Innocency and Truth Vindicated, Title page – Preface
INNOCENCY and TRUTH VINDICATED: OR, A Sober REPLY to Mr WILL's ANSWER to a Late TREATISE of BAPTISME.
Wherein the Authorities and Antiquities for Believers, and againſt Infants Baptiſm, are Defended, and the miſ-repreſentations and Forgeries he boaſts of, all returned upon himſelf.
With a brief Anſwer to Mr Blinmans Eſſay.
By Henry Danvers.
Ʋt ex lapidum attritu ignis elicitur, ſic ſaepe veritas ex alternantium imo & altercantium ſermonum conflictu. Lipſius.
Prov. 18.17. He that is firſt in his own Cauſe, ſeemeth juſt, but his Neighbour cometh and ſearcheth him.
Printed for Francis Smith, at the Elephant and Caſtle near the Royal Exchange in Cornhill, 1675.
THE PREFACE.
IT is an Ancient and well approved Maxim among the Learned, that the more truth is winnowed and ſifted, the more oppoſed and contended againſt, the more tranſparent and illuſtrious it appears. Veritas ventilata plus rutilat & impugnata magis eluceſit.
A further confirmation whereof you may meet with, from the late oppoſition Mr. Will's hath made againſt the truth, in his late Book called Infants Baptiſme atteſted and vindicated by Scripture and Antiquity, in an Anſwer to a treatiſe, by Mr. H.D. &c.
Wherein notwithſtanding the dilligent ſearch, he tells us, he has made in the Ʋniverſity Library at Oxford, the utmoſt aſſiſtance that all the learned writers Mr. Marſhall, Baxter, Cobbet, Cotten, Holmes, &c. can give him to diſprove and weaken the Authorities urged from Scripture and Antiquity for Believers againſt Infants Baptiſme, ye… you'l finde they ſerve but ſo much the more to illuſtrate that truth he pretends to foil, giving only an opportunity for further confirmation and ratification, and to create more full ſatisfaction or conviction to any that have been in ſuſpence, as to the truth of any of thoſe Authorities urged by me. Wherein notwithſtanding his great flouriſh and noyſe you'l finde he is not able to reprove the truth ſo much as of one of thoſe many Authorities in the Hiſtorical part, and excepting that one in the Doctrinal part, viz. Calvin for Eckius, not another that is conſiderable in the whole Book.
Therefore all that I have to ask of the Candid Reader (at whoſe Barr the matter is now br…ught betwixt Mr. Will's and me) is only to do themſelves and the truth in Queſtion ſo much right as to afford the Common Juſtice of an open Ear; that having heard the Recrimination, they will alſo attend to what is ſaid herein for vindication.
Wherein y u have his Arguments duely weighed, and refuted, his caviling exceptions anſwer'd; his pretended forgeries, and falſhoods, diſproved; the Antiquities of Believers Baptiſme defended; the innovation, groundleſs Tradition, and novelty of Infants Baptiſme confirmed. The witneſs againſt it by eminent men and famous Churches for many Ages maintained; his injurious Calumnyes and reproaches (that he not only deſignes to load the Profeſſors of believers Baptiſme with, but the Profeſſion it ſelf alſo) detected and reproved, The groundleſs cuſtome of ſprinkling inſtead of Dipping further evinced.
As for his undue and uncomly reflections, the haughty, bitter wrathfull, frothy and provoking ſpirit, he appears in, through the whole Book, ſ… unbecoming Chriſtian candor, his holy Profeſſion, or the nature of the ordinance treated of, I ſhall the beaſt concern my ſelf ab…ut, but leave it to him that can convince and will certainly reck…n for ſuch hard ſpeeches for his names ſake; and rather ſo farr as concerns my ſelf with Job, to binde it about me for a Crown, Job. 31.36. And as exhorted Mat. 5. To rejoyce to be accounted worthy to ſuffer contempt & reproach for the truth ſake, &c. then to render Railing for Railing. It being alſo ever judged the ſigne of a bad cauſe, for perſons to betake themſelves to ſuch courſes, and thereby to ſupply the want of matter and ſound Argument with rage, clamour and noyſe.
The Scripture arguments 'tis true I have little medled with, and that for theſe following reaſons.
Firſt, becauſe the Hiſtorical part upon which ſo much ſtreſs hath been laid (though the leaneſt part of the controverſy) was the principal new thing added by me (it being as Mr. Will's obſerves, next to an impoſſibility to offer any new Scripture, or almoſt any new Argument that hath not been before urged in the controverſy;) and is mainly therefore by him oppoſed.
Secondly, Becauſe he has ingeniouſly confeſs'd, that there is no expreſs Scripture f…r the ſame; And ſo many of themſelves with one Mouth have owned, the neceſſity of expreſs Scripture to warrant and juſtify the practiſe of every part of Gods worſhip, and that to practiſe any thing in the worſhip of God without expreſs warranty from the Word, is ſuperſtition and falſe worſhip. And that ſuch a Principle ought to be held faſt as the great Proteſtant Bulwark to ſecure us againſt all Popiſh Innovations and Traditions: and which is a ſufficient anſwer out of their own Mouthes againſt any thing they urge from pretended inferences and farr-fetch't Conſequences, being all that can poſſibly be ſaid for it.
Thirdly, becauſe M. Tombes hath now given a particular Anſwer to him and Mr. Blinman therein, who being none of thoſe rigid Anabaptiſts that Mr. Will's expreſſeth ſo much enmity againſt, his Arguments may be more acceptable to him.
And 4ly. becauſe I intend to do it more particularly hereafter, (if God pleaſe) by it ſelf, having yet much to reckon with Mr. Will's for his further abuſes, and grand miſtakes in the Doctrinal part.
In the next place, it is very obſervable, and I deſire the Reader to take ſpecial notice of it, that the things he would ſo injuriouſly Father upon me he is himſelf found fouly guilty of; making good Prov. 26.27. and of which I ſhall point you to a few inſtances, viz.
Firſt, that the forgeries and prevarications he charges upon me, do all return upon himſelf; and not one of them made good againſt me, as appears from l. 1. to p. 29.
Secondly, that the ſeveral falſhoods he lays to my charge are all of them of his own making and not one of them to be proved againſt me, as is particularly evidenced from p. 29. to p. 62.
Thirdly, the notorious abuſe he has put upon Authors by forgery, curtilations▪ mis-quotation, mis-tranſlation, and which fully appears by the following inſtances, viz.
1. by making an Auth…rity of his own for Infants Baptiſme, and fathering it upon Baſil in the 4. Cent. in his Book contra Eunom, and aſſerting it to be the very next lines to what I had repeated from him, thence reproving me for unfaithfullneſs, in leaving it out, and to be duely ſuſpected in all my Quotations, when not one ſillable of any ſuch thing is to be found in him as demonſtrated p. 43. to 49.
2. For mis-tranſlating, mis-repreſenting, abuſing and curtailing Greg. Nazien. as appears, p. 8. and 9. and p. 47. and 48.
3. For his curtailing and abuſing the old confeſſion of the Waldenſes, leaving out a conſiderable part thereof, and then making flouriſhes and inferences upon it, as p. 110.
4. By abuſing his Reader with a ſuppoſititious Teſtimony, of Athanaſius, when the Author from whom he brings it owns it to be forged, p. 37, 38, 39. &c.
5. His egregious unfaithfullneſs in that notorious abuſe he puts upon Oſiander, pretending that he certifies ſeveral things out of Peter Clumacenſes, againſt Peter Bruis, bel…nging to the 12. Cent. when he knew them to be the Lying ſlanders of the Monks inquiſitors againſt the Albegois, in the 13. Cent. and of which he picks only 5. particulars out of 20. as p. 118. to 123.
6. His abuſing, and miſtranſlating, a paſſage out of Caſſander quite contrary to what he expreſſeth; falſly thereby, accuſing the Miniſ's for the very crime therein he acquits them, p. 160. to 163.
7. His abuſing Eraſmus, telling us that he teſtifyes in his Cenſure before Origens Homelyes on the Romans, that it was Jeroms Verſion, and not Ruffinus's; and that Jeroms Preface was prefixed thereto; Whereas Eraſmus ſaith the quite contrary in both, viz. Firſt, that it did appear to be Ruffinus's and not Jeroms, and 2ly, that the ſaid Preface was a cheat of the Book ſellers, and none of Jeroms, as p. 86.
8. His abuſing his Reader by a Quotation from Vicecomes, as though he teſtify'd, that till Luthers time none deny'd Infants Baptiſm, when he doth the quite contrary in the ſame place, giving an Account of ſo many before Luther that did it, viz. Vincentius, Victor, Hinemarus, the Henrici, and Apoſtolici, Wickliff, Strabo, Vives, &c. as p. 127.
9. By further abuſing the Reader in telling him, that Rainarius in his Catalogue of the Waldenſian errors, gives not in their denying of Infants Baptiſm as a great Argument they were for it being one of the Monks inquiſitors imployed to that end; when he doth it expreſly in Totidem verbis, as p. 125.
10. His double dealing about Dr. Taylors Arguments againſt Infants Baptiſm in his Liberty of Prophecy, ſuggeſting as though Dr. Taylor himſelf and Dr. Hammond had refuted them, whereas they ſuppoſe moſt of them to remain good againſt thoſe common pleas for Infants Baptiſm; but do not undertake to anſwer them becauſe many of thoſe Arguments uſually brought by Paedobaptiſts are not good in themſelves. p. 52.
Fourthly, Fearful oſitanacy or heedleſneſs, repeating my words truly in one place, and yet afterwards Fathering the quite contrary upon me; as p. 32.
Fifthly, Notoriouſly partial in his Anſwers all the Book through, replying to ſome things he judges weak, and leaving others unanſwered, and yet vaunting over the whole: as for inſtance, in the 4. Cent. I give the ſayings of 10 Fathers for adult Baptiſme, he replys only to 4. of them, ſaith not a word to the reſt, and yet concludes againſt them all, as p. 6. &c. So in like manner as to the 10. Inſtances given from the moſt eminent men not baptized till aged, though the children of Chriſtian Parents, replys only to 4. and not a word to the other 6. and yet concludes againſt them all, as though he had particularly anſwered to them, as p. 11. to 15. (though his reply as you'l finde, is as inſignificant in both as his ſilence.) And further I produce 3. Councils in the 4. Cent. for the ſame, to which he weakly replyes, he can produce 3 times ten Councells for Infants Baptiſm, viz. in after centuryes when by Popiſh Counclls it was injoind and impoſed as p. 10. And again I quote Spanhaemius and Oſiander to prove a thing, he takes notice only of Spanhaemius that ſpeaks to part, but not to Oſiander that ſpeaks to the whole; and yet, reproves me for my miſtake as p. 148. &c.
And further he allows but two witneſſes for Beleevers Baptiſm only, viz Boemus and Srabo, and yet leaves multitudes of them unexcepted againſt; & unreplyd to, as p. 2. &c. In like manner excepts againſt but 6. of above 40. particular witneſſes againſt Infants Baptiſme, and yet allows but 2. viz. Hinc…arus and Adrianus, as p. 104, 105. And again, I quote eleven ſeveral Churches denying Infants Baptiſm, he exceps only againſt 3 ſaith nothing to all the reſt, yet owns none of them. p. 17.
Sixthly, the inveteracy of ſpirit teſtified all along both againſt the profeſſors and profeſſion it ſelf of Beleivers Baptiſm only, eſpecially in his railing and falſe accuſations, from p. 145. to 171.
As for my Epitomizing and repeating ſome of Mr Tombes s Arguments, and not alwayes mentioning his name, which he calls Plaigiariſme, I do confeſs in that my collection, I have not ſo punctually mentioned all our own party from Book to book, wherein (except in the Hiſtorical part) I do little more then bring to remembrance, in a new Method (for the benefit of the preſent age) what has heretofore in large Treatiſes been writ upon this ſubject, which I think is uſual in Polemical writings, & if I miſtake not, Mr Sydnham doth the ſame thing without mentioning of names, from whom the arguments are brought (which may be endleſs;) And if I have been thereby injurious to any I beg their pardon; I am ſure I have not been ſo to the truth; But herein I conceive Mr Will's hath not dealt fairly, 1ſt to reprove me for the ſame thing he doth himſelf, for I could draw paralells too upon him if I would be troubleſome and impertinent; and 2ly to avoid anſwering the force of the Arguments, upon pretence they are anothers not my own, which I conceive ſavours little of ingenuity and will ſcarſe go for current pay.
It is true, it muſt be owned that Mr Tombes how much ſoever ſlighted by M. Will's (though in ſome things very different from moſt that own this way) hath done very worthily in this controverſy, & was an eminent inſtrument that God raiſed up amongst the learned to plead and defend that deſpiſed truth, & whoſe learned labours and unanſwered Books do witneſs for him in the gate, though M. Will's is pleaſed ſo ignorantly to vaunt it, & tell us in his Epiſtle, that the Arguments for believers againſt Infants Baptiſme are a parcel of Trite overworn things, a nauſeous crambe or repitition of old routed Arguments, that had been in effect trampled upon and confuted again and again, though his Anti-paedobaptiſm in 3 parts, containing neer as I judge 1500. pages in quarto, replying to what had been written by above 20 ſeveral perſons are all of them, if I am not miſinformed unreplied to to this day
And further, I muſt inform the Reader that had any modeſt endeavours prevailed, theſe things had more privately (without this troubleing the world) been rectifyd between Mr Will's and me, But he having as he tells us received from the learned his Album calculum, or approbation, would not by any means be ſtopt in his career for the ſuppoſed victory and glory; And how far he has merrited that high Encomium given by his Imprimatur, M. B. in his Epiſtle Recommendatory is to be conſidered, who tells us, that much thanks is due to him the reverend Author from the Church for anſwering my Arguments ſatisfactorily, and by ſearching into, & ſo fully confuting all my pretended antiquities, thereby defending (as he ſaith) Gods truth & the Churches right, whilſt other of his bretheren by ignorance and ſloth, treacherous ſilence or ſilly unſatisfactory. Arguings, have betrayd the cauſe.
But whether inſtead of the Churches thanks they ought not both (in Mr B's own language) to have the Church told of them, for peſtering the world with ſuch impertinencyes, one for his heedleſs writing of them, and the other for his raſh and careleſs Commendation, is ſubmitted to judgment.
And laſtly, Whether it is not now demonſtrably evident to all men that will impartially conſider, that notwithſtanding the confident vain-glorious boaſt of theſe great undertakers, that till better proof be manifeſted there as yet appears as little Antiquity for Infants Sprinkling in the firſt Ages, as (they themſelves acknowledge) expreſs ſcripture for the ſame.