Second Reply to Baxter, Part 1 · Chapter 2 · Section 4
Some particular Witnesses, justified; taken out of the Dutch Book of Martyrs. SECT. IV. My Integrity in those quotations out of the Dutch Book of Martyrs, vindicated.
IN the next place he falls very foul upon me, for some Quotations out of the Dutch Martyrology: and of about forty particular witnesses, for believers only, or, against Infants-Baptism; he excepts but against eight, or nine, viz. The Missalians, (as he calls them,) Faustus Regiensis, Albanus; Apamen; Adrian; Egyptian-Divines; Birinus, Hincmarus, & Smaragdus. All which in his usual civility he is pleased to tell me Are my gross slanders, forged Fables, or deceitful falsifications;
Of what sort these Quotations are.In return whereto, it will be necessary to speak something in general respecting the Quotations I have given out of that Book; and then give you a particular account of these that he hath pickt out, to make his Exceptions against.
1. Either some late Martyrs and Confessors.First, as to those quotations; you'l find them to be of these several sorts; 1st. Either of such confessors or Martyrs that they have recorded in the latter centuries for denying Infants-baptism, whereof their own testimonies may be as Authentick, as our renowned Fox, for our protestant Martyrs, and Confessors. Though the Papists who had their hands in those bloody persecutions, have not more slighted and contemned that our worthy Historian, than Mr B. who hath had so great a hand to help forward the persecution of the Anabaptists (as I shall hereafter make appear) hath unduly contemned, and slighted, our Dutch Historians, for that their worthy Collection, of those renowned Sufferers, and Confessors.)
2dly. Or such Martyrs or Confessors in former times,2. Or former Martyrs and Confessors. for which they quote their Century writers sometimes mentioning the Antiquities recorded by them, and sometimes not. As, we many times qnote the Magdeburgenses, Fox, Scultetus, Osiander, Baronius, Ʋsher, without mentioning the antiquities they referr to: So, do they their Twisk, Frank, Merningus, Montanus &c. who learnedly collected from antiquity those stories and passages they referr to, without mentioning always their Ancient authorities, for the same; Concerning whom I may shortly be able to give a better account having sent for the books themselves.
3dly. I desire it may be taken notice of,3. None of them for positive testimony without originall proof. That neither those particular instances that Mr B. excepts against, nor any other that I know of, taken out of that book, do I produce as positive testimony in the first place to prove any thing, but as collateral witnesses to confirm something before proved: as for instance, If I prove the Waldenses did deny Infants-baptism, and produce for the same Eckbertus Cluniacensis, Racnarius & others from antiquity to make it good; and add, for confirmation, either such modern Authors of our own, witnessing to the same, or some of these our Dutch Historians out of that collection; it may go as far as modern Authority may reach, so that if they prove lame or not so pertinent, the matter is the less. But if I produce, with their Country-writers, their antiquities also; that will go for original proof
4. The Authors are responsible for the truth not the quoter4thly. That, what I say from them, I producing faithfully their Authorities to make it good, will not, I presume, in common justice be reputed my forgery, fable, or falshood, if their's should prove so; which is the measure Mr B. metes out to me; it being so much the work of Cavilers, If they cannot find a hole, they will endeavour to make one.
All which being premised; we shall examine what cause there is for his hainous reflections upon these few of those many witnesses mentioned from them; and, whether they are not fairly to be justifyed from his injurious Cavils.
1. Dadoes Sabas. &c.The first of them he mentions, is, My forgeries, and false stories, of the Messalians, as he calls them, viz. those eminent men Dadoes, and his companions, who in the 4th Century were reckoned in the Romish Catalogue of Hereticks, For having an ill opinion of Infants-baptism, and, for saying, Prayers without baptism, signifyed nothing; and that, it was prayer, not Exercism, that profited to expel the Devil. For which they quote Sebastian Frank that wrote the Chronicle of the Romish hereticks or Ketters: and the Tripartite History, from which I presume he collected it.
Mr Baxter, to detect the forgery,Mr. B. unfair in his partial quotation. quotes part of the Tripartite History and very partially also; telling us that these Messalians were filthy Heretitks, who did affirm, That Prayer was all, and that baptism and the Lords supper was nothing, and so might indeed deny Infants-baptism; as heathens do, who deny all baptism, p. 267.
But if you look into the Tripartite History, (so called because gathered from Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates) you'l finde that these call'd Messalians are put upon record for the Eutichian-heresie, as denying the S…craments: And advancing prayer above what was meet, and which you will finde to be upon this very account, viz. There being two erroneous things asserted at this day about the Sacraments, especially in administring of them to little ones; The one, that Baptism was profitable by the act done, to take away sin, save the soul, and to drive away the Devil: In opposition whereto, they are said to assert thus; viz. Nullam quidem utilitatem ex sancto baptismate baptizatis accidere; sed solam studio sam orationem inhabitantem Daemonem fugare. That by the act of Baptism no good comes to the baptized; and that fervent prayer only expells the Devil; in opposition to their Exorcisms or su…l…ations. And, that this was the true meaning, the Margent of the Book over against this passage, confirms; Haeresis negantium gratiam in baptismo conferri, The Heresy of those that deny'd graee to be conferred in Baptism. The other, was about the Eucharist; it being affirmed at this day as by Austin and others afterwards, (from Jo. 6. Except a man eat the flesh of Christ, &c.) that it was necessary to give children that Sacrament also, for their Salvation. They are affirmed to say thus, viz. Divinum cibum nihil nec prodesse, nec laedere, That the divine meat (viz. in the outward eating of it) neither did profit nor hurt (viz. to little-ones as to salvation or damnation) though, say their enemies, De quo, Dominus dixit Christus, Qui comedit carnem meam, & bibit sanguinem meum vivet in aeternum, Concerning whom the Lord Christ hath said, he that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, shall live eternally. And from whence their Adversaries did inferr, that they made prayer all and undervalued both the Ordinances as nothing, and therefore call'd them the Eutichcans, or praying Hereticks, and the Enthusiasts. Though I do not know, that It is so heretical to say, Prayer is all, in some sence; for, it is so all, that without personal and spiritual prayers, there is no regeneration, it being the principal sign thereof, Acts. 9. And so by consequence, no ordinance to profit without it; So fully excluding infants from partaking in either of those Ordinances. The like nick names and reproches they gave the Waldenses after, for witnessing against their Breaden-God; and for saying that Grace was not conferr'd by the act of Baptism; That therefore, they denyed both those Sacraments; and laid them under the like calumnies, as unclean, filthy dreamers; as they did these very men. Which was also reflected upon the Priscillianists, and Novatians, to this day also: And Thomas Walden, I finde calls the Wickliffists Messalians, whom he accused for denying infants-baptism). See Historia Ecclesiast. Tripartit. l. 7. c. 11. p. 406. 407.
The next is, Faustus Rhegiensis; 2 Faustus Rhegien.which he saith is my slaunder. Concerning whom I tell you what they say from Merningus history of Baptism, who I presume quotes it from the Authority it self; which it is true I did not mention and for which he quarrels me; though, as to the words, said to be his, he owns: being, as he saith, so agreeable to his own sentiments, viz. That personal and actual desire was requisite in every one that was to be baptized; for which they quote, Lib. 2. de Arbit. c. 8. Jacob Merning p. 415. Therefore, I hope the Reader will aequit me of the slaunder in this particular, as we shall acquit Mr B. of contradicting Reason, Scripture, and sense, when he reconciles this position with Infants baptism.
The 3d is, Albanus: 3. Albanus.which he chargeth as my deceit; for whose Martyrdom for asserting believers & denying Infants-baptism, I mention their Quotation from Twisk Frank and Baronius. Concerning whom he saith, he can finde no such particular persons in his book (viz. Baronius only,) that there was some trouble given to the Anabaptists about that time which he supposed respected only the Donatists for Rebaptization; But why my deceit, or theirs either, I see not. They say, that Albanus was martyr'd at Mentz, out of the history of Andrew Hondorff p. 143. And also, quote the bloody Decree of Theodosius for Death and banishment, for baptizing otherwise than the Church appoynted, out of Baronius which Mr Baxters modesty calls, some trouble to the Anabaptists.
4. Apamen.The 4th mentioned by him, is, My gross falsification of Nicephorus, and slaunder, as he calls it of Apamen, and concerning whom I tell you what they mention from Twisk Chron. and the Magdeburgs, how that Apamen and Zoroaras in Syria, were Anabaptists, which they take in a modern sense: but Mr B. conceives it respected both old and young, and not only those that had been baptized in infancy. But, whether he hath therefore such cause to censure them for thinking otherwise; and me also, as a falsifyer for quoting them;5. Adrianus. is submitted to better Judgment.
The 5th is, My false story, as he calls it, of Adrianus Bishop of Corinth; concerning whom, I acquaint you what they mention from Mirningus, Montanus, Frank and the Magdeburgs, viz. That he denyed Infants-Baptism, suffred young Children to die without it, and gave so great trouble in it also, that occasioned the decree of the Council of Bracerence, to confirm it.
As to which Mr. B. acknowledges that Adrian was indeed accused that some Infants, by his means, dyed without Baptism; but saith, it was a malevolent accusation; and that it was only, for delaying the baptizing of the infants of some excommunicated persons. But, whether so, or no, or that that-Canon of the 2d Bracerence Council for baptizing Children, was made upon that account of his denying it, as affirmed by them, is left to Judgment. You have my tale, and my tales-master, and for me to be reputed a forger if it prove otherwise would be hard measure. Mr. Wills, it seems, saw so much cause to believe it, that he confesseth Adrianus was a competent witness in the case.
The next he quarrels me for, is Birinus: 6. Birinus.concerning whom I only tell you, what he gathers from Bede, l. 3. c. 7. l. 4. c. 16. viz. That he profest, Instruction to be so necessary before Baptism, that, without it, Baptism ought not to be administred to high or low, as p. 2…2.
For which, Mr. B. p. 272. compar'd with his contents, severely reproves me for fiction, and for falsification of Bede, 1st. Because Bede, he saith, Bernwinonly tells us of one Bernwin who preacht, converted, and baptized; and what was that, to the purpose? but, not a word of Birinus, that so professed. 2dly. Nor was the business done, as he saith, in lower Saxony but in the Isle of Wight: so little is there that hath the least kin to truth, in this lamentable reporter.
To which I say, First, that, I have quoted my Authorities right, let them be accountable for the fictions and falsifications, not I, if there be any: it being injustice to make me guilty of both, as Mr. B. doth.
But 2dly.Mr B's ignorance and rashness detected. If my Author has acquitted himself in both, What doth Mr. B. deserve for such temerity, rash and injurious Censure? And, that he hath so done, let the Reader Judg. My Dutch Author mentions two places out of Bede as before; the first, tells us of Birinus preaching to the people of lower or West Saxony, and to their King Kinigilsus, who embracing the faith of the Gospell, did after he had taken an account of the faith of the King, and several of the people, baptize them. Bedes words are these, l. 3. c. 7. Eo tempore, Gens Occidentalium Saxonum, qui antiquitùs Gevissae v cabantur, praedicante illis verbum Byrino, Regnante Cynigilso, fidem Christi suscepit. Itaque, Evangelizante illo in praefectu Provinciarum, Rex ipse catechizatus, fonte Baptismi cum suâ gente ablueretur. The other l. 4. c. 16. mentions Brenwin's preaching and baptizing in the Isle of Wight in the like manner. So that here is neither fiction nor falsification of Bede; here is Birinus preaching in lower Saxony, baptizing only such as made a profession of faith; neither doth Brenwin, the other instance referr'd to in their quotation, baptize any other that is mentioned. But, saith Mr. Baxter, the Isle of Wight is not in lower Saxony, where Brenwin preacht; but, if it was not, it is enough that it appears that Birinus preacht and baptized in lower Saxony which is without dispute. And, that the Isle of Wight did also belong to the kingdom of west Saxony, is manifest; because Hampshire, Sussex, Southampton, &c. whereof the Isle of Weight is a member, was within the compass of it, as Peter Heylin in his Cosmography in the description of Britain p. …11. tells us, and Mr Fox his Mapp of west Saxony 1 Vol. p. 141. So little is there that hath the least kin to truth in this our lamentable reprover.
7. Egyptian divines.The 7th. is My Table (as he calls it) about the Egyptian Divines: con erning whom, I tell you what they say from Pamelsus upon Tertullian, and Vicecomes, viz. How that they in opposition to the Church of Rome, taught, that Teaching and faith should go before Baptism.
To which he saith, p. 237. That some indeed in Egypt did, he grants, separate from the Church of Rome, but supposeth that this might respect only the Adult; which all the Christian world, he saith, ownes.
In answer whereto, I say; It is true, the Christian world do so, when some of the Heathen-World, as they call them, viz. Jews or Pagans, come amongst them for it (which is very rare): But this, it seems, as they tell us, was Doctrine contrary to the Church of Rome; which must therefore, as they conceive, be respecting the baptizing of Infants; whom they, Mr. B. and other; of the Christian world, baptize without personal Teaching, and Faith preceding it. Therefore, what a Fabler I am here, let it be judged also.
The next is, My Forgery,8. Hinemarus. as his contents calls it, about Hincmarus Laudunensis, of whom we also tell you what they say from the Bib. Pat. Magdeb. Montanus, and Vicecomes: viz. That he denyed Baptism to little ones, suffering them to die without it, and for which the Bishop of Rhemes opposed him with both the Authority of the Canon, and Scripture-Law, viz. Jo. 3.5. p. 233.
To which Mr B. saith, that All that I can finde upon a cursory perusal of the Bib. Pat. is, that, he was accused for letting some infants die without it, which he supposeth might be as before in Adrianus his case. p. 273.
But how farr his supposition in the case will prevail to make me a forger, and will refute the evidence of the Authorities mentioned; is submitted to the judicious Reader, who withall must know that Vicecomes lib. 2. c. 1. (no friend to the Anabaptists) doth rank Hincmarus of Laudum in the Catalogue of those that deny infants-baptism, and quotes for it the bishop of Rhemes letter to make it good. And also, it must be remembred (by Mr Baxter's leave) that his brother Wills saw so much truth and equity in the case, as to allow me Hincmarus, as well as Adrianus, for another witness against Infants-Baptism: but, now I must be a forger for the same.
9. Smaragdus.There is another, viz. Smaragdus, put in his postscript; concerning whom I tell you what they say, viz. That he was first a defender, then afterwards an opposer of Infants-Baptism; affirming, that he taught, that they were first to teach, then afterwards to baptize those so taught. Concerning whose doctrine, about Infants-baptism Mr Baxter doth give us many Instances, p. 407. &c. And withall tells, that Smaragdus knew how to reconcile this saying to Infants-Baptism also.
Which when Mr B. can do in his own case, we may the better believe Smaragdus might do so also: but till then, if he did as Mr B. tells us, assert this doctrine at the same time he did Infants-Baptism, we must suppose he did then as much contradict both himself and the plain evidence of the Scripture, as Mr B. doth now: who somtimes tels us, that the Commission in the 28. of Mat. doth respect the Adult only; and sometimes, Parents doing it for the children in their names and steads.
Thus I have gone through these few of the exceptions he makes of the many witnesses I have mentioned from the Dutch book of Martyrs. Which, I suppose, may be sufficient to aequit me from his virulent charge concerning them, if not justify my Authors also from his severe censures: for, what I presume he hath not himself justified, their antiquities will. Withall clayming so much justice, that those many he hath not excepted against, may favourably be allowed me; at least, till he or some body else, give any just exception against them; his silence in the mean time, giving-in his consent thereto: these he has pickt out, being only such as he supposed he had the greatest advantage against.