariſions not odious as charged. that the Chronicles themſelves can beſt inform how thoſe Cantons formerly, and thoſe of Baſil Schafhuſen and Geneva ſince did manage their Confederacies, ſurprize their Towns and Caſtles, diſpoſeſs their Princes, and Biſhops; and poſſeſs themſelves of their Revenues Civil and Eccleſiaſtical. For my part I am yet to learn (from what ever I read) where the difference lay in the attempts, only that thoſe Cantons had better Conduct and proſpered, and the other had neither Conduct nor Succeſs, but miſcarried in both; which if the other had done, as much obloque might have befallen them. And you'l find ſome Protestant Writers as well as Popiſh to charge as much iregularity on the undertaking of the one, as of the other; who will tell you that the Boores in Germany, and they of Munſter, might as warrantably turn out their Princes, Biſhops, and Canons; and poſeſs themſelves of their Revenues, as Geneva, and thoſe of Helvetia had done. And we are not ignorant of the ſeveral attempts that the City of Munſter hath made within a few years, ſince wholly Popiſh, to deliver themſelves from the Exactions of their Biſhop, which by the Biſhop hath been eſteemed no leſs ſeditious and rebellious, than the former.
Thirdly as to the Originall of the Munſter commotion, though he grants the turning out of the Biſhops, Cannons, &c. out of the Churches, and the City alſo, by the Reformiſts. Yet tells me, I ſpeak falſely in ſaying, that Spanhamius tells us that it came to Arms betwixt the Biſhops and City, who ſaith the quite contrary, and tells us (as he ſaith) that it never came to blows.
That the firſt ſtirrs in Munſter was about Proteſtant Reformation.To which I ſay, my words you'l find are theſe, viz. That Sphanhemius and Oſiander tells us, that the firſt ſtirrs in the City was about the Proteſtant Reformation, the Senate ſiding with Rotman and others of the Ministers againſt the Papiſts and their Biſhops, that oppoſed them to Arms, and this before the coming in of John a Leyden.
Mr. Wills very partial.I ſay Spanhemius and Oſiander tells us, &c. He takes notice only of the former, and it is manifeſt they both of them ſpeak of thoſe firſt ſtirs about turning out the Biſhops Canons; Spanhemius it is true ſpeaks very briefly of the difference and Agreement that happened betwixt the Biſhop and Senate thereupon, Though I muſt tell Mr. Wills it is his miſtake to ſay, that Spanhemius denies it came to Armies: for he ſaith no ſuch thing; But Oſiander from Sleyden goes to particulars: And tells us, how the Biſhop drew a Force down to a Neighbouring Village called Telgeto, ſtopt and ſtreightned them of proviſion (for ſo ſaith Sleiden) And ſent meſſengers to command the reſtoring of the Canons to their Churches again, and the turning out of Town the new Preachers: But how that inſtead thereof they detayned his Meſſengers, and ſent a party out of the Town in the Night and ſurprized and brought away Priſoners, diverſe of the Biſhops men; and that he himſelf had been taken alſo, if he had not gone out of his Quarters, that Night before. And if this could be done without Arms, and Blows, let all Men judge: and whether the reproof doth not more properly belong to Mr. Wills than my ſelf therein.
Fourthly, As to the Suſpition (why I ſuppoſed there was cauſe to doubt) of the truth of thoſe monſterous Villanyes acted in their Communities in the Latter part of the Siege, as mentioned by their malitious enemies the Papiſts, and many of their inveterate enemies the Proteſtants, He ſaith it is extreamly ſcandalous in two reſpects, Firſt for calling into Queſtion the matter of fact, eſpecially as reported by the Proteſtants, who were not (as he ſaith) inveterate enemies, but very loving friends to them. And Secondly, For endeavouring to palliate ſuch horrid actings of the Anabaptiſts, a thing never done by any.
Why cauſe to ſuſpect ſome of the reports about Munſter.In anſwer whereto I ſay let it in the firſt place be remembred, that as to the firſt part of my ſuſpicion, why thoſe horrid enormities reported might be ſcandals, viz. From the reports given them by the lying Papiſts (who ſpeak as bad things of Calvin and Luther themſelves, and of the Waldenſes before them, as you have heard) he ſeems ſilently to own.firſt from Papiſts. But his great offence lies againſt me for queſtioning the truth of what is ſaid thereof by the Proteſtant Writers ſuch as Sleiden, Oſiander, Spanhemius, Zwinglius, &c. who were (as he ſaith) moſt faithful hiſtorians, grave Divines, and who gave punctuallly the Circumſtances of time, place, opinions, &c. And from whom he tranſcribes the Story: And that my injurious reflection upon them, as though they were the Anabaptiſts inveterate enemies and that they were willing to take up and improve ſuch reports, to blaſt not only the whole party of the Anabaptiſts but the;r Principles alſo, againſt whom they contended, ſavour in me (as he ſaith) of no leſs then the ebullition of a Malicious, or at beſt a prejudiciall Spirit.
Secondly, Several T…o eſtntsTo which I ſay, how ſhall we be aſſured, that theſe later writers did not make their Reports from the Popiſh Writers. For Sleiden wrote not his comentary till 1555. about twenty years after the fact, and Oſiander only tranſcribes from Sleiden. And as for Spanhemius he wrote not till eighty years after Sleiden. upon whom Mr. Wills lays the greateſt ſtreſs, and who appears to be a very partial and unfaithful writer reſpecting the Anabaptiſts in that his Hiſtoricall Narration printed 1646. Firſt falſely affirming that Stork, Stubner, and Muntzer, were the beginners of Anabaptiſm, and who Firſt (as his own words expreſs) helpt the world to be delivered of that Sect. Secondly in his malicious charging the Anabaptiſts with all the old Hereſies, that he could reckon up in any old Author, viz. That they were Manichaeans, Andians, Anthropomorphites, Trithcits, Samoſatenians, Noetians, and Sabellians: Apollinariſts, and Prodianites, Anaſtations, Neſtorians, Eutichians, Corinthians, Photinians, Oregenianss Cathariſts, Novatians, Donatiſts, Parmenians, Marcionites, Eunomians, Montaniſts, Nicolaites, Baſilidians, Cataphrigians, Gnosticks, Pelagians, and Socinians. All which Opinions, he enlargeth upon, and applies to them, then which what could ſavour more of the ebullition of a Malicious Spirit?
And as for Zwinglius Zwinglius cruel Enemy with the Anabaptiſts.he could give no account of his buſineſs, who dyed five years before it, viz 1531. But as to this great friendsſhip (Mr. Wills boaſts of) By the gentleneſs and tenderneſs that he ſhewed to thoſe anabaptiſts, that fell off from his Church, whom he treated not as Enemies, but as his intimate friends (as he tells us) I ſhall give you ſome particular account, wherein you will find what is that Kindneſs and Gentleneſs, it ſeems we might expect from Mr. Wills if it was in his power.
It is true at firſt Zwinglius was a great Friend and Companion of the Anabaptiſts, and a great favourer of their opinion in oppoſition to that of Infants Baptiſm, as Treat. Bapt. p 262.
But afterwards who more Cruel amongſt the Bloody Papiſts themſelves than he, as you have a particular account from thoſe edicts of Zurick, wherein he had the principal hand, p. 260. And the Inhumane Execution of them by drowning, burning, and Starving. It is true to palliate this Cruelty, Mr. Wills tells us from Spanhemius, that they ſuffered not theſe ſeverities for being Anabaptiſts but as perjured, diſobedient and ſeditious perſons, which is a farther diſcovery of his malice and unfaithfullneſs.
The cruel handling of the Anabap. at Zanc.For thoſe very decrees of Zurick extracted by me proved, out of the Dutch Martyrology, where they are inſerted word for word, do teſtify that it was meerly upon the account of their Judgment for baptizing after profeſſion, thoſe that had been, baptized in their Infancies. And to confirm the ſame, Gaſtius tells us. L. 1. p. 178. That the Tigurines) or thoſe of Zurick) do drown them in Water, who do baptize thoſe that were baptized before. And Hornbeck in his Summa Controverſ. p. 340. Gives us a pregnant inſtance thereof, telling us, That Felix Mentzius of Zurick, was by the Command of the Magiſtrate (whoſe laws and authorities he had broke by proceeding to rebaptize perſens within their Juriſdiction) was himſelf drowned in water upon 5th. Jan: Anno. 1527. And this was Zwinglius his Kindneſs to his intimate Friends and Brethren (this Mentzius having been an ancient Diſciple and an Eminent preacher) And much the like friendſhip they met with from their Proteſtant Friends at Berne and Schafhuiſen as you have it p. 256. And therefore it was no wonder, if they could be ſo prodigal of their lives that they ſhould be ſo laviſh of their Reputations; for the latter would only help to juſtifie the former: for juſt in like manner did the Papiſts deal with the Allegeois in Innocent the third his time, the better to cover over their murderous and bloody cruelties againſt them.
And as to the ſecond part of his exception againſt my ſuſpicion,Why ground to ſuſpect thoſe horrid things reported to be done at Munſter. which he calls a palliating of thoſe horrid Crimes, and repeats it as if I tyed it only to the actions of Jo. Mathias, and John of Leydon, when I mentioned my ſuſpicion of what was reported to be done by the whole party in the Communities in the later part of the Siege: Whereof the Publick Stock might give ſome occaſion of Report (as it had done, as I obſerved, amongſt the Waldenſes of old, as though with their Goods they had the Women alſo in common too.) But for theſe following Reaſons Mr. Wills muſt bear with me, if I do not as yet recive it.firſt Bec. many learned pious men a- Firſt becauſe, I cannot imagine thoſe five Godly and Learned Miniſters, viz. Bernard Rotmannus, Hermam Strapedo, Henricuus Rullius, Godfry Straling, Julius Friſius, and others, who had been ſo ſucceſsful in the work of Converſion in that place (as is cenfeſſed) and ſo many ſober Citizens, who had with them embraced that Judgment of Baptiſm after Faith, could ſo ſoon renounce all Godlineſs and Honeſty, ſo as to practice, or give countenance to ſuch unheard of Impieties, and Villanies. 2dly, becauſe Merno Simonis (of whom Caſſander ſaith, there were in him and his Followers tokens of a godly mind, Second The Miniſters a ſober people did not charge it upon them.ſaith thus in his Book of Fundamentals concerning this People, viz. I doubt not but theſe our beloved Brethren who lately did ſin againſt God by defending their Faith with Arms are in the Favour of God. And Mr. Robert Bailie in his Anabaptiſm, p. 36. ſaith the Mennonites themſelves, the ill beſt of all who carryed the name of Anabaptiſts, though they Anathematize the Georgians Hereſie, yet they approve ſo far of the Monaſterians, that they do much excuſe all their wicked practices, and put no doubt of their Saintſhip and acceptation with God, notwithſtanding the Crimes the world charges upon them. And what can his ſignifie but the Mennoniſts disbelief of the Crimes objected againſt that wicked Community of the Anabaptiſts, for had they beleived it, they would much more have renounced ſuch moral Impietys, than that of their bearing defenſive Arms, which they ſo witneſſed againſt.
Third Ber. many of them very holy Martyrs.Thirdly, Another Argument why I judge theſe German Anabaptiſts were not given up to ſuch Uncleanneſs and Wickedneſs is, becauſe ſo many of them did (upon the Emperours bloudy Placaet) about this time, as well before and after, ſo chearfully ſeal their holy profeſſion with their blood, twenty of them were Martyred in the Palatinate, An. 1529. and 350 more in Alſatia the ſame year, and many hundreds more of them ſuffered upon the ſame account, ſome by burning, ſome by drowning, and ſome by beheading; of whom, the Dutch Book of Martyrs gives an annual account. And therefore Beza in his Epiſtle to the Gallo-belgick Churches, at Embden ſaith, many of the Anabaptiſts are good men, Servants of God, Martyrs of Chriſt, and our moſt dear Brethren. Quoſdam inter Anabaptistas eſſe bonos, veros ſervos Dei, Chriſti Martyres, & chariſſimos fratres noſtros. Hornbeck Summa Controverſ. L. 5. p. 364.
But Mr. Wills his chief improvement of this Story is yet behind; Which is fitly, not only to render the Profeſſors them of vile and contemptible, but the Principle it ſelf corrupt and deteſtable. And therefore in words at length tells us both from himſelf and others, that the Principle of Anabaptiſm is falſe and dangerous; and a Principle of darkneſs: upon which many black Characters are Writ. And is not this to the purpoſe indeed? and beyond all that he hath ſaid? And therefore he might have ſaved himſelf, the World, and me the trouble, of his great Book in detecting my miſtakes in Hyſtory, and the many falſhoods, that he pretends me guilty of, and the Refuting of my Arguments; But rather ſingly betook himſelf to this alone: for if he has diſcovered the rottenneſs of the Principle, he need do no more.
But then the Queſtion is, how he makes this appear? which you'll find he endeavors to do by two Arguments. Firſt, from the wickedneſs and immorality of thoſe that profeſs it. Secondly the riggid and dividing nature of the Principle it ſelf.
Mr. Wills Reaſon why the Prim. is corrupt.Firſt, from the immorality of the Profeſſors of it. Telling us, p. 94. That we may ſafely affirm that Doctrine is to be ſuſpected falſe, which is uſually attended with groſs miſcarriages in the Profeſſors of it: for that ſpeaks the Doctrine Ominous, and looks like a Spiritual Judgement of God upon it. And I heartily wiſh there were no ground to ſay, that of ſuch a Nature is the Doctrine of Baptizing grown Perſons, in oppoſition to that of Infants Seed of Believers. Evidenced by the wicked lives of thoſe in Germany, and the Blaſphemies and immoralities of divers Perſons of our own Nation. And again, p. 106. That the Tumultuous and Rebellious carriages of thoſe in Germany did proceed not ſo much from the diſtempered Brains of ſome; but from their opinions, and the very cenſtitution of their Sect. by which it will be ſomewhat difficult to make it out how it may not be therefore chargeable upon all.
Anſwered Principles may not be tryed by any thing but the Scripture, and whyIn anſwer hereunto, I ſay in the firſt place, That Mr. Wills takes a wrong meaſure, and ſets up a falſe Standard; By judging the goodneſs, or badneſs of Principles, or Doctrines, by the goodneſs or badneſs of the Men that profeſs them; becauſe Men may have good Converſations, that have rotten Principles, witneſs the Scribes and Phariſes, of old; the Jeſuites, and Quakers, ſince, that may be Woolves, in Sheeps Clothing, and Devils in the ſhape of Angels of Light. And on the contrary, Men may have good Principles, and yet very unſuitable Converſations, witneſs the Profeſſors, both under the Law, and under the Goſpel: for whence was it, that God deſtroy'd and removed his People, of old, pull'd down the Tabernacle, and both Temples, and ſent them into Captivity; but for the wickedneſs of their lives? as Jer. 7.1. to verſe 17. 1. Cor. 10.1. to 12. And whence was it that God removed his Candleſtick, from thoſe famous firſt Churches in the New Teſtament; but for the evil of their doing it muſt we therefore conclude, that becauſe their Converſations, were ſo bad under both; that therefore their Principle, and Profeſſion it ſelf, was …ought, and led thereunto, by no means? let God be true, and, every Man a lyar▪ for this would be to reproach the truth in every Age.
Therefore nothing but the Infallible Rule of Gods Word, can be the proper Standard to try Doctrines by, according to particular direction in the Caſe, Iſa. 8. 20. Gal. 1.8. …. John, 4.1, 2, &c. And the reaſon is, becauſe all Men are failable, and at beſt are but M…n.
But in the next place, we will trace Mr. Wills in his further proofs, and try whether he be able to make good his uncharitable, not to ſay malicious, charge, whereby you will be the better able to judge whether the Foundation of his Argument is not ſlander and falſe accuſation.
Mr. Wills proof fails to theſe of the Blaſphemies and imoralities of the German Anabaptiſts.The Principle ſaith he is falſe, becauſe they are uſually ſo that profers it and that they are uſually ſo appears, firſt by the horrid errors, and wicked lives of thoſe in Germany, and by the blaſphemy and immoralities of divers in our own Nation. But how doth he prove the one or the other.
Firſt, how he proves the German Anabaptiſts to be ſo a erronious as you have heard by Sphanhemius his lying fictions and camera's. But concerning whoſe Orthadox Faith and Doctrine, you have an Account in the Dutch book of Martyrs; firſt by their publick owning the Articles of Faith exhibited by the Waldenſes in the twelfth Cent. Recorded at large by Perin, and divers other Authors; and which they Sealed with their Blood through all the parts of Germany, France, Italy, &c. In the ſeveral Ages ever ſince: whereof you have a faithful memorial in their Book of Martyrs from time to time. And who withall do give a punctual account of thoſe latter conventions of their Elders out of all the Provinces in the Low Countries, Germany, Flanders, France, &c. viz. one at Amſterdam, 27. September 1627. And the other at Dort, 21. April, 1632. Where the old Waldeſian Articles were Subſcribed and Publiſhed; and which you have at large with the Scriptures annexed in the ſaid Book of Martyrs, called the Bloody Theatre, Printed at Dort 1660. By which you have an account, that the Anabaptiſts in Germany were not ſuch deſperate Hereticks, as Mr. Wills ſo untruly ſuggeſts; not but that I judge there were erronius Perſons, both in former and latter times, that own'd the Doctrine of Baptiſm after Faith both in Germany and England, and we find the pureſt Churches in the Primitive times, were not free from Hereticks of all ſorts. Neither I preſume will Mr. Wills our Accuſer himſelf, undertake, that the Doctrine of Paedobaptiſme doth ſecure from the groſſeſt errors that are aſſerted. Therefore ſince the Articles of Faith that have been, and are own'd, by thoſe Churches are ſo ſound and Orthadox, there is no cauſe ſo to reproach them as Spanhamius before; and Mr. Wills that now Writes after his Coppy. And thus much for their Doctrine.
Then as to the Commotions and Rebellions that he tells us the way of Anabaptiſme ſtirred up in Swevia and Munſter from the ſame Author; And what unheard of Villanies were perpetrated in that City, hath been already conſidered, and the proofs tendred for the ſame; which I preſume is ſuch evidence that no Court of Juſtice, nor any upright Man can paſs a Judgement upon. And truly, if matter of Fact cannot be better told us at home, witneſs thoſe many falſe Stories Mr. Edwards in his Gangrene, Fathered upon them; and Mr. Baxter in his report of their Baptiſing naked (of neither of which Mr. Wills takes any notice) what credit can be given to theſe forreign uncertain Stories?
But if it ſhould be taken for granted, that they in Swevia and Munſter were ſo Seditious and Rebellious as Mr. Wills from Spanhaemius would make them, muſt all the Anabaptiſts in Germany, both in that Age, and ever ſince be ſo reputed, and that their Principle leads thereto alſo? Yea and thoſe very Anabaptiſts too: that both then, and ever ſince that, bore witneſs againſt beating of Arms at all: for ſo did the followers of Mennoſimonis and Theodoricus, as Caſſander tells us; though ſo great is Mr. Wills his prejudice, that he will not admit thereof; and rather than not make his words good will adventure to tranſlate that Paſſage M Caſſander's Letter to the Duke of Cleve, quite contrary to what he expreſſeth concerning them; which diſcovers Mr. Wills to be either a very heedleſs. Writer, that dares not what he ſaith to blaſt the People he Writes againſt: or that he doth not well underſtand a Latin Author; or if he do, ſuppoſeth by the ignorance of his oppoſite, he may take the liberty to ſay any thing of that kind without controle: concerning which Paſſage, he tells us that they, viz. The followers of Mennoſimonus and Theodoricus, being as he ſaith, imperito quodam zelo incitati; moved by an ignorant Zeal to what they did, having a fancy that they muſt deſtroy the wicked per vim externam by force of Arms, and this in order to the ſetting up the Kingdom of Chriſt; which Satanical deluſion put them on upon ſuch exorbitancies juſt of the ſame ſtrain with thoſe called 5th. Monarchy-Men, that put all London into ſuch a fright ſome years ſince, as p. 99.
Whereas Caſſander ſaith the direct contrary in that very place viz. That though they were guilty of other miſtakes through their ignorant Zeal, Yet tokens of a godly mind might be perceived in them by this that they (accerime ſemper reſiſterunt) allways reſiſted the rage of Munſter and John Battenbarg, and taught that the Instauration and propogation of Christs Kingdom was only by ſufferings. So that the Reader may perceive that Caſſander ſaith the quite contrary to what Mr. Wills ſaith of theſe People applying the Battenburg and Munſter Principle of Reſiſtance to theſe People that notoriouſly held the quite contrary; and therefore doth Caſſander plead with the Duke of Cleve for their Liberty, who were therefore as he tells him, Commiſeratione potius & emendatione quam inſectatione & perditione digni videantur. More worthy of pity and amendment, than perſecution and perdition. So you will underſtand hereby, that he is an Author not to be much truſted in his Authorities and and Tranſlations.
Whereby Mr. Wills would not only have all the German Anabaptists to be charged with that of Munstur, but even thoſe that witneſſed againſt it alſo; and is not that very hard meaſure? And would Mr. Wills be content to be ſo dealt with?
For inſtance, would he think it juſt and equal, if we ſhould retort his own ſtory upon himſelf, that he with ſo much Obliquy reflects upon us, p. 99. And tell him, that becauſe thoſe Perſon… that had the conduct of that affair, that put all London into that fright, were moſt riged Indipentant Poedobaptiſts, as certainly they were, what ever Mr. Wills may inſinuate to the contrary. That therefore all Rigid Poedobaptiſts (Mr. Wills himſelf in number alſo) are to be eſteemed of the ſame mind and ſpirit, notwitſtanding all the witneſs that they, either at that time, or ever ſince, would be thought to bear againſt that Action: Yea, and that the very Principle of Indipendant Poedobaptiſm tends to ſuch Rebellious actions too, which is his way of dealing with thoſe poor People.
Mr. Wills is ſhort in his Proofs againſt the Anabaptiſts in England.But you may better judge of his forreign intelligence and proof, by what he tells us to our faces at home; which every body will be better able to diſcern, and to make a Judgement of, viz. That dive…s Anabaptiſts in our own Nation are guilty (as he tells us) of blaſphemies and immoralities; and therefore the Principle is falſe, &c.
To the making good thereof he brings in Mr. Baxter for a Witneſs, though if he ſpeak any thing to the purpoſe, the bare affirmation of a Party would, I preſume, be judged as incompetent, as if the next that Writes, ſhould produce Mr. Wills his ſay-ſo for authentick proof.
But let us hear what Mr. Baxter ſayth to the point, which he tells us p. 100. In theſe words,Mr. Baxters Teſtimony againſt Anabaptiſts. that though Mr. Baxter knew ſome good and ſober Men amongſt them; yet that the generality were bad enough: for ſo (ſays he) we muſt understand him in his plain proof p. 143. Where he tells us to this purpoſe; that he had familiarly known very many of them: And that the Miniſters were for the moſt part cenſorious Opinionatiſts, who deſigned to convert People more to their Judgements than to Chriſt: And that Anabaptiſtry had been the ordinary inlet to the moſt horrid opinion, and how negligent many are in Family Duties, &c.
Now therefore let all men judge, whether this amounts to any proof. What if Mr. Baxter did know ſome of their Miniſters over Zealous for their Opinion, and ſome of the people too remiſs; and negligent in their Duties to God? doth this prove the Immorality ſuggeſted? and for his Apprehenſions, that it is the inlet into horrid Opinions? So the Prelates think of Presbytery and the Papiſts of Proteſtaniſm; is either of them therefore ſo? and doth that prove them to be Blaſphemers, and that we muſt underſtand by Mr. Baxters words, they are for the generality bad enough.
But ſuppoſe Mr. Baxter in his heat had indeed ſaid what Mr. Wills would make him ſay, (which we nowhere find as I know of) yet you will find Mr. Baxter in cool blood hath given another Character of the Anabaptiſts, of which, becauſe Mr. Wills will take ſo little notice, I ſhall here give it you over again upon this occaſion: which, you may be pleas'd to read in his own words, in his Book called, The Defence of the Principles of Love, p. 7. viz. that Anabaptiſts are Godly men, that differ from us in a point ſo difficult, that many of the Papiſts and Prelatists have maintained, that it is not determined in Scripture, Mr. Baxters late Teſtimony for the Anabaptists.but dependeth upon the Tradition of the Church. And I know as good and ſober men of that mind, as of theirs that are moſt against them: And that, I once motioned te…ms of Concord to the Anabaptists, and was in as h…peful a way for Peace with them, as with moſt others. And in his late large Book called A Christian Directory, he is pleaſed to ſay, p. 287. that Anabaptiſts may not only be admitted to Church Communion, but may be tolerated in their practice alſo. 1. Becauſe they agree with us in all points abſolutely neceſſa…y to Communion. 2. That the Antient Chriſtians had liberty either to Baptize, or to let them ſtay till Age, as they thought best 3. And that the Controverſie is of ſo great difficulty that if in all ſuch Caſes, none that differ be tolerated, we may not live toge…her in the World or Church, but endleſsly Excommunicate or Perſecute one another.
Now therefore let it be conſidered, Whether Mr. Wills hath proved his charge againſt the Anabaptiſts in England, and ſo conſequentl…, according to his rate of Reaſoning, proved their principle falſe and dangerous? And whether it is not juſt and equal, that till he make good the ſame, he ought to be reputed by all men, a Slanderous Perſon, and a falſe Ac…ſer of the Brethren, and as juſtly to be ſuſpected for his Forreign Intelligence, and Accuſation alſo?
Only this I would adviſe Mr. Wills, that when he offers his next proof, he be more particular as to the Perſons and Crimes he chargeth; as alſo, ſince he makes it ſo comprehenſive, to take in the Generality of the Baptiſts, and of ſo great moment as to judge their Principle by alſo, that the Blaſphemy and Immorality is ſuch as is foſter'd and borne with by the Churches, otherwiſe they are no more chargable with ſuch Crimes, if they have caſt any ſuch wicked Perſons out of them, then the Church of Corinth was to be charged with Inceſt, though they had diſowned, and Excommunicated the Inceſtuous Perſon.
And truly I think I may with much confidence challenge him, or any, the worſt of their Enemies, to produce any Blaſphemer, or immoral Perſon, ſo known to be, in any of the Churches of Chriſt under that Denomination. But if any, either in this Nation, in Germany, or elſe where, that have owned that Principle, have turned Ranters, and Athieſts, as too many, 'tis to be feared, have. I hope the Principle is no more to be charged with it, than Poedobaptiſm is; for all the Blaſphemies and Immoralities that perſons of that Perſwaſion do much more frequently fall into without (or with ſo little) controle.
M. Wills Chargeth the Principle to be of a dividing Nature.Having conſidered the Invalidity of the firſt Reaſon, Why the Principle is naught, viz. from the Wickedneſs of thoſe that Prefeſs it; we come in the next place to examine what he hath farther to ſay to that he calls the diſquieting, dividing Nature of it, to prove it falſe and dangerous. Which we find p. 95. in theſe words, viz. The very Principle of Anabaptiſtry is of a dangerous Nature, which in that Rigidity, as ſome men hold it, is of a diſquieting tendency, that, as Mr. Bunian ſaith, is not fit for any age or state of the Church. I cannot but ſigh to conſider the ways of ſome men, whoſe ſpirits are impregnated therewith, ſo that their very Conſtitution inclines them to nothing more than to rent and tear, and divide the Church: The Zeal for their Opinion hath, and doth ſtill prove the greateſt hinderance to the Conjunction of Chriſtians here in this Nation. For as ſoon as they become Baptiſts, as ſome call them, (and our Oppoſites love to appropriate the name to themſelves) they fall off from Godly Miniſters and People, differing from them, though never ſo holy. But let men calmly conſider, whether this is not an effect of Ignorance, and Pride; and more from an erring, than well instructed Conſcience: and what a Scandal and Shame it is to the Chriſtian Religion to make it thus a fomenter of Faction, and Diſturbance in the World? And what an Injury is hereby done to Chriſt, by contracting, and narrowing his Intereſt in ſuch a manner? But I ſee not how it can be otherwiſe, if men adhere, and ſtrictly keep themſelves to the Antipoedobaptiſtical Principle: for if our Miniſters be no true Miniſters, and our Baptiſm a Nullity; and conſequently, our Churches no true Churches, how can they hold Communion with us? And though ſome that are for Baptiſm of Believers do, yet it muſt be imputed to their good Nature, and not their Principle, which they croſs in ſo doing.
So that now you have him in words at length, and not in figures; as to which I deſire the following things may be conſidered.
Firſt, Anſwered that notwithſtanding what he hath ſaid as to the Scandals attending it to prove it falſe; he ſeems now to make the proof of all to lye in this, that ſome Perſons holding the ſame refuſe Communion with Mr. Wills; and therefore all ſuch as ſo diſſent from him, are to be expoſed to ſcorn, and hatred, as lying, treacherous, diſobedient, perjured, ſeditious, filthy Perſons; for holding a falſe, and dangerous Principle.
Secondly, The Principle of Anabaptiſtry it ſelf, as ſome Men hold it; By his own demonſtration he here makes the mode of holding; and that by ſome Men only, and not the Principle to be dangerous: for if it were the Principle it ſelf, it would then be contrary to all Principles, whether Natural, Moral, or Divine; and to its ſelf alſo: for Principles always remain the ſame in their own Nature, and receive not any ſuch impreſſion from the various conceptions of Men, as to vary in themſelves.
If he had ſaid that the Principle does not justifie them that hold it moſt rigidly in an evil Opinion, or Practiſe, his demonſtration had been good: for I am ſo far from juſtifying the Errors of thoſe that hold either that Opinion, or the Opinion that is contrary to it; that I fear, both Mr. Wills, and my ſelf, have cauſe to ſearch, and to try our own ways; and to be humbled, for walking contrary to that Principle which we both own concerning Baptiſm.
Thirdly, Mr. Wills ſays it is the Conſtitution of ſome, impregnated with this Principle, to rend the Church. And let Men conſider, whether this be not an effect of Ignorance and Pride. Now then with Mr. Wills, it is neither the Principle it ſelf, nor the manner of holding it; but Ignorance and Pride: ſo that If I underſtand his way of arguing, either Ignorance and Pride, are all one with the Principle of Anabaptiſtry as terms convertible, or elſe the cauſe of unbrotherly diviſions, is not from the Principle of Anabaptiſtry, but from Ignorance and Pride.
Fourthly, if the Correſpondence and Communion which ſome Anabaptiſts have with Mr. Wills, be from their good Nature, and croſs to their Principles (as he declares it is) then it ſeems, that as Ignorance was before the ground of their rending from him, ſo here Ignorance is alſo the ground of their Communion with him; as not knowing that they therein croſs their own Principles, nor that they are any way obliged to that fellowſhip by the Word of God, only their good Nature inclines them not to break Company.
Fifthly, as to what he quotes from Mr. Bunian, it had ſurely been more ingenuous, either to have reply'd himſelf to thoſe ſix Arguments, as yet unanſwered, or provok'd Mr. Bunian to have done it before he had thus joined with him in his Anathama, for ſurely Reaſon is never convincingly anſwered by railing.
Sixthly, I ſee not the Reaſon why Mr Wills, or any other Perſon, ſhould be thus ſevere againſt the Principles of Baptiſm, as proper only to penitent and believing Perſons, (for if he mean any thing elſe by the Principle of Anabaptiſtry he fights with his own ſhadow, we being as much againſt Rebaptiſation, as any that oppoſe it) for there is nothing in the Principle it ſelf, but what inclines to Piety and Ʋnity; it being deſigned by Chriſt, not only to promote Sanctification, Rom. 6.4, 5, 6. &c. But to farther Love and Peace, as Eph. 4.3, 4, 5. being the incorporating knitting Ordinance. Yet no Man that ever I have heard of, ever did, or can pretend, that this Principle perfects grace, and knowledge; and therefore now (as of old amongſt the pureſt Churches) are weakneſſes, diviſions, errors, and evils, found amongſt us; and ſo muſt it be expected, ſo long as an evil heart and envious Devil remains: yet withall do we own ſubjection to a holy and perfect Rule and Directory, to Correct and Rectifie, all erroes and evil that may ariſe.
Object. But if Baptiſm be eſteemed a viſible Inlet into the Viſible Church, and that you can own Church Fellowſhip with none but Baptiſed Perſons, is not that a Dividing Principle?
Anſw. It is true, it tends to divide betwixt World and Church, but not otherwiſe; and is no other than all that own the Chriſtian Religion, whether Papiſts, Proteſtants Presbyterian and Independents acknowledge, Baptiſm being alſo owned by the Antients to be Janua Sacramentorum; and ſo poſitive is Mr. Baxter for it, that he tells us in expreſs terms, that they muſt deny the Scripture that deny it: his words are theſe in his place Scripture, p. 24. I know not what in ſhew of Reaſon can be ſaid to this by thoſe that renounce not Scripture; for what man dare go in a way that hath neither Precept nor Example to warrant it, from a way that hath a full current of both? Yet they that will admit Members into the Church without Baptiſm, do ſo.
So that till Infants Sprinkling be proved Chriſts Ordinance of Baptiſm, Poedobaptiſts (by their own acknowledgment) are not to be eſteemed Viſible Members of the Church of Chriſt, having never had an orderly admiſſion therein.
Object. But is not much Ingury hereby offered to Chriſt, thus to contract and narrow his Intereſt in ſuch a manner?
Anſw. It is true, it is ſo ſaid by Mr. Wills; But this is no other than Reformation in all Ages (ſince the Antechriſtian Defection) hath been charged with, and particularly that Reformation that has been endeavoured in that other Ordinance of the Lords Supper: Therefore do the Presbyterians cry out againſt the Independants for ſinful Schiſm, as being Fomenters of Faction, and for narrowing of Chriſts Intereſt in their reſpective Seperations and Church Communions: to the ſhame and ſcandol of the Chriſtian Religion: the ſame do the Prelates ſay to the Presbyterians, and the very ſame do the Papiſts ſay to the Epiſcoparians alſo. But Wiſdom is juſtified of her Children.
Thus have we acquit our Principle and Practice from Mr. Wills his Falſe, Unchriſtian, and Injurious Calumnies he has caſt upon us. And ſhall recommend it to the Readers conſideration, whether he hath not by this unreaſonable (not to ſay malicious) carriage towards us, witneſſed too much affinity, with that ſlanderous Libell, called Baxter Baptized in Blood: that was the firſt Anſwer to the Treatiſe of Baptiſm; and which by Publick Authority was Renounced, and declared ſcandalous malicious.
FINIS.